HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2005_12_0511111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill III III
*NEW FILE*
G PAC_2005_12_05
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
December 5, 2005
6:00 p.m.
OASIS Senior Center
Sth and Marguerite
I. Call to Order
II. Reconsideration of mixed -use in Mariner's Mile
III. Policy Review: Circulation Element and Executive
Summary of General Plan Traffic Study
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting will be held at OASIS Senior Center
Saturday, January 28th 9:00 a.m.
Policy Review: Noise, Housing & Growth Management
Implementation
V. Public Comments
Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be
within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee --
Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before
speaking, please state your name and city of residence for the
record.
*Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com
DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT
01232-28b. Doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1
Context
Setting
1
Local Roadway System
3
Regional- Facilities
7
Public Transportation
8
Trails
8
Transportation Systems Management/
Travel Demand Management
11
Parking
11
Transportation Funding
12
Goals and Policies
1.0 Mobility
13
2.0 Roadway System
15 •
3.0 Regional Transportation
19
4,0 Public Transportation
20
5.0 Trails
21
6.0 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/
Travel Demand Management (TDM) 24
7.0 Parking 25
8.0 Transportation Funding 27
0
Circulation
INTRODUCTION
The ability to move people and goods throughout Newport Beach and beyond is
important to residents and businesses. Local roadways are the most important element
for mobility in Newport Beach, but transit, shuttles, the trail system and the harbor
provide opportunities for alternative modes of travel that could relieve pressure on
roadways.
The Circulation Element governs the long term mobility system of the City of Newport
Beach. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use
Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between
targeted/limited? Land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels and
community character. The document is also consistent with the Transportation Demand
• Management Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program.
•
CONTEXT
Setting
Since Newport Beach fronts on the Pacific Ocean, the City has access from only three
directions. Upper Newport Bay acts as a barrier, resulting in only two east — west routes
through Newport Beach (Coast Highway and the Bristol Street/SR 73 corridor) and
congestion on these two routes, which results in congestion. John Wayne Airport also
acts as a barrier to circulation on the City's edge, and contributes to traffic congestion
on Bristol Street, as well as traffic volume on MacArthur Boulevard and Campus Drive.
At the same time, the proximity of Newport Beach to the Pacific Ocean creates a unique
opportunity for transportation solutions. Examples of existing water transportation
services in Newport Beach include the Santa Catalina Ferry (providing access from the
U:UoJobs\ 01200\012321Word101232-28b Page 1
a i
Balboa Pavilion to Santa Catalina Island), and the Balboa Ferry (connecting Balboa •
Island to the Balboa Peninsula). In conjunction with policies in the Harbor and Bay
Element encouraging the development of more public docks in Newport Harbor, more
water transportation services (such as shuttles and taxis) could be established, as well
as increased use of private vessels for transportation around the Bay.
Newport Beach's location along the coast, development in neighboring cities and
regional imbalances in housing and employment opportunities contribute to the use of
Newport Beach's arterial roadways by through traffic (traffic that does not have at'least
one end of the trip within the City of Newport Beach). County -wide, trip generation is
expected to increase by approximately 18% from 2000 to 2025, Approximately 7% of
the traffic on Coast Highway at the boundaries of Newport Beach is traveling directly
through the City on Coast Highway. Other through traffic routes use Coast, Highway for
part of their trip, then diverge to other routes such as MacArthur Boulevard and Newport
Coast Drive. City policies can encourage improvements to the regional system that will
reduce congestion, and therefore reduce the tendency for through travelers to drive on •
local streets.
The location of John Wayne Airport along Newport Beach's boundary also contributes
to regional traffic through the City. Airport users access the SR-73 freeway through the
Newport Beach roadway system, as well as traveling to destinations in Newport Beach.
The additional traffic generated by the airport expansion will result in an increase in
traffic volume on Newport Beach roads. Roadways projected to carry increased air
traveler related traffic include MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road,
and the Bristol Street couplet.
Summertime traffic is another challenge for Newport Beach. During three months of the
year, traffic is substantially higher than typical spring/fall ("shoulder season") or winter
conditions in specific areas of the City. Generally roadway volumes increase by less
than 30%, but summertime traffic peaks occur at different times that the typical weekday
peak traffic periods during most of the year. The two locations with weekend volume •
U:UcJobs\ 01200%012321Word101232-28b Page 2
• increases of more than 30% during the summer are Newport Boulevard south of Coast
Highway (75%) and Balboa Boulevard east of 20th Street (75%) on the Peninsula.
It would be inconsistent with City goals related to maintaining the City's community
character to attempt to serve peak season traffic at levels of service acceptable through
most of the year. If the peak season were used, facilities would need to be substantially
expanded to provide additional capacity that is only used for a small portion of the year,
at additional costs (social, economic, environmental, etc.) to the community. For these
reasons, the City's longstanding practice of using the shoulder season for transportation
planning is continued in this Circulation Element,
Local Roadway System
The roadway system serves primarily vehicular traffic in Newport Beach. The roadway
system is of particular interest to the citizens of Newport Beach, as the majority of them
• use it for primary travel needs.
Roadway Classification System
The roadway system is generally organized in terms of a roadway classification system.
The road classifications used by the City of Newport Beach are required to be
consistent with the County of Orange for its Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The
general roadway classifications are as follows:
Principal Arterial — A Principal arterial highway is typically an eight -lane divided
roadway. A Principal arterial is designed to accommodate up to 60,000 vehicles per day
(VPD). Principal arterials carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by
the freeway system.
Major Arterial — A Major arterial highway is typically a six -lane divided roadway. A Major
arterial is designed to accommodate up to 45,000 vehicles per day. Major arterials
• carry a large volume of regional through traffic not handled by the freeway system.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\012321Word101232-28b Page 3
Primary Arterial — A Primary arterial highway is usually a four -lane divided roadway. A •
Primary arterial is designed to accommodate up to 30,000 VPD. A Primary arterial's
function is similar to that of a Principal or Major arterial. The chief difference is capacity.
Secondary Arterial — A Secondary arterial 'highway is a four -lane roadway (often
undivided). A Secondary arterial distributes traffic between local streets and Major or
Primary arterials. Although some Secondary arterials serve as through routes, most
provide more direct access to surrounding land uses than Principal, Major, or Primary
arterials. Secondary arterials carry up to 20,000 VPD.
Collector Roadway — A collector roadway is a two -to -four -lane, unrestricted access
roadway with capacity ranging from 7,500 VPD to 10,000 VPD. It differs from a local
street in its ability to handle through traffic movements between. arterials.
In addition to these basic classifications, Newport Beach has defined / identified
augmented classifications to indicate roadways which will carry traffic that is at the •
capacity level for the classification. The standard section may need to be augmented
with additional through and/or turning lanes at some locations along the roadway. At
signalized street intersections, heavy turning movements may require the addition of
extra turning lanes in excess of classification widths shown. This may be accomplished
by adding right-of-way or by reducing the widths of sidewalk areas, medians, travel
lanes and emergency shoulder lanes.
Roadway Operations
A comprehensive traffic study has been completed in support of the General Plan
update effort. The Executive Summary of the traffic study is included as Appendix "A" to
this Circulation Element and includes key information regarding citywide trip generation,.
daily traffic volumes, and roadway improvement requirements. The forecast traffic
volumes are based upon estimates of the possible total development within the City and
adjacent areas over the next 25 years. •
U:UcJobsl 012001012321Word101232-28b Page 4
• Intersections are the major constraint to the efficient operation of the circulation system,
and the traffic study focuses on the level of service at primary intersections in Newport
Beach. Generalized definitions of level of service are:
• LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the
presence of others in the traffic stream, and minimal delay (less than 10 seconds
on average) is experienced.
• LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the
traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is
relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
Delay levels are still very low, but are higher than for LOS "A". Vehicles at
signalized intersections experience between 10 and 20 seconds of delay on
average, while vehicles on the side street STOP controlled approaches at
unsignalized intersections experience between 10 and 15 seconds of average
• delay.
•
• LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of
flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by
interactions with others in the traffic stream. Delays at signalized intersections
range from 20 to 35 seconds and from 15 to 25 seconds for side street / STOP
controlled traffic at unsignalized intersections.
LOS "D" represents high -density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to
maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor
level of comfort and convenience. Delays at signalized intersections range from
35 to 55 seconds and from 25 to 35 seconds for side street / STOP controlled
approaches at unsignalized intersections.
• LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds
are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 5
cause breakdowns In traffic movement. Delays at signalized intersections •
generally exceed 55 seconds on average, while delays for side street / STOP
controlled traffic at unsignalized intersections range from 35 to 50 seconds.
• LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists
wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which
can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. All 'vehicles at
signalized intersections can be expected to wait through more than a single
signal cycle with average delays in excess of 55 seconds, while delays to side
street / STOP controlled approaches at unsignalized intersections will exceed 50
seconds on average.
'Intersection Improvements are.planned to meet the identified level of service standard in*
the future, based upon analysis in the computerized traffic model, projected to the year
2030. Because this analysis is long-term, some of the intersection improvements listed
may not be constructed exactly as described herein, or a particular improvement may
be shown to be unnecessary over the course of the next 25 years.
In most cases, planned improvements can maintain LOS "D." Policies allow some
exceptions for areas with special circumstances. Corona Del Mar is a pedestrian
oriented area with well defined community character. The addition of roadway capacity
may degrade the character of this community. Mariners' Mile has intersections that are
impacted by the high volume of pedestrian 'crossings, which will continue to limit the
effect of intersection improvements. Airport Area intersections are impacted by regional
traffic removed from existing residential neighborhoods and also affected by
geographical constraints, including John Wayne Airport (JWA) and Upper Newport Bay.
The Airport Area is also adjacent to Irvine, a jurisdiction that allows a standard of LOS
"E" at intersections that are shared with the City of.Newport Beach. During the Visioning
Process for this General Plan, residents indicated that there are areas of the City, such
as the Airport Area, where the, impacts of traffic congestion may be more acceptable.
•
U:UcJobsL01200W1232\Word101232-28b Page 6
• Truck Traffic
Trucks are needed to provide delivery of heavy goods to residences and commercial
areas, and for other purposes such as pick up of refuse throughout the City. However, a
certain level of control is desirable to avoid undue damage to pavement, as well as
avoiding impediments to the movement of other traffic through the City. Commercial
vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons are generally permitted on City of Newport Beach
roads. Commercial vehicles weighing in excess of 6,000 pounds are prohibited from
certain roadways, as signed.
Regional Facilities
Regional transportation facilities serve the needs of travelers through Newport Beach,
and residents and workers that travel between Newport Beach and other locations.
Major roadway system features such as freeways, airports, and marine terminals serve
• regional traffic.
CJ
The facilities that provide regional access to Newport Beach include the 1-405 Freeway,
SR-55 Freeway, SR-73 freeway/tollway and Coast Highway (Highway 1). Coast
Highway is owned and operated by Caltrans with the exception of the segment between
Jamboree Road and Newport Coast Drive. Newport Boulevard from Finley Street to the
northerly city limits at Industrial Way is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans
controls the signal timing and coordination of these roadways which often conflicts with
the City's needs and desires to provide a coordinated and efficient system.
Regional traffic interacting with Newport Beach generally accesses the City roadway
system through the freeway ramps. Ramp intersections are maintained and controlled
by Caltrans. Ramp capacity constraints can sometimes (during peak hours) slow access
to the freeway system, potentially resulting in a back-up of freeway traffic onto the local
roadway system. Conversely, traffic exiting the freeway system can sometimes cause
congestion that affects the freeway mainline.
