Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIRCULATION ELEMENT JAN 1974 IIII�II IIII III IIIII II�III IIIII IIII� IIII III IIII *NEW FILE* CIRCULATION ELEMENT JAN. 1974 1 ARCHAIC ELEMENTS - GENERAL PLAN 000 0 o - 1 II 1 1 1 1 r 1 U\I 1 l 1 CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1 NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1 1 Circulation Element ' of the ' Newport Beach General Plan Adopted and Recommended for Approval by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1974 ' Adopted by the City Council on March 11, 1974 Amended by. General Plan Amendment No. 4,Resolution No. 8314; adopted by the City Council on July 22, 1974. General Plan Amendment No. 5,Resolution No. 8315; adopted by the City Council on July 22, 1974. 1 General Plan Amendment No. 9,Resolution No. 8398; ' adopted by the City Council on December 9, 1974. General Plan Amendment No. 23 (portion),Resolution No. 8448; ' adopted by the City Council on March 10, 1975. General Plan Amendment No. 23 (portion),Resolution No. 8458; adopted by the City Council on March 24, 1975. [the text includes amendments through GPA 86-2(A)l r ' I RESOLUTION NO . 8206 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY , OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION f ELEMENT OF THE NEWP.ORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN jWHEREAS , a phase of the City ' s General Plan Program has involved the preparation of a Circulation Element; and , WHEREAS , said Circulation Element sets forth objectives and supporting policies which will serve as a A, guide for the future planning and development of the City; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of it Newport Beach , pursuant -to Section 707 of the Newport Beach City Charter, has held a public hearing to consider the , adoption of the Circulation Element as a part of the City' s General Plan and has adopted and has recommended that the ' City Council adopt sai.d element; and WHEREAS , the City Council has conducted a public hearing • to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element as a part of the City ' s General Plan . NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby adopt the Circulation' Element described above , a copy of which is on file in the ' office of the City Clerk. ' ` ADOPTED this llth day of March 1974. ATTEST: Mayor CERTIFIF x CF w AS A TRUE A0ND RRECT COPY ' C QGEE Wy OF N_W T BEACH City Clerk DATE i pit 4 ti -1•9-•7•4 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction-----------------------------------------------------Page 1 Purpose and Scope------------------------------------------------Page 2 Circulation Element - Proposals----------------------------------Page 3 Basic Concept--------------------------------------------------Page 3 Master Plan of ,Streets and Highways----------------------------Page 3 Specific Proposals-----------------------------------------------Page 4 Corona del Mar Freeway - Bonita/Coyote Canyon Alignment------------------------------------------------------Page 4 Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard-----------------------------------------------Page 4 Interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway-------------Page 5 Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Blvd-----------------Page 5 Coast Highway from Upper Bay Bridge to Dover Drive-------------Page 5 Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and the Upper Bay Bridge----------------------------------------------Page 5 Coast Highway from MacArthur to Jamboree Road------------------Page 5 Coast Highway from MacArthur thru Corona del Mar---------------Page 5 Superior Avenue------------------------------------------------Page 6 15th Street from Superior Avenue Westerly----------------------Page 6 Dover Drive from Westcliff to Coast Highway--------------------Page 6 Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Corona del Mar Freeway -----------------Page 6 MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road-----------------------------------------Page 6 MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to State Route 73-----------------------------------------Page 7 San Joaquin Hills Road from "Old" MacArthur to Spy Glass Hills Road-------------------------------------------Page 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Blvd--------------Page 8 University Drive from Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway--------------------------------------Page 8 Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road--------------------------------------Page 8 San Miguel from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road------------------------------------------------Page 8 Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street---------Page 8 ,. Balboa Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street------------Page 8 Irvine Coast Area --------------------------------------------Page 8 Implementation------------------------------------------------Page 11 Project Priorities------------------------------------------Page 11 Financing Resources-----------------------------------------Page 12 Financially Attainable Program------------------------------Page 12 Land Use Regulations----------------------------------------Page 16 Advanced Right-of-Way Purchase------------------------------Page 16 Access Control----------------------------------------------Page 17 Master Plan of Streets and Highways---------------------------