U:UWobs\ 012001232\Word\01232.28b
Page 7
Air Travel for residents, workers, and visitors in Orange County is served by John •
Wayne Airport (located just northwest of Campus Drive along the City boundary), which
is owned and operated by the County of Orange. John Wayne Airport is a part of the
regional system of airports. Expansion of John Wayne Airport has recently been
approved to increase capacity from 8.4 (7.8 of which is used) to 10.8 million annual
passengers (an increase of 38.5 percent over current passengers). The Settlement
Agreement between the City, Orange County, and' community groups, which
establishes the ceiling on passengers, will.expire in 2015.
Public Transportation
Transit services are provided by OCTA and through paratransit programs, such as the
one provided by the Oasis Senior Center and / or OCTA. The program at the Oasis
Senior Center provides local transportation for a nominal fee to seniors who are no
longer able to drive.
An established network of bus routes provides access to employment centers, shopping 0
and recreational areas within the City. OCTA periodically updates a county -wide Bus
Service Implementation Program (BSIP) which includes changes to service levels and
route, configurations. OCTA also provides enhanced service during the summer months
to serve the beach oriented traffic destined for Newport Beach.
The Newport Transportation Center and Park -and -Ride facility is located at MacArthur
Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in Newport Center. Community bus route 178
passes through the Airport Area of Newport Beach before entering Santa Ana Heights.
Additional bus service passes very near to Newport Beach, particularly in the vicinity of
John Wayne Airport and the University of California at Irvine.
Trails
Trail systems, while providing alternates to automobile travel, also provide recreational
opportunities for the community. The existing trail system in Newport Beach has been
•
U:UcJobs\ 012001012321Word101232-28b Page's
• developed to provide access for commuter and recreational bicyclists, along with
pedestrians and equestrians.
Bicycle Trails
Bikeway is a term used to designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. The
City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Bikeways provides the following types of facilities:
1. Bicycle Lane. A lane in the street, either the parking lane or a separate lane,
designated for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by
motor vehicles or pedestrians is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be
allowed. Cross flow by motorists to gain access to driveways and parking
facilities is allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle travel way is normally by
a painted solid stripe. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also known
as Class 3 bicycle trails.
• 2. Bicycle Route. A shared; right-of-way for bicycle operation, whether or not it is
specified by signs or markings. All main streets and highways by authority of the
California Vehicle Code include bicycle routes as defined herein. Bicycle lanes
and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails.
3. Bicycle Trail. A pathway designated for the use of bicycles which is physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian traffic may or may not be
excluded. Bicycle trails are also known as Class 1 bicycle trails.
4. Backbone Bikeway. Backbone bikeways are major through bikeways, as shown
on the Master Plan of Bikeways. They are primarily on major roads. Backbone
bikeways may connect to regional trails, as shown in the Master Plan.
5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve
cyclists and children riding to and from school. Secondary bikeways may also be
• a bicycle lane, route, or trail.
U:UoJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 9
The city has designated additional off road facilities in the form of sidewalk bikeways
which provide improved bike safety for recreational riders and children within high use
corridors in the vicinity of schools, beaches, and residential neighborhoods.
The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the speed and skill level
of the rider. Those residents who use bicycles daily for their primary means of
transportation are concerned with utilizing the most convenient and direct route
available to reach their destination. These bicyclists normally will select a route along a
primary or a major highway, In contrast, the recreational' rider might choose a route for
its scenic interest such as a ride on a bike trail separated from vehicular traffic. Thus, it
is necessary to provide bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation corridors as
well as residential and scenic areas. It is also necessary to provide bikeways which
separate faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and slower cyclists, integrating bicycle
travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and bikeways which separate slower cyclists
from motor vehicle traffic.
Policies address additional bikeways that could be developed in the Newport Beach •
area, as well as the safety of bicyclists in Newport Beach.
Pedestrian Corridors
Newport Beach has a variety of pedestrian facilities. These include sidewalks in
developed areas, the oceanfront boardwalk on Balboa Peninsula, bayfront walkways on
Balboa Island and parts of Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile, and trails along Upper
Newport Bay and in open space areas. Pedestrian activity is high in coastal areas such
as Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula and Corona del Mar, with high numbers of
pedestrians crossing Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile,
Newport Beach has opportunities to provide more. pedestrian walkways along the
bayfront on Balboa Peninsula and Mariners' Mile. As mixed use areas are developed
pursuant to the Land Use Element, there will be opportunities to enhance and increase
pedestrian activity and reduce driving.
•
U:UcJobs\ 012001012321Word101232-28b Page 10
• Equestrian Trails
Equestrian trails are primarily located in the Santa Ana Heights portion of the City.
These trails, and other equestrian facilities, are highly valued by residents of this area
and provide regional recreation opportunities as well.
Transportation Systems Management/Travel Demand Management
With the exception of summer beach traffic, Newport Beach roads are most heavily
traveled during the morning and evening commutes. Implementation of Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) or Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures can
reduce peak hour traffic and possibly result in intersection service levels better than
those forecast in this Element and the General Plan Traffic Study. In some jurisdictions,
transportation demand management (TDM) plans/programs have reduced peak hour
traffic by 10-15%.
TSM techniques involve enhancing capacity without physical roadway widening, and
• can help to retain the community character and limit the impact of the roadway system
on the environment. Examples of TSM improvements include traffic signal timing
improvements, traffic signal coordination along a route and improvements to roadway
signage, especially for tourist destinations.
The City's TDM Ordinance requires projects to reduce the number of peak -period
vehicle trips by promoting and encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes,
such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking; and
provide facilities that support such alternate modes. TDM methods are enhanced by
incorporating employment near residential uses, providing incentives for
alternative/multi-user modes, etc. Employers with large work forces can utilize all of
these techniques, while smaller companies are typically limited to ridesharing and
flextime programs.
Parkin
Parking availability is limited in the coastal portions of Newport Beach, especially during
• the peak summer months. Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Mariners' Mile, Corona Del
U:UeJoW_01200101232\Word\01232-28b Page 11
Mar, and West Newport are areas of particular concern. The Balboa Peninsula Parking •
Management Plan included parking surveys/studies and recommendations.
Recommendations providing a permit program, installing of parking meters,
consolidating public parking, developing a, shared parking program, developing a shuttle
system- for special events, and developing a parking enforcement and collection
program, among other things. The City has begun to Implement some of these
recommendations. Valet services have also been suggested for both the Balboa
Peninsula and Mariners' Mile.
Transportation Fundinq
Newport Beach receives funding from gasoline tax apportionment, County, State, and
Federal funds and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Fair Share Ordinance, and the
General Fund. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been in effect since 1978. it
requires developer funding of a proportional share of intersection improvements when a
proposed project has a direct negative impact on the level of service at that intersection.
This ordinance phases intersection improvements with development to maintain the •
City's standards for level of traffic service. The C4's Fair Share Ordinance, which was
adopted in 1984, establishes a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the
Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a
building permit.
E
U:UoJobsL01200\01232\WorcA01232-28b Page12
•
GOALS AND POLICIES
19341941
MOBILITY
Goal 1.1 An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people
and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and
accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but
is not oversized to serve growth in the surrounding region.
Policies
CE 1.1.1 Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for
the community.
CE 1.1.2 Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use
plan set forth in the Land Use Element.
CE 1.1.3 Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various
unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach.
CE 1.1.4 Maintain and enhance existing public water transportation services and
encourage and provide incentives for expansion of these uses and land
support facilities.
CE 1.1.5 Coordinate the location of marine terminals with other components of the
transportation system to ensure convenient multi -modal access and
adequate parking.
CE 1.1.6 Explore opportunities to expand water transportation modes, such as
• water based shuttle services and water taxis.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page13
Goal 1.2 Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts. •
Policies
CE 1.2.1 implement way -finding signs, especially for tourist destinations.
CE 1.2.2 Encourage remote visitor parking and shuttle services.
CE 1.2.3 Identify and implement measures, such as special traffic signal timing, to
reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic on persons living along
and around the beach and bay, as well as visitors.
CE 1.2.4 Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide / fund summertime
expanded bus service and / or local shuttle services to reduce visitor
traffic.
Goal 1.3 Truck routes that support goods movement to and from land use in the •
City while minimizing adverse impacts to residents or businesses.
Policies
CE 1.3.1 Allow truck use of City streets except selected residential and arterial
streets adjacent to residential areas necessary to minimize impacts of
truck traffic on residential areas.
CE 1.3.2 Provide appropriately designed and maintained roadways to safely
accommodate truck travel.
CE 1.3.3 Actively manage trucking activities related to oversize loads such as large
'boats, etc.
•
U:UoJobsl 012001012321Word101232-28b Page 14
• CE 2.0
ROADWAY SYSTEM
•
•
Goal ZI . A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and
people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's
character and its residents' quality of life.
Policies
CE 2.1.1 Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the
following level of service standards:
A. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted.
B. LOS "E" at the following Airport Area intersection: Campus Drive (NS) at
Bristol Street North (EW).
C. LOS "E" at the following intersections in the pedestrian oriented area of
Coast Highway in Mariners Mile: Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast
Highway (EW).
D. LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the
pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
E. LOS "F" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the
pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.
CE 2.1.2 Update the Transportation Phasing Ordinance to maintain consistency
with the General Plan Circulation Element level of service standards.
CE 2.1.3 Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport
Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in
Exhibit CE-1.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\012320ord\01232-28b
Page 15
' J
• nY� caaa �1J
11
E
CE 2.1.4 Monitor traffic conditions on an ongoing basis and update Master Plan as
necessary.
CE 2.1.5 Pursue construction of intersection improvements necessary to insure
maximum feasible efficiency of the roadway system and acceptable levels
of service, shown on Exhibit CE-2.
CE 2.1.6 Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all
practicable means.
Goal2.2 A safe and efficient roadway system.
Policies
CE 2.2.1 Provide for safe roadway conditions by adhering to nationally recognized
improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance
practices.
CE 2.2.2 Periodically review and update street standards to current capacity and
safety practices.
CE 2.2.3 Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function
with safety and efficiency.
CE 2.2.4 Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a
desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways
and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
CE 2.2.5 Balance safety, quality of life, and efficiency when considering traffic
calming improvements to local neighborhood streets
CE 2.2.6 Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and
• safe access for emergency vehicles.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 17
RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION
BLUFF RD. &
COAST HWY.
VON KARMAN AV. &
CAMPUS DR,
J 11ILF
11
20 u�
IRVINE AV. &
UNIVERSITY DR.
I111�
�ti�1111r
4
NEWPORT BL &
HOSPITAL RO,
JAMBOREE RD, &
CAMPUS DR.
ril r
7 111 r
29
MACARTHUR BL &
JAMBOREE RD.
JJLL
1 STH ST. BE
COAST HWY.
r 1•
1r
7
RIVERSIDE AV. &
COAST HWY.
JJ 1111 r~
15 u�
BRISTOL ST NORTH
EXHIBIT CE-2
IMPROVEMENTS
BE
-11t1i r
19
IRVINE AV. &
,MESA DR.
rill, (ij,14LL �
ne t11111 111
32 4
JAMBOREE RD. &
BRISTOL5T.SOUTH 'MACARTHUR BL &
LEGEND:
E--
EXISTING LANE
Z
NEW IMPROVEMENT
0
ELIMINATE LANE
RT0
- RIGHTTURNOVERLAP
®
- RIGHT TURN OVERLAP
PHASE IMPROVEMENT
►�—
- FREE RIGHT TURN
•I
0 •
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, Newport Beach, CalHomia-01232: 94.dwa�{
Page 18
•
CE 2.2.7 Alleys in new developments shall be 20' wide to facilitate circulation.
Goal 2.3 Optimal roadway system operation.
Policies
CE 2.3.1 Pursue ownership of Coast Highway throughout Newport Beach, as
opportunities arise, so that Coast Highway can be improved to its ultimate
width consistent with the City's vision and to provide the City with more
opportunities to increase operational efficiencies.
CE 2.3.2 Support roadway maintenance programs that inspect, repair, and
rehabilitate pavement surfaces in order to preserve the high quality of City
streets and thoroughfares.
CE 2.3.3 Monitor traffic conditions and optimize traffic signal operations and
coordination on an ongoing basis.
CE 3.0
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
Goal3.1 A network of regional facilities which ensures the safe and efficient
movement of people and goods from within the City to areas outside its
boundaries, and minimizes the use of City streets by regional through
traffic.
Policies
CE 3.1.1 Encourage ongoing regional investment in the freeway system.
CE 3.1.2 Interface with regional and surrounding local agencies, such as Caltrans,
OCTA, the County of Orange, John Wayne Airport, the Cities of Irvine,
Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, and the University of California, Irvine
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b
Page.ls
to implement systems that serve the needs of regional travelers in a way •
that minimizes impacts on Newport Beach residents.
CE 3.1.3 The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways (shown
on Exhibit CE-1) shall be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways,
CE 3.1.4 Participate in programs (Congestion Management Program„ Growth
Management Program, etc.) to mitigate regional traffic congestion.
CE 3.15 Advocate for the implementation of all regional Master Plan
improvements, and be a strong advocate for construction of the I e Street
bridge across the Santa Ana River.
CE 4.0
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Goal4.1 A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and
encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile
travel.
Policies
CE 4.1.1 Support efforts by OCTA and other agencies to increase the effectiveness
and,productivity of transit services.
CE 4.1.2 Support efforts to increase accessible transit services and facilities for the
elderly, disabled, and other transportation disadvantaged persons.
CE 4.1.3 Coordinate with OCTA to provide seasonal, recreational, and special
events shuttles. 0
U:UoJobs\ 01200WI23ZWord101232-28b Page 20
r
• CE 4.1.4 Accommodate residential densities that support transit patronage,
especially in mixed use areas such as the Airport Area.
CE 4.1.5 Encourage the use of airport shuttle services to minimize the impacts of
air travelers on the local roadway system.
CE 4.1.6 Participate in efforts to develop transit support facilities, including park -
and -ride lots, bus stops and shelters.
CE 4.1.7 Monitor the demand for additional public transportation available to serve
the needs of students.
CE 5.0
• TRAILS
Goal 5.1 Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and
transportation needs.
Policies
CE 5.1.1 Construct a comprehensive trail system as shown on Exhibit CE-3.
CE 5.1.2 Link residential areas, schools, parks and commercial centers so that
residents can travel within the community without driving.
CE 5.1.3 Require new development projects to include safe and attractive
sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes.
CE 5.1.4 Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent
areas and communities where appropriate.
•
U:UoJobs\ 01200101232\Word\01232-28b Page21
• CE 5.1.5 Continue to cooperate with state, federal, county and local agencies to
coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region.
CE 5.1.6 Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new
streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans .for improving
existing roads.
CE 5.1.7 Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering
to current national standards and uniform practices.
CE 5.1.8 Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle
traffic.
CE 5.1.9 Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide
'network for continuity of travel.
CE 5.1.10 Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public in
• locating, recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails.
CE 5.1.11 Work with schools to promote walking, safe drop-off, etc.
•
CE 5.1.12 Implement improved pedestrian crossings in key high volume areas such
as Corona Del Mar, Mariners Mile, West Newport, Airport Area, Newport
Center / Fashion Island, and the Balboa Peninsula.
CE 5.1.13 Consider overhead pedestrian crossings in areas where high pedestrian
use limits the efficiency of the roadway or signalized intersection.
CE 5.1.14 Provide additional waterfront walkways as follows:
a. Extend the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront
commercial properties in Lido Village.
b. Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel,
connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square bayfront commercial
areas with the City beach at 19th Street.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 23
C. Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariners' Mile. •
d. Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariners' Mile waterfront from the
Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club.
CE 5.1.15 Maintain the existing equestrian trail system in Santa Ana Heights
CE 5.1.16 Provide for the safety of bicyclists and ,pedestrians through provision of
adequate facilities, Including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where
applicable (an example being Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to
Riverside Avenue, and along Riverside Avenue north of Coast Highway).
CE 6.0
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM) / TRAVEL DEMAND
MANAGEMENT(TDM)
Goal 6.1 An efficient circulation system through the use of transportation systems
management. •
Policies
CE 6.1.1 Improve traffic signal operations by optimizing signal timing,
interconnecting signalized intersections along arterial streets, and
installing computerized master traffic signal control systems in intensively
utilized areas.
CE 6.1.2 Explore and implement intelligent transportation system and infrastructure
improvements which will reduce peak hour traffic and result in levels of
service below those forecast in this Element.
CE 6.1.3 Coordinate operations with adjacent jurisdictions to enhance the efficiency
of inter -jurisdictional roadway system operations.
Goal 6.2 Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management
strategies. •
U:UcJobsL01200\01232\Word101232-28b Page 24
• Policies
CE 6.2.1 Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such
as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles and walking;
and provide facilities that support such alternate modes.
CE 6.2.2 Require new development projects to provide facilities to support
alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle
lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading
areas and bus stop improvements.
CE 6.2.3 Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site
designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking.
CE 7.0
• PARKING
Goal 7.1 An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City.
Policies
CE 7.1.1 Set in -lieu parking fees commensurate with the actual cost to provide off-
street parking.
CE 7.1.2 Require that new development provide adequate, convenient parking for
residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors.
CE 7.1.3 Use in -lieu fees to develop public shared parking facilities in areas with
inadequate parking supply.
CE 7.1.4 Permit conversion of Corona Del Mar residential lots adjacent to
commercial area for parking to support commercial uses.
•
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 25
CE 7.1.6 Consider conversion of residential lots within West Newport and the
Balboa peninsula to provide parking for beach use and consider incentives
for new development which provide additional off street parking in the
Coastal Zone.
CE 7.1.6 Consider / study relocation of Avon Street lot to better serve commercial
uses in Mariners' Mile.
CE 7.1.7 Encourage the use of commercial, office, and institutional parking areas
for use as public parking to serve coastal recreational areas during
weekends and holidays, in conjunction with public transit or shuttles -where
appropriate.
CE 7.1.8 Consider allowing shared parking in mixed use and pedestrian oriented
areas throughout the City.
CE 7.1.9 Site and design new development to avoid use of parking, configurations
or managementprograms that are difficult to maintain and enforce.
CE 7.1.10 Consider revised parking requirements for small scale neighborhood
serving commercial uses in areas that derive most of their trade from
walk-in business, especially where on -street or other public parking is
available.
CE 7.1.11 Provide adequate parking as necessary in the vicinity of marine uses,
including docks, terminals, boat ramps, as well as parking suitable for
service vehicles.
CE 7.1.12 Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on -street
parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create public parking wherever
feasible.
U:UoJobs\ 0120OX01232\Word101232-28b Page 26
•
•
0
• CE 7.1.13 Continue to require alley access to parking areas for all new development
in areas where alley access exists.
CE 7.1.14 Periodically review and update off-street parking requirements to ensure
that new development provides off-street parking sufficient to serve
approved uses.
Goal 7.2: An efficiently operated parking system
Policies
CE 7.2.1 Develop parking management programs for areas with inadequate
parking.
CE 7.2.2 Provide improved parking information and signage
• CE 7.2.3 Explore the feasibility of shared valet parking programs in areas with high
parking demand and less conveniently located parking facilities, such as
Mariners' Mile and McFadden Square.
•
CE 8.0
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Goal8.f Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and
operations.
Policies
CE 8.1.1 Support legislation to increase transportation user and benefit fees, and to
index such fees to keep pace with inflation, in order to provide the
additional revenues for needed transportation facilities and services.
U:UcJobs\ 01200\01232\Word\01232-26b Page 27
0
CE 8A.2 Support legislation to increase state highway revenues as needed to
maintain and rehabilitate the existing state highway system and to match
all available federal highway funding.
CE 8.1.3 Support the evaluation and implementation of innovative transportation
financing mechanisms such as local tax increment districts, benefit
assessment districts, and joint development and use of transportation
centers.
CE 8.1.4 Support measures to increase local street and highway revenues as
needed to fund all road reconstruction, operation, and maintenance cost.
CE 8.1.5 Support measures to develop and implement a continuing funding
program, including private sector participation and an equitable fare
structure, to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of transit
facilities and services. 0
CE 8.1.6 Annually review and consider budgeting for projects contributing to
completion of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
CE 8.1.7 Periodically review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded
cost of required improvements and adjust the required Fair Share Fees as
appropriate.
CE 8.1.8 Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements
through gas tax revenues, state, federal and county grants, and City
ordinances to avoid burdening the General Fund to the extent that this is
possible.
CE 8.1.9 Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval
of subdivision maps.
•
U:UcJobk01200\01232\Word\01232-28b Page 28
• CE 8.1.10 Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements
adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance
with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways.
f�J
•
CE 8.1.11 Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area)
where traffic growth and /or needed improvements are demonstrably
based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint
responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions /
agencies.
U:UcJobs\ 01NMI232\Word\01232-28b Page29
APPENDIX A
TRAFFIC STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
n
U
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY
ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the existing conditions and buildout alternatives traffic analysis
completed for the City of Newport Beach General Plan update. Existing conditions are
described and two General Plan buildout alternatives are evaluated: without project
(buildout of existing General Plan) and with project (buildout of proposed General Plan)
conditions.
The buildout alternatives are analyzed using a roadway system that incorporates the
constrained roadway network (with only those improvements from the currently adopted
General Plan Circulation Element that have not been deemed "uncertain"), with the
addition of the 19t' Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the widening of Coast
Highway through Mariner's Mile.
• ES.1 Trip Generation
•
Trip generation calculations have been performed for existing, without project,
and with project scenarios. Tables ES-1 through ES-3 summarize the results of
this analysis for daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour conditions, respectively.
Citywide trip generation for the without project scenario is projected to increase
by 26%. For the with project scenario, trip generation is expected to increase by
29%, a difference of 3%.
Trip generation rates were derived during the Newport Beach Traffic Model
update to reflect conditions in Newport Beach. In Coastal areas, residential uses
were found to generate less traffic than in other areas of the City. Daily Coastal
trip generation is approximately 85 to 87% of trip generation in the majority of the
City. Therefore, an adjustment of approximately 12 to 15% was made in trip
generation for land uses in this area as part of the General Plan Traffic Study.
1
N
TABLE•ES4
DAILY TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
REA
EXISTING
WITHOUT PROJECT
WITH PROJECT
TRIPS
GROWTH
0
I GROWTH
TRIPS
I GROWTH
% GROWTH
AIRPORT
99,667
117,430
17,763
17.8%
128,638
28,971
29.1%
BALBOA VILLAGE
18,733
19,981
1,248
6.7%
20,849
2,116
11.3%
BANNING RANCH
73
22,075
22,002
30139.7%
14,296
14,223
19483.6%
CANNERY VILLAGE
13,051
14,190
1,139
81%
10,342
-2.709
-20.8%
CORONA DEL MAR
45,707
54.431
8,724
19.1%
54.534
8,827
19.3%
LIDO VILLAGE
12,748
13,871
1.123
8.8%
15,653
2,905
22:8%
MARINERS MILE
43,137
51,410
8,273
19.20/a
55.676
12,439
_ 28.8%
MCFADDEN SQUARE
7,496
8,490
994
13.3%
12,9881
5,4921
73.3%
NEWPORT CENTERJFASHION ISLAND
103,075
110,372
7,297
7.1%
118,395
15,320
14.9%
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
6,899
9,816
21917
42.3%
14,073
7.174
104.0%
WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL
8,440
9,076
636
7.5%
9,901
1.461
17.3%
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
26,265
46,038
19,773
75.3%
54,769
28.504
108.5%11
SUBAREAALTERNATIVES AL
385.291
477,180
91.889
23.8%
510,014
124,723
32:4o/a
439,212
558,667
_ 119,4551
27.2%1
556,2301
117,0181
26.67%
824,503
1.035,847
211,344
25.6"/0
1,066,244
241,741
29:3%
U'\UcJobs\ 01200101232\ExceP4ESO4.xls]ES-1
11
TABLE ES-2
AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AREA
EXISTING
I TRIPS
JUROWTH1%GROWTHI
TRIPS
I GROWTH
%GROWTH
AIRPORT
8,875
10,178
1,303
14.7%
11,137
2,262
25.5%
BALBOA VILLAGE
1,474
1,595
121
8.2%
1,699
225
15.3%
BANNING RANCH
8
2,080
2,072
25900.0%
1,317
1,309
16392.5%
CANNERY VILLAGE
930
1,022
92
9.9%
755
-175
-18.8%
CORONA DEL MAR
3,721
4,413
692
18.6%
4,416
695
18.7%
LIDO VILLAGE
931
1,028
97
10.4%
1,102
171
18.4'/°
MARINERS MILE
3,521
4,160
639
18.1%
4,445
924
26.2%
MCFADDEN SQUARE
545
621
76
13.9%
949
404
74.1%
NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND
,523
9,042
519
6.1%
9,718
1,195
14.0%
OLD'NEWPORTBOULEVARD
594
852
258
43.4%
1,189
595
100.2%
WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL
JE32,746
787
41
5.5%
854
108
14.5%
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
,564
4,590
2,026
79.0%
5,347
2,783
108.5%
TOTAL
432
40.368
7,936
24.5%
42,928
10,496
32.4 a
IREMAINDER OF CITY
1 41,309
52,077
10,768
26.1%
51,774
10,465
25.3%
73,741
92,445
18,704
25.4%
94,702
20,961
28.4%
U:\UCJODs% UIZUU\Oi23Z1txceiiES04.XISftS-Z
A
TABLE ES-8
PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
AREA
EXISTING
WITHOUT PROJEC
WITH PROJECT -
TRIPS
GROWTH
%GROWTH
TRIPS
GROWTH
%GROWTH
AIRPORT
9,182
10.798
1,616
17.6%
11,752
2,570
28.0%
BALBOA VILLAGE
1,684
1,809
125
_ _ 7.4%
1,889
205
12.2%
BANNING RANCH
7
1,990
1,983
28328.6%
1,285
1.278
18257.1%
CANNERY VILLAGE
1,180
1,279
_ _ _ 99
8A%
930
_ -250
-21.2%
CORONA DEL MAR
4,116
4,917
801
_ 19.5%
4,925
809
19.7%
LIDO VILLAGE
1,158
1,263
105
9.1%
1,412
254
21.9%
MARINERS MILE
3,889
4,644
755
19.4%
5,014
1,125
28.9%
MCFADDEN SQUARE
678
763
85
12.5%
1,169
491
72.40/6
NEWPORT CENTERIFASHION ISLAND
9,4131
10,094
681
7.2%
10,819
1,406
14.9%
OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD
622
885
263
42.3%
1,272
650
104.5%
WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY AND ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL
760
816
56
7.4%
890
130
17.1%
WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL
2,3861
4,210
1,824
76A%
5,000
2,614
109.6%
TOTAL
35,0751
43,46E
8,393
23.9%
46,367
11,282
32.2%
[REMAINDER OF CITY
1 39,7941
50,7431
10,9491
27.5%1
50,532110-J-3-8F
27.096
ICITY TOTAL
74,8691
94,2111
19,3421
25.8%1
96,8891
22,020
29.40-
U.lUcJobs\ 012001012321ExceWSO4.xis]ES-3
0
11
0
• in conjunction with earlier analysis of land use alternatives, research was
conducted to determine whether trip rate adjustments are appropriate for certain
kinds of land uses being considered in the Newport Beach General Plan update.
For mixed use developments, it was found that there is a range in trip generation
savings of 10-40%. The adjustment applied for the Newport Beach General Plan
Traffic Study is 10%, at the conservative end of research findings. High-rise
apartments have been shown to generate up to and beyond 40% fewer trips than
typical apartments. To portray a conservative worst case scenario, a factor of
20% is used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan Traffic Study.
ES.2 Daily Traffic Volumes
The latest version of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) has been used to
evaluate each of the General Plan buildout alternatives. The model has been
updated in this process to incorporate the most current demographic data
• available for areas outside the City of Newport Beach, and the most current
income statistics available within the primary study area. Daily traffic volumes for
existing conditions is shown on Exhibit ES -A. General Plan buildout without
project and with project daily traffic volumes are included in Exhibits ES-B and
ES-C, respectively. Growth from existing to without project and with project
conditions has been calculated. The majority of roadway segments increase by
less than 10,000 vehicles per day (VPD). Roads expected to carry traffic
increases greater than 10,000 vehicles per day are shown on Table ES-4 without
project and on Table ES-5 with project. In general, these roads are in the Airport
Area or serve regional through traffic as well as local traffic. The only roadway
experiencing growth in excess of 15,000 VPD is Newport Coast Drive for both
without and with project conditions. Table ES-5 (describing with project
increases) contains more locations than ES-4 (describing without project
increases).
5
EXHIBIT ES -A
COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TP.AFRC STUDY, Newport Beach CaTdomla-0123225 SX&M
0 0 0
EXHIBIT ES-B
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.Newoort Beach Califomia • 01232bono adt=d POP."
7
EXHIBIT ES-C
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADTI
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPOMNewoort Beach Califomia-0123Fbowo adtmxd URsBAIY
•
TABLE ES-4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING
LOCATION
EXISTING
COUNT
1(2001/2002)
I REVISION2
BUILDOUT
CHANGE
%CHANGE
Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South)
30,000
41,000
11,000
37%
Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North)
28,000
39,000
11,000
39%
Campus Dr. (Von Kerman Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.)
20,000
35,000
15,000
75%
Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.)
26,000
39,000
13,000
50%
Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.)
35,000
49,000
14,000
40%
Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd.)
51,000
62,000
11,000
22%
Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.)
63,000
74,000
11,000
17%
Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave.)
53,000
64,000
11,000
21%
Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave. to Tustin Ave.)
45,000
56,000
11,000
24%
Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.)
28,000
40,000
12,000
43%
Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.)
27,000
38,000
11,000
41%
Jamboree Rd. (Birch St. to MacArthur Blvd.)
42,000
55,000
13,000
31%
Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.)
36,000
47,000
11,000
31%
MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.)
61,000
73,000
12,000
20%
Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.)
12,000
27,000
15,000
125%
ewport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.)
15,000
32,000
17,000
113%
ewport Coast Dr. (SR-73 Fwy. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.
17,000
34,000
17,000
100%
TABLE ES-5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GROWTH GREATER THAN 10,000 VPD FROM EXISTING
LOCATION
EXISTING
(200112002)
COUNT
WITH
WITH
FORECAST
GROWTH
% GROWTH
Campus Dr. (Bristol St. North to Bristol St. South)
30,000
41,000
11,000
36,7%
Campus Dr. (north of Bristol St. North)
28,000
40,000
12,000
42,9%
Campus Dr.'(Von Karman Ave -to MacArthur Blvd.)
20,000
34,000
14;000
70.0%
Campus Dr. (west of MacArthur Blvd.)
26,000
40,000
14,000
53.8%
Coast Hwy (east of Newport Coast Dr.)
35,000
49,000
14,000
40.0%
Coast Hwy. (Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd.)
51,000
63,000
12,000
23.5%
Coast Hwy. (Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr.)
63,000
76,000
13,000
20.69/5
Coast Hwy. (Newport Blvd, to Riverside Ave.)
53,000
67,000
14,000
26.4%
Coast Hwy. (Riverside Ave. to Tustin Ave.)
45,000
58,000
13,000
28.9%
Coast Hwy. (Superior Ave. to Newport Blvd.)
28,000
41,000
13,000
46A
Coast Hwy. (Tustin Ave. to Dover Dr.)
42,000
53,000
11,000
26.2%
Irvine Ave. (Bristol St. South to Mesa Dr.)
27,000
38,000
11,000
40.7%
Irvine Ave. (Mesa Dr. to University Dr.)
31,000
42,000
11,000
35.5%
Jamboree Rd. (Birch St, to MacArthur Blvd.)
42,000
56,000
14;000
333%
Jamboree Rd. (Campus Dr. to Birch St.)
36,000
48,000
12,000
33.3%
Jamboree Rd. (Ford Rd. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.)
46,000
57,000
11,000
23.9%
Jamboree Rd. (MacArthur Blvd. to Bristol St. North)
36,000
47,000
11,000
30.6%
Jamboree Rd. (San Joaquin Hills Rd. to Santa Barbara Dr.)
34,000
45,000
11,000
32A%
MacArthur Blvd. (north of Bison Ave.)
61,000
73,000
12,000
19.7%
MacArthur Blvd. (south of Jamboree Rd.)
27,000
38,000
11,000
40.7%
Newport Blvd. (Hospital Rd. to Coast Hwy.)
43,000
54,000
11,000
25.6%
Newport Coast Dr. (north of Coast Hwy.)
12,000
28,000
16,000
1333%
Newport Coast Dr. (south of San Joaquin Hills Rd.)
15,000
32,000
17,000
1133%
Newport Coast Dr. SR-73 Fj. to San Joaquin Hills Rd.
17 000
34,000
17,OQLL
100.0%
10
•
•
• A comparison of the change in traffic from without project to with project
conditions has also been completed. In general, daily traffic volumes change by
1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) or less on most roadways from the without to with
project conditions. Volumes on a few roadways (Birch Street, Coast Highway,
Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard) change by as much as 3,000 VPD.
ES.3 Intersection Performance
The individual intersection level of service for each of the three scenarios has
been summarized in Table ES-6. Comparisons of the three scenarios and the
percentage of intersections with each service level are demonstrated in Table
ES-7. The current standard for acceptable level of service in the City of Newport
Beach is "D". As shown in Table ES-7, over 76% of intersections experience
Level of Service "D" or better operations in every scenario. For with project
conditions, approximately 18% of intersections experience deficient operations (9
• intersections in the AM peak hour and 13 intersections in the PM peak hour),
while the without project conditions result in approximately 19% of intersections
experiencing deficient operations (11 intersections in the AM peak hour and 13
'Intersections in the PM peak hour).
•
Table ES-8 provides a summary of intersections experiencing deficient
operations in any of the three analysis scenarios without additional
improvements. In most cases where intersection LOS changes from without to
with project, it is only by one level.
Nine intersections that have acceptable existing operations experience LOS "D"
or worse conditions (without improvements) in either General Plan buildout
scenario; two additional intersections experience this change only in the without
project scenario. These intersections are the following.
11
TABLE ES-6
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
INTERSECTION (NS/EW)
EXISTING
WITHOUT PROJECT
PM
WITH PROJECT
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
B
B
A
A
A
A
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
D
D
D
C
D
C
4. Newport Bl. & Hospital Rd.
A
B
C
E
D
E
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
A
A
A
A
A
6. Newport Bl. & 32nd St.
C
C
A
B
A
B
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
D
E
E
E
E
E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
C
B
B
C
B
D
9. MacArthur Bl. & Campus Dr.
B
D
C
F
D
F
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
A
B
C
D
C
D
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
A
C
B
E
C
E
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
A
A
A
B
A
B
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
C
D
E
F
E
F
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
A
A
D
C
D
C
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St.
C
E
E
F
F
F
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N)
B
B
El
C
D
C
17. Campus DrArvineAV. &Bristol St. S
C
A
El
C
D
C
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S
A
A
A
A
A
A
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
B
E
E
F
E
F
0. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
D
D
F
F
F
F
21. Irvine Av.,& Santiago Dr.
B
C
B
C
B
C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
A
A
A
B
Al'
B
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
C
B
C
B
C
B
4. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
A
C
B
C
B
D
25. Dover Dr. & WestcliffDr.
A
A
A
A
A
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
A
A
A
A
A
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
B
C
C
E
D
E
28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw.
B
B
D
D
D
D
29. MacArthur Bl. & Jamboree Rd.
D
E
E
E
E
F
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St.
A
A
B
B
B
B
31. Bd view PI. & Bristol St. S.
A
A
A
B
A
B
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S
C
C
E
D
E
D
33. Jamboree Rd. & Ba view W.
A
A
A
B
A
B
34. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDr.lUniversi Dr.
A
B
B
B
B
B
35, Jamboree Rd. &Bison Av.
A
A
A
B
A
B
36, Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDr /Ford Rd.
B
B
C
C
C
C
37. Jamboree Rd. &San Joa ain Hills Rd.
A
A
A
C
B
C
12
•
•
•
•
TABLE ES-6
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
INTERSECTION NS/E
EXISTING
WITHOUT PROJECT
WITH PROJECT
AM
PM
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
A
B
A
C
A
C
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
B
C
C
C
C
C
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
A
A
A
A
A
A
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
A
A
A
B
A
C
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
A
A
A
B
A
B
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
A
C
A
C
A
C
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
A
B
C
C
C
C
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
A
A
A
B
A
B
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
A
A
A
A
A
A
48. MacArthur Bl. & Bison Av.
B
A
C
C
C
C
49. MacArthur Bl. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
C
D
C
E
C
E
50. MacArthur Bl. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
B
E
C
F
C
F
51. MacArthur Bl. & San Miguel Dr.
A
B
B
C
B
C
52. MacArthur BI. & Coast Hw.
A
C
C
C
C
C
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
A
A
D
B
D
B
54. SR-73 SB Ramps &Bonita Canyon Dr.
A
AJAB
A
B
55. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
A
AA
A
A
56. San Miguel Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
A
AB
A
B
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
E
BC
F
C58.
Mar uerite Av. & San Joa uin Hills Rd.
A
AA
A
A
59.Mar uerite Av. & Coast Hw.
D
DE
E
E
60. S less Hill Rd. & San Joa uin Hills Rd.
A
AA
A
A
61.Po Av.&CoastHw.
B
BCB62.
Ne rt Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams
A
A
B
A
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
A
IN
B
A
B
A
65. Ne rt Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
A
I BI
B I
C
W1.1oJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[ES04.xls]ES-6
13
TABLE ES-7
STUDY AREA LOS COMPARISON
NUMBER OF LOCATIONS
AM
PM
TOTAL
LOS
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
I WITH
PROJECT
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
A
36
23
23
28
12'
12
64
35
35
B
12
12
11
14
15
14
26
27
25
C
8
12
10
9
19
18
17
31
28
D
5
4
9
6
3
5
11
7
14
oa
Acceptable
61
51
53
57
49
49
11$
100
102
E
1
9
6
5
7
6
6
16
12
F1
0
2
3
0
6
711
01
8
10
oa
Deficient
1
11
9
5
13
13
61
24
22
TOTAL 1
62
62
==62
62
62
62
1241
124
124
LOS
PERCENT OP LOCATIONS
AM I
PM
TOTAL
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
EXISTING
WITHOUT
PROJECT
WITH
PROJECT
A
58.06%
37.10%
37.10%
45.16%'
19.35%
19.35%
51.61%1
,28.23%
28.23%
B
19.35%
19.35%
17.74%
22.68%
24.19%
22.58%
20.97%1
21.77%
20.160/,
C
12.90%
19.35%
16.13%
14.52%
30.65%
29.03%
13,71%
25.00%'
22.58%
D
8.06%
6.45%
14.52%
9.68%
4.84%
8.06%
8.87%
5.65%
11.29%
oa
Acceptable
98.39%
82.26%
85.48%
91.94%
79.03%
79.03%
95,16%
80.65%
82.26%
E
1.61%
14.520/6
9.68%
8.06%'
11,29%
9.68%
4.84%
12.90%
9.687.
F.
0.00%
3.23%
4.8400
0.00%
9.68%
11.29%
0.00%
6.45%
8.06%
oa
Deficient
1.61%
17.74%
14.52%
8.06%
20.97%
20.97%
4.840/0
19,35%
17.74%
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.007
100A0%
1oo.00%
U:1UcJobs\ 01200101232\Excell[ESO4.xis]ES-7
14
10
E
•
TABLE ES-6
DEFICIENT INTERSECTION SUMMARY
INTERSECTION NS/E
EXISTING
I WITHOUT PROJECT
I WITH PROJECT
4. Newport Bl. & Hospital Rd.
A
B
C
E
D
E
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
D
E
E
E
E
E
9. MacArthur Bl. & Campus Dr.
B
D
C
F
D
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
A
C
B
E
C
E
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
C
D
E
F
E
IS. Cam us Dr. & Bristol St.
C
E
E
F
F
F
16. Birch St. & Bristol St.
B
B
E
C
D
C
17. Campus DrAtvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
C
A
El
C1
D
C
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
B
E
E
F
E
F
20. Irvine Av. & Univemity Dr.
D
D
F
F
F
F
7. Dover Or & Coast Hw.
B
C
C
E
D
E
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
D
E
E
E
E
32. Jamboree Rd. &Bristol St. S
C
C
E
D
E
D
49. MacArthur BI. & Ford RddBonita Can on Dr.
C
D
C
E
C
E
50. MacArthur Bl. & San Joaquin Hills Rd
B
E
C
F
C
57. Goldenrod Av. & Coast Hw.
E
B
F
C
F
C
59.Marguerite Av. & Coast Hw.
D
DI
E
El
E
E
•
U:1UcJobs\ 01200X012321ExceljES01.xls]T3-10
L-1
15
• Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road (Without Project and With Project) •
• MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project)
• Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project)
• Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (Without Project and With Project)
• Birch Street at Bristol Street North (Without Project)
• Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue at Bristol Street South (Without Project)
• Irvine Avenue at University Drive (Without Project and With Project)
• Dover Drive at Coast Highway (Without Project and With Project)
• Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South (Without Project and With Project)
• MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (Without Project
and With Project)
• Marguerite Avenue at Coast Highway (Without Project and With Project)
In general, these intersections are in the Airport Area or serve regional through
traffic as well as local traffic.
n
LJ
Improvements have been suggested that provide operations at a level of service
traditionally determined acceptable in Newport Beach (LOS "D") at all potentially
deficient,intersections (outlined within the body ofthe report).
In most cases, these improvements involve spot improvements such as
additional turn lanes, rather than extensive roadway widening, and are feasible
without significant widenings that could impact community character. Therefore, it
is recommended that LOS "D" remain the acceptable standard for the vast
majority of intersections in Newport Beach. There are some areas, however,
where special circumstances, make it .infeasible or undesirable to make the
improvements necessary to maintain LOS "D." For these "exception
Intersections," listed below, LOS "E" or "F" (in one case) is recommended as the
acceptable service standard. It should be noted that this is not a new policy
direction for Newport Beach. The existing Circulation Element lists 18
intersections in the Airport Area that were projected to perform at a level of •
16
service worse than "D," and includes a policy that there was a conscious decision
to accept these levels of service in the Airport Area and focus efforts to improve
service on areas less affected by regional traffic.
• Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E"
Congestion at this intersection is related to regional through traffic and
improvement beyond LOS "E" is not possible without significant right-of-
way acquisition and widening that could impact pedestrian and bicycle use
of the intersection.
• Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW): LOS "E"
The barrier that John Wayne Airport presents to through traffic, combined
with regional traffic in the Airport Area, causes this intersection to perform
below LOS "D". LOS "D" cannot be achieved without extremely costly
right-of-way acquisition and improvements.
• Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "F"
• Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW): LOS "E"
• The widening of Coast Highway through Corona Del Mar would not
achieve LOS D at the intersections of Coast Highway with Goldenrod
Avenue and Marguerite Avenue unless one westbound through lane was
added at Goldenrod Avenue and the same westbound lane and one
eastbound through lane was added at Marguerite Avenue. These
additional lanes would require roadway widening and/or
parking/pedestrian facility removal of 12 feet per lane. These
improvements are not recommended, as the character of Corona Del.Mar
as a pedestrian village would be compromised.
LI
Based on these standards, table ES-9 shows recommended intersection
improvements to provide acceptable operations at study area locations for
without project and with project conditions.
A comparison of intersection improvements and levelq of service to the currently
adopted Circulation Element is included in Table ES-10. The currently adopted
17
'm
TABLE ES-9
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
WITH PROJECT
Bluff Rd. (NS) at
-
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right -turn lanes (2nd with
Provide two SB left-tum lanes and two SB right-tum lanes (2nd v&
overlap phase). Provide two EB left-tum lanes. Provide one NA3
overlap phase). Provide two EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB
right-tum lane.
right -turn lane.
Multiple additional through lanes required to achieve LOS "D"-
15th SL (NS) at
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 2nd SB right turn lane with overlap phase.
Provide 2nd SS right turn lane with overlap phase.
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
Multiple additional through lanes required to achieve LOS "D".
_
Newport BI. INS) at
• Hospital Rd. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
Riverside Av. (NS) at
• Coast Hw. (EW)
- -
Provide 3rd EB through lane.
Provide 3rd EB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at "
• Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
Provide 2nd NB left turn lane.
Restripe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 righttum lanes.
Restipe SB to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5 right turn lanes.
Von Karmen Av. (NS) at
-
• Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide 2nd ES left turn lane.
Provide 2nd EB left turn lane.
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at
• Campus Dr. (EVV)
Provide NB 1st right turn lane with overlap phase.
Provide Na 1st right turn lane with overlap phase.
Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane.
Provide WB right turn overlap phase for current right turn lane.
Additionally, to achieve LOS "D", provide 3rd WB through lane.
_
Campus Dr. (NS) at
-
• Bristol SL N (EW)
Provide 5th WB through lane.
Provide 5th WB throunh lane.
Birch SL (NS) at -
-
• Bristol SL N (EW)
-
Reconstruct WB approach to provide 1 left turn lane, 2.5 through
lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes.
i
•
'm
TABLE ES-9
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
INTERSECTION
WITHOUT PROJECT
WITH PROJECT
Campus Dr. (NS) at:
• Bristol St S (EW)
Reconstruct EB approach to provide 2left turn lanes, 2.5 through
lanes, and 1.5 right turn lanes.
Irvine Av. (NS) at:
• Mesa Dr. (EW)
-Funded Improvements
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane.
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB through lane.
Provide 1st EB fight turn lane. Provide 2nd WB left turn lane.
Provide 1st EB tight turn lane. Provide 2nd VW left turn lane.
Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not
Construct funded improvements, but EB right turn lane not
necessary.
necessary.
• University Dr. (EW)
Provide 3rd NB through lane.
Provide 3rd NB through lane.
Provide 3rd SB through lane.
Provide 3rd SB through lane.
Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1
Restripe EB to include 1.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes. and 1
Tiht turn lane.
right turn lane.
Dover Dr. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 4th WB through lane.
Provide 4th WB through lane.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
• Jamboree Rd. (EW)
Provide 4th EB through lane.
Provide 4th EB through lane.
Provide 3rd WB left turn lane.
Provide 3rd WB left turn lane.
OR Provide NB right turn overlap phase for existing right turn lane.
Provide 3rd WB left turn lane.
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at:
• Bristol St. S (EW)
Provide 6th NB through lane.
Provide 6th NB through lane.
Provide 4th SB through lane.
Provide 4th SB through lane.
To achieve LOS "D", provide additional EB left turn lane (making
EB movement 2.5 left turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 2 right
turn lanes).
TABLE ES-9
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS SUMMARY
ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS _
INTERSECTION WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
MacArthur BI. INS) at '
• Ford RdJBonfta Canyon Dr. (EVV)
• San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW) Provide 3rd SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane.
Provide Sid SB left turn lane. Provide 3rd SB left turn lane.
Provide 3rd EB left turn lane. Provide 3rd ES left turn lane.
_ Provide 4th NS throuah lane.
U.'UWObSU12WO12321EXuen(ES04�ds]ES.e
N
O
0
TABLE ES•10
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
RESULTING WITH
WITH PROJECT
FEASIBILITY/
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
PREVIOUS LOS
INTERSECTION _
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ROW REQUIRED
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
AM
PM
AM
PM
Bluff Rd. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left-tum lanes and two SB right-
D
D
Bluff Road to be constructed with
B
D
turn lanes (2nd with overlap phase). Provide two
a four-Iane cross-section.
EB left-tum lanes. Provide one WB right-tum lane
15th SL (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide two SB left -turn lanes and two SB right-
D
D
15th Street to be constructed with
A
A
turn lanes (2nd vhth overlap phase). Provide two
a four -lane cross-section.
EB left -turn lanes. Provide one WB right -turn lane
SuperlorAv. (NS) at:
• Placentia Av. (EW)
• Coast Hw. (EW)
(none)
A
A
(none)
A
B
Newport BI. (NS) at:
none
D
C
none
D
D
• Hospital Rd. (EW)
Provide 2nd NB left-tum lane.
Consistentwith
D
D
Add one EB left-tum lane.
D
E
historic plan.
• Via Lido (EW)
• 32nd St. (EW)
(none)
A
A
(none)
B
C j
(none)
A
B
Add a separate SB right -turn lane
A
B
Riverside Av. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
Provide 3rd EB through lane. Eliminate WB right-
Consistent with
B
E
Add an optional SB left-tum lane,
C
C
turn lane.
historic plan. Would
a separate SB right -turn lane, and
remove parking and
one EB left-tum lane.
WB right -turn lane on
north side of street.
Tustin Av. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
�D]
none
B
D
none
C
TABLE ES40
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
RESULTING WITH
WITH PROJECT
FEASIBILITY/
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
PREVIOUS LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ROW REQUIRED
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
• Campus Dr. (EW)
-
Provide 2nd NS left4um lane. Restdpe SB
approach to provide 3.5 through lanes and 1.5
Would require narrow
lanes or minor
C
D
Add a SB left -turn lane, a WB left-
turn lane, a NB right -turn lane,
B
F
right -turn lanes,
landscape area
and a separate EB right -turn lane.
reductions.
• Birch St. (EW)
none
C
D
none
D
C
Von Kerman Av. (NS) at:
- -
• Campus Dr. 9"
Provide 2nd EB left -turn lane. Eliminate EB right-
Can be accomplished
B
D
(none)
C
E
turn lane. Eliminate NB free right -turn lane.
within existing curb to
curb section by
eliminating NB and
ri ht-tum lanes.
MacArthur BI. (NS) at:
-
• Van KansanAv. (EW)
none
A
B
Add an EB thromh lane.
B
E
Jamboree Rd. (NS) at
-
• Campus Dr. (EW)
Provide NB 1st right-turrflane with overlap phase.
D
D
(none)
F
F
Provide 4th SB through lane. Provide WB right
turn overlap phase for current right-tum lane.
Eliminate EB free right -turn lane.
• Birch St (EW)
Pone) - -
D
C
none
C
C
Campus Dr. (NS) at
• Bristol St. N (EVV)
Provide Sth WB through lane.
Based on field
E
E
Add one WB left-tumlane.'
D
F
reconnaissance, it
appears this could be
accomplished on
inside (south side),
involving
improvements to SIR-
1
1
T3 NB On-mm .
�J
TABLE ES-10
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
RESULTING WITH
WITH PROJECT
FEASIBILITY/
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
PREVIOUS LOS
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ROW REQUIRED
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
AM
PM
AM
PM
Birch SL (NS) at
• Bristol St. N (EW)
(none)
D
C
Add one SB through lane and one
B
E
WB left-tum lane. This may
require widening the freeway
bridge.
Campus DrJlrvine Av. (NS) at:
• Bristol St. S (EW)
none
D
C
none
F
D
Birch St. (NS) at
• Bristol St S,(EVJ)
(none)
A
A
Add one NB through lane and one
D
B
ES through lane, This may
require the widening the freeway
bridge.
Irvine Av. (NS) at:
• Mesa Dr. (EW)
-Funded Improvements
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB
Assumes reallocated
C
D
Add a separate SB right-tum lane,
E
E
through lane. Provide ist EB right tum lane.
PM WB left-
a Ng right-tum lane, a WB left -
Provide 2nd WB felt -tam lane. Construct funded
tumlthrough volume.
turn lane and an EB through lane.
improvements, but EB right turn lane not
necessary. Eliminate WB right -turn lane.
• University Dr. (EVV)
Provide 3rd NB through lane. Provide 3rd SB
ROW and potential
C
D
Add an ES through lane.
F
E
through lane. Restripe EB approach to include 1.4
environmental issues.
left -turn lanes, 1.5 through lanes, and 1 right -turn
lane.
• Santiago Dr. (EVV)
(none)
B
C
(none)
B
A
• Highland Dr. (EVV)
(none)
A
B
(none)
A
A
• Dover Dr.(EW)
(none)
C
B
(none)
B
B
• WestdiB Dr. (EW)
none
B
D
none
A
g
TABLE ES40
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
RESULTING WITH
WITH PROJECT
FEASIBILITY/
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
PREVIOUS LOS
INTERSECTION -El
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ROW REQUIRED
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
"AM
TPM
AM
PM
Dover Dr. INS) at
-
• WestdftiDr. (EVV)
(none)
A
A
(none)
A
A
• 16th St (EW)
(none)
A
A
(none)
A
A
• Coast Hw. (EW)
(none)
D
C
Add an EB thrbugh lane and a
D
C
WB through lane (done w/8
lanes).
Bayside Dr. (NS) at
• Coast Hw. (EW)
none _
D
D
none
D
D
Maur BI. (NS),at
-
• Jamboree Rd. (EW)
Provide 4th EB through lane. Provide 3rd WB left
Feasible at -grade
D
D
(none)
F
F
turn lane.
improvements.
Jamboree Rd. INS) at
• Bristol St N (EW)
none _
B
B
Add a NB ramp on to SR-73.
A
C
eayview PI. INS) at
• Bristol St. S (EW)
none
A
I B
none
A
C
ramboree Rd. (NS) at
-
Bristol St S (EW)
Provide 6th NB through lane. Provide 4th SB
Improvements
D
D
Add an EB through lane and a NE
C
D
through lane.
currently under study.
ramp on to SR 73.
• Bayview WY• (EIM
(none)
A
B
Add a SB left-tum lane and a WS
C
C
lane.
• Eastbluft DrJUniversity Dr. (EW)left-tum
(none)
B
B
(none)
E
D
• Bison AV.(EW)
(none)
A
B
Add a WB left-tum lane and a NB
C
E
-
-
throw h lane done w/8lanes .
TABLE ES-10
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
RESULTING WITH
WITH PROJECT
FEASIBILITY/
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
[;P;RjIOUS LOS
INTERSECTION
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
ROW REQUIRED
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
AM
PM
PM
amboree Rd. (NS) at
• Eastblutf Dr.IFord Rd. (EW)
(none)
C
C
(none)
E
D
• San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
(none)
B
C
(none)
C
C
• Santa Barbara Dr. (EW)
(none)
A
C
(none)
B
C
• Coast Hw. (EW)
_
none
C
C
none
D
D
Santa Cruz Dr. (NS) at:
• San Joaquin.Hills Rd. (EW)
none
A
A
none
A
C
Santa Rosa Dr. (NS) at:
• San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
none
A
C
none
A
A
Newport Center Dr. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
none
A
B
none
E
A
Avocado Av. (NS) at:
• Coast Hw. (EW)
none
C
C
none
A
E
MacArthur Bl. (NS) at:
• Bison Av. (EW)
(none)
C
C
Add a SB left -turn lane, a WB left-
C
D
turn lane and a NB left -turn lane.
• Fob Rd.lBonita Canyon Dr. (EW)
Provide 3rd SB left turn lane.
D
D
(none)
D
D
• San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
Provide 3rd SB left -turn lane.
All three
B
D
(No improvement necessary;
B
D
Provide 3rd EB left -turn lane.
improvements
done w16lanes.)
Provide 4lh NB through lane.
required to achieve
Eliminate NB right -turn lane.
LOS "D". May require
narrow lanes and
leadllag left -turn
o erations.
TABLE ES-10
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY AND COMPARISON TABLE
INTERSECTION
WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
FEASIBILITY/
ROW REQUIRED
RESULTING WITH,
PROJECT LOS
PREVIOUS CIRCULATION
ELEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
PREVIOUS LOS
AM
PM
AM
PM
MacArthur BI. (NS) at
• San Miguel Dr. (EW)
B
C
Add a WB left-lum lane.
A
E
• Coast Hw. (EW)(none)
San Miguel Dr. (NS) at
- none
C
C
none
A
E
• San Joaquin Hills Rd. (EW)
none
A
B
Add a WB left -turn lane.
A
D
Goldenrod Av. (NS) at:
� �
-
• CoastHw-(EW)
,
Marguerite Av. (NS) at:
none
-
F
C
none
D
D
• San Joaquin HBIs Rd. (EW)
(none)
A
A
(none)
A
B
• Coast Hw. (E-YV)
-
POPPY Av: (NS) at
none
E _
E
none
D
B
• Coast Hw. (EW)
-_ none
B
C
none
C
D
r The Intersection of Campus Drive end eaetol Stred North has high tratficvol mw due to its dkedecoess to SR-73 and thefact Mat Campus Drive and BkN Streetserve ss the artedais behoeen the IrvneBusness Complexend Me
high ntamitydfice developne la in the northern portion dMe City ofNevport Beach and SR-73. Becauseorthe Dar0culargeomatrks and tradkvokum and disftibution at this imersection. avA be ddr ull(groonvengmalntersectbns
to carry the forecast hahic Additional lanes could be provided. hawesagavnave movementsbelween swftound right tun from Campus to SR-73 could make dds operationally ddfiudt to sddevaThmerore, it is recananmded that
MB be defined as a special pr*ct area wo ehanabve solutions being sought Matceuld range from meJorntersectlan upgra ft toposs@ie grade•aeparation.
U.wucwLotz0=1z12emeTJESo4.ld3lES-th
,
• Circulation Element identified 18 intersections that would operate at
unacceptable (with one or both peak periods at LOS "E" and 6 with at least one
peak period at LOS "F") conditions. The proposed Circulation Element reduces
the number of intersections experiencing LOS "E" or "F" to four (three at LOS "E"
and one at LOS "F).
ESA Soecial Issues
Several special issues have been evaluated in this Traffic Study.
Without the potential 191h Street bridge over the Santa Ana River, Bluff Road at
Coast Highway and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway experience deficient
operations requiring substantial additional improvements. The bridge would
provide relief to Coast Highway, resulting in the need for at least one fewer
additional through lane in each direction. Therefore, it is recommended that
• Newport Beach continue to be a strong advocate for this bridge.
10
The potential extension of the SR-55 freeway is not recommended, as it would
result in additional through traffic congestion on Coast Highway through Mariners
Mile.
The City Council has identified open space as the preferred use of Banning
Ranch, but the analysis contained in this Traffic Study has assumed worst case
conditions, including alternate residential and commercial development on the
Banning Ranch property. If the open space preservation occurs, roadway
segments through the property (Bluff Road and 15t' Street) will not be
constructed (and will therefore not experience deficient intersection operations).
Additionally, the relief to Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will not be provided
by the new Bluff Road connection, and Superior Avenue at Coast Highway will
experience Level of Service "E" conditions. With development on Banning
Ranch, Bluff Road at Coast Highway would experience unacceptable levels of
27
r
service unless the 15'" Street extension is constructed. Without this •
improvement, an additional westbound through lane would be required on Coast
Highway to provide LOS "D" conditions at the intersection of Bluff Road at Coast
Highway. Based on this analysis it is recommended that two new roadways
provide access to Coast Highway through the Banning Ranch property, should
the alternate land use be constructed.
The widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile is recommended, as it
would alleviate congestion (which is, caused by high volumes of traffic in the peak
direction along this segment of Coast Highway), through this .key stretch of
roadway, and the City has already begun reserving right-of-way for this
improvement. To implement this widening, it is recommended that the City
pursue obtaining control of Coast Highway from the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), so that the widening may be constructed to City of
Newport Beach standards.
Grade separation for the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road •
is one improvement that was considered to maintain LOS °D" at this location.
During the Visioning Process, citizens indicated a desire to not incorporate
additional grade separated intersections in the roadway system. Acceptable
operations can be achieved with at -grade improvements (a 40' eastbound
through lane and a 3`d westbound left turn lane), and those Improvements are
recommended.
`J
28
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, December 05, 2005
Roger Alford
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
•
Nancy Gardner
Gordon Glass
Louise Greeley
Ledge Hale
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
William Lusk
•
Marie Marston
ROMM
1
•
•
•
Jim Navai
Catherine O'Hara
Char
Larry
John
Hall
Jan I
Tom
Ron'
Rayn
GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday December 5, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
�' 1�/�t%/�/ U ��i'l/a�L�y�
��
GV�.f. �`"`•'l
�L'I`^^✓I fi
��L���`%`/"""! w./..
t
P)LLPrty
[rf CrElLfttaD
DRl v6 ef,-
fc�/3�Z—=7<@ Lf}-S(f. V 7,
� l L L I%� ,��)Z/,f,/� �r
�
J
jj yy
C�M0. (^Ud�r �
7"�/22
heLY,d11 roJerecal-
z
GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday December 5, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
• GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE
Monday December 5, 2005
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
I
-I-
General Plan Advisory Committee
• Circulation Element (Draft)
December 05, 2005
Errata, Questions & commentaries
Philip Bettencourt, GPAC Member
•
Pg.1, P.2: " ....targeted/limited?" What does that mean? Incomplete -sentence
follows . There is a representation that document is consistent with
"...Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and the Local Coastal
Program." What about City Charter Section 423, the A-18 Measure S Guidelines,
Section 15.38 the Fair Share Traffic contribution Ordinance and S23ection 125.40
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? Are those consistencies, if any, important?
•
Pn.2 "...increased use of private vessels for transportation around the Bay."
Probably not a bad idea. Its been tried before but is there any demonstrated
market for such a service, or any documentation of the public benefits that would
accrue if such a service was available?
•
Pe.3. "...the City's long-standing practice of using the shoulder season for
transportation planning is continued...." Is there a more specific polity citation as
to the genesis for this statement? Council policy?
•
PLY3, P4. "...County of Orange for its Master Plan of Arterial Highways."
Actually, doesn't the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) rather that
•
the County of Orange maintain the MPAH? I'm not sure. How about including
the MPAH as an Appendix document in any event
•
PRA, 1D.3. Notice the 10,000 VPD gap between Collector and Secondary
definitions
•
Pg.S, PA. What is the genesis of the "Generalized definitions...?" ITE? Local
practice?
•
Pe.6,y.3. "Intersection improvements are planned..." What is the genesis for the
plan being referred to here? Also, "...in the computerized traffic model..."
What is the genesis of the model? Owned by the City, the consultant(s), OCTA?
•
Pg 7, P.1 "...3 tons ... 6,000 pounds..." Sentences seem contradictory and
grammatically inconsistent
•
Pe 7, P4. Does City ownership of Coast Highway now extend from Jamboree all
the way to Newport Coast Road?
•
Pe. 8, P.1 "The Settlement Agreement..." Should such an important regional
policy document have a bit more explaintation especially because of the
acknowledgement of growth impacts on traffic flows? Appendix maybe?
•
Pg. 8, p3. "OCTA" This is the first reference in this text to OCTA without any
explanation as to what OCTA is and what it does, and does not, do.
•
Pe. 8, P4. What is the significance of the reference to "bus route 178..." as
opposed to any other route?
•
P2. 8, "The existing trail system..." No reference to the genesis for the system
reference. Is there an adopted master plan? OCTA has such a plan. Is that the
•
reference here, or its it the Recreation Element of our plan? Our CE-3?
N B General Plan Advisory Committee 12-05-2005.doc
w
-2-
• P. 9, n3 &4. Duplicate sentence at the end of paragraphs 1 & 2. •
• P¢ 10, 5 "...more pedestrian walkways...." Should there be a consistency
reference to the Local Coastal Plan here?
• Pa.11, n.1 "Equestrian Trails" Any policy document reference here?
• PLY, 11, n. 2. Are there some `real world" examples already in place here to give
more credibility to the potential benefits? At paragraph 4 we read that, "TDM
methods are enhanced by incorporating employment near residential areas..."
Actually, don't the benefits flow both ways? By incorporating residential uses
near shopping and employment, we increase opportunities for TDM benefits
• Pe.12, n2. Should there be a more explicit reference to Measure M funding.
What about a more extended discussion of the improvements in place from the
CIOSA and the Newport Coast Assessment District?
• Pa.13, CE 1.1.2 Should there be a.reference to the LCP as well?
• Pe.14, CE 1.3.1. Policy is written as if "allowing" or "disallowing" are the only
choices. Other choices could be regulating vehicle size and/or hours of operations
• Pa.15, CE 2.1.1 Are these new policy choices for the Element or they embodies
in existing determinations by the City Council? Also, is it clear which
intersections are eligible to be included on this schedule? For instance,
collector/collectors are excluded, correct?
• Pa.15, CE 2.1.2 Do you mean Chapter 15.40, the "Traffic Phasing Ordnance"?
• Exhibit CE-1. Is there any staff narrative as to where this edition differs from the
current edition and with the official OCTA Master Plan — in the Newport Banning •
Ranch, for instance? Also, a Collector id is on the map legend, but there are no
Collectors listed, correct?
• Pe. 17, CE 2.1.6 Do we mean "riehts-of-way" in this context?
• Pe 17. "Nationally recognized improvement standards" Uncertain reference.
Don't we have our own standards through Measure M qualifications and local
pavement management program?
• Pe.17, CE 2.2.5 Should there be some sort of menu in the Appendix at least to
say what "traffic calming improvements" may be? There is a council policy on
the subject,.and the tern has different meaning to difference audiences
• Pa.19, CE 2.2.7 "Why would an alley design standard, as opposed to any other
road standard be in a General Plan Element?
• Pe.19. "Pursuing ownership of coast highway..." may have more public benefits
—and burdens — than simply enhance opportunities to improve to ultimate width
• Pe.19, CE 3.1.2 Should Laguna Beach and California Parks Department also be
added to this list?
• Pe. 20, CE 3.1.4 Seems like these references unlinked to a jurisdictional or
statutory context are pretty vague.
• Pe. 20, CE 3.1.5 Pronouncement is inconsistent with proposed policy Element
concerning the construction of proposed Bluff Road, for instance., but support for
19d' Street bridge is not in dispute.
• P. 21, CFE 4.1.4. Great idea and consistent with LUE recommendations! .
• P. 21, CE 5.1.1. "Does this map break any new ground?
N B General Plan Advisory Committee 12-05-2005.doe
J
-3-
• Pe. 21. CE 5.1.2. That's a tall order without reference to environmental factors,
.
terrain, properties owned by others, waterways and other limiting conditions
•
CE 5.1'.4 "What are the "adjacent communities" in this reference. "Require"
without context can be a tall order e
•
Pg 23, "...current national standards." That could be a challenge without
reference to some limiting conditions — and why aren't local standards adequate?
•
Pg. 23, CE 5.1.11 Another reference to "etc." Pretty vague stuff for a regulatory
document
•
Pg. 23, CE 5.1.14 Context for relation to LCP, please
•
Pg. 24, CE 5.1.15 "Maintain the existing trail system..." That may not be the
best policy for equestrians if other opportunities emerge. Any opportunity for
flexibility?
•
Pg. 25, CE 6.2.2 Pretty tall order without context or limiting conditions. Is a
new duplex a "new development" under this standard? Would a new residential
development be required to provide bicycle lockers?
•
CE 7.1.9 "...avoid use of parking configurations..." Sounds like a trip wire for
tandem parking. Shouldn't the various zoning codes and design manuals be the
regulatory documents?
•
Pg. 26, CE 7.1.12 Actually, improved circulation can also be a benefit of closing
curb cuts
•
Pg. 27.7.2. Should there be other public parking facility objectives for other
neighbors in this section? There is not a comprehensive overview of the public
•
parking inventory that I could find.. If not here, then where? Public facilities
element?
is
• Pa. 27. CE 8.1.1.( I personally support an extension of the Measure M
authorization)
• Pg. 28 Is this also the place to mention policies on in -lieu parking fees?
• Pg. 29. CE 8.1.10. Hugh mandate without context to existing regulations and
property owner rights for "rough proportionality" in improvement mandates..
What about environmental factors?
N B General Plan Advisory Committee 12-05-2005.doc
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday,
December 5, 2005, at the OASIS Senior Center.
Members Present:
Ronald Baers
Patrick Bartolic
Carol Boice
Elizabeth Bonn
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Lila Crespin
Grace Dove
Nancy Gardner
Members Absent:
Roger Alford
Phillip Bettencourt
Laura Dietz
Staff Present:
Gordon Glass
Louise Greeley
Mike Ishikawa
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Bill Kelly
Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
Philip Lugar
Ledge Hale
Bob Hendrickson
Tom Hyans (sick leave)
Marie Marston
Jim Naval
Larry Root
John Saunders
Hall Seely
Jan Vandersloot
Tom Webber
Ron Yeo
Raymond Zartler
William Lusk
Catherine O'Hara (sick leave)
Charles Remley
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Rich Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
Members of the Public Present:
Allan Beek
Iryne Black
Dan Daniels
E
Mike Erickson
Darlene Lasher
Bill Magruder
Helen Magruder
Carol McDermott
I. Call to Order
• Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order.
II. Reconsideration of Mixed -Use in Mariner's Mile
Mr. Tescher reviewed the land use map provided and previous action taken by
the Committee. He advised that the Planning Commission had restored the
opportunity for housing in the area. The City Council had not made a decision
and asked GPAC to take another look at the area with the additional information
provided about how the development would look.
Louise Greely asked about the traffic statistics for the area. Mr. Carleton
indicated residential would reduce the traffic generation if it was replacing other
types of uses.
Mr. Lugar asked if there was a motion to reconsider housing along the
waterfront. John Corrough made the motion for reconsideration. Mr. Lugar
called for a vote, 9 in favor & 11 opposed. Ms. Wood stated that this was not
just the typical motion, it was a request of the City Council. Ms. Temple added
that the part of the reason Council asked for it was there wasn't a lot of
information as to why you made your recommendation.
Tom Webber felt this issue had already been reconsidered.
• Patrick Bartolic pointed out that the area seems to be barely surviving and he felt
mixed use might invigorate the area.
Mr. Corrough asked how the lot size of 200 feet was determined. Mr. Tescher
indicated the idea was to create cohesive residential places and the 50 foot lot
size would not work for the area. Ms. Wood indicated the other requirement was
residential would be limited to 50% of the square footage allowed so the idea
was to have the size be large enough to create real mixed use. Mr. Corrough
asked if the walkway would be considered and the easement subtracted from the
parcel size. He was concerned about the harbor uses along this area. Ms. Wood
advised that the decision about residential could include considerations for the
harbor facilities.
Carol Boice asked about parking, if it was underground parking would that be
considered 3 stories or 2. Ms. Wood indicated the height limit would be 26'
above ground.
Ron Yeo pointed out that the majority of the Committee didn't vote on
reconsideration and suggested answering the Council's question of what the
reasons were for voting against residential.
Jan Vandersloot thought that GPAC had reconsidered this twice and now again
we're being asked to reconsider; he wanted to know if we would be asked to
• reconsider until we agreed with them. Ms. Wood pointed out that Council
wanted the Committee to see the map that shows the parcels that would be
eligible to help with further discussions. Mr. Vandersloot asked the Committee to
• stand firm on the original decision made.
Jim Naval asked if there was a height difference between commercial and marine
related uses in terms of the view corridor. Mr. Tescher indicated the policy for
views would apply to any use. Ron Baers asked if each parcel was required to
provide a view corridor. Ms. Wood indicated the policy was not that specific,
however its safe to assume we're going to require at least one view corridor on
the 200' parcels.
Grace Dove felt residential is incompatible in this stretch with the visitor serving
commercial and restaurants that already create complaints from Lido Isle
residents.
Gordon Glass asked if the Council could override the height limits if each parcel
was considered separately. Ms. Wood responded that the height limit applies to
the entire corridor on the bayside.
Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public.
Carol McDermott, represented property owners in Mariner's Mile, presented
pictures of successful mixed use projects to show the vitality residential could
bring to the area. She felt the policies would address concerns the Committee
.had regarding not wanting another BBC type development. She reminded
. everyone that residential would reduce traffic trips in the area and added that
the people who want to live in this type development want to be in a more urban
environment which is different than the people who live in single-family units.
She also provided suggested language changes.
Dan Daniels, Ardell Investment Company, stated he has 700' parcel n the area
and he gests calls daily about residential uses for the property. He added that
he doesn't think the marina will be affected if residential is allowed. He feels
that without residential development, the bayfront walkway may not happen. He
respectfully requested the Committee consider the 50% request for mixed use.
Darlene Lasher, property owner at 2001 Coast Highway, her family has owned
the small parcel for 50 years. She thought allowing housing/mixed use could be
spectacular.
Dolores Offing, Newport Beach, indicated if the Committee allowed mixed use it
should be allowed for every parcel owner, not just a select few that are allowed
to add value to their property.
Mr. Vandersloot made a motion that GPAC endorse its previous position. He
added that if mixed use was allowed there would be massive development like
the BBC and without a definition of what a significant view corridor is the views
will be lost.
• Mr. Yeo asked for an amendment to the motion to direct staff to convey our
concerns to the Planning Commission and the Council.
John Saunders agreed that maintaining the view corridors was the important
• issue whether or not residential was allowed. He added because the policies are
for 25 years, he was in favor of more flexibility and asked for a substitute
motion.
Mr. Vandersloot did not accept the substitute motion, stating he felt if residential
was approved they would do it right now and there would be massive
development in the area.
Mr. Corrough agreed with Mr. Saunders, he indicated he had seen good
development projects in other cities that could work in this area.
Mr. Saunders asked that the Committee be open to hear proposals including
residential as long as it addresses our concerns about view corridors. Mr.
Tescher indicated staff could come back with strategies and strengthened
policies for mixed use projects.
Gus Chabre made a motion to request further information on how to structure
the view corridors to allow mixed use in this area.
Mike Johnson felt that many of the smaller parcels in the area could be united to
create larger parcels and the polices might encourage consolidation.
Mr. Vandersloot asked that traffic data be added to the information staff will
bring back.
• Ms. Kuehn indicated revitalization of this area has been discussed for 30 years
and nothing has worked so far.
Mr. Lugar asked for a vote on continuing this item and asking staff to bring back
more information regarding mixed use and protection of view corridors.
MOTION PASSED
III. Policy Review: Circulation Element and Executive Summary of
General Plan Traffic Study
Mr. Yeo asked for clarification on the existing data, is it existing today or the
existing general plan build out? Mr. Waters indicated it was existing on the
ground. Ms. Wood indicated the GPAC recommendation will be one of the
alternatives in the EIR. Mr. Water stated the existing numbers referred to what
is out there now, the without project is the growth potential in the current
General Plan; and the with project is the alternative the City Council identified for
EIR purposes.
Carol Boice asked if the without project numbers considered Banning Ranch with
no development. Mr. Waters responded that the current General Plan allows
development and that is the 22,000 figure. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the open
space option for Banning Ranch was considered. Mr. Tescher indicated that for
• EIR purposes you have to use the worse case scenario.
Mr. Vandersloot asked if identified improvements were made would the deficient
• intersections be eliminated. Mr. Waters responded that if no development was
allowed in the City and surrounding communities some of the intersections could
be improved. Regional traffic affects our intersections also so without any
growth in Newport Beach there would still be deficiencies.
Mr. Yeo asked if adding a policy to provide a toll free entrance to the Foothill
Corridor at Newport Coast would eliminate some of the traffic on Coast Highway.
Mr. Waters indicated it would make Newport Coast a more attractive alternative.
John Saunders thought it would be a good idea for someone to contact the toll
road people regarding this idea. Mr. Yeo suggested waiting until the research
was complete before adding the policy.
Mr. Vandersloot asked if the traffic figures assumed the 19th Street bridge was
going to be built and what would happen if it was taken out of the plan. Mr.
Waters explained that the figures were based on the constrained roadway
alternative system, he added that at least one more through lane in each
direction would be needed on Coast Highway through the Newport Shores area
to achieve an acceptable LOS. He pointed out that the Circulation Element
contains strongly worded policy saying we should be championing regional
infrastructure improvements including the 19th Street bridge. Mr. Vandersloot
thought the other alternative was to reduce the General Plan so the bridge
wouldn't be needed. Mr. Waters explained that regional traffic would still cause
• excessive traffic on Coast Highway.
Ms. Wood told the Committee that Philip Bettencourt had submitted changes to
staff and those changes will be presented as we review the policies.
Mr. Corrough asked about the term marine terminal, he thought it needed to be
defined.
Ms. Dove asked about eliminating vibrations caused by large trucks in 1.3.2. Mr.
Waters suggested changing eliminating to accommodate truck travel and
minimize noise and vibration.
Ms. Wood pointed out 2.1.1 where exceptions are made to the goal of LOS D in
areas, such as the airport area, that carry a lot of regional traffic. Mr.
Vandersloot made a motion to stick with existing policy with LOS D the goal
throughout the City. Mr. Bartolic disagreed and pointed out that the roadways
are not going to be widened enough to accommodate the flow of traffic in
Corona del Mar because it would destroy the character of the area. The motion
dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Yeo made a motion to change the intersection at Campus and Bristol back to
LOS D. MOTION PASSED
Mr. Bartolic made a motion to aggressively consider improvements that would
• calm neighborhood traffic. The motion dies for lack of a second.
Ms. Dove made a motion to add language to 2.3.3 to include human resources to
• facilitate movement during times of extraordinary traffic. Rich Edmonston
pointed out that traffic signals can move the traffic more efficiently than police
officers because drivers are looking at the officers instead of the light. The
motion dies for lack of second.
Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to eliminate the language about that the City be
a strong advocate for construction of the 19th Street bridge and substitute
language analyzing alternative mitigation measures to accomplish the same goal.
Ms. Gardner made a substitute motion of combining, at the same time, advocate
the implementation but also continue to explore alternative measures. Mr. Yeo
asked to change the substitute motion and reverse the wording. Ms. Gardner
agreed. MOTION PASSED
Mr. Waters offered additional language at the end of 4.1.1 to possibly include
year round local shuttle services. The Committee agreed.
Mr. Glass made a motion to include language in 4.1.7, monitoring demands for
additional public and school district transportation available to sure the needs of
students and advocate improvements to those systems as required. MOTION
PASSED
Mr. Johnson had concerns about bicycle safety through Mariner's Mile and the
language in 5.1,17. Ms. Gardner made a motion to eliminate the parentheses
• and add where applicable. Ms. Wood suggested changing applicable to feasible.
The Committee agreed.
Mr. Baers suggested adding trails to the list of items in 5.1.3.
Mr. Chabre asked why water transportation did not have its own section. Ms.
Wood indicated she had eliminated the section because there were only the two
policies. Mr. Chabre made a motion to direct staff to give water transportation
its own section. MOTION PASSED
Ms. Gardner pointed out that 6.1.2 was written as a negative and asked that it
be turned around into a positive.
Mr. Corrough asked to add water taxi docks to 6.2.2. Ms. Wood suggested water
transportation docks.
Mr. Kelly made a motion to eliminate the in lieu parking fee. The motion dies for
lack of second.
Mr. Yeo suggested adding language at the end of 7.1.4 to encourage continued
use of existing parking on residential zoned lots as well as establishing parking
districts. The committee agreed.
Mr. Corrough suggested changing the language in 7.1.11 to provide adequate
parking as necessary in the vicinity of visitor serving marine uses, including
• marinas, water transportation terminals, boat ramps, as well as parking suitable
for service vehicles in commercial marinas and berthing areas.
Ron Baers asked to eliminate the language in 7.1.5 referring to the Balboa
• Peninsula which would leave the policy to read, consider conversion of residential
and commercial lots within West Newport for parking for beaches.
IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
Next meeting Saturday, January 28t' at 9:00 a.m. at the Central Library.
V. Public Comments
No comments offered.
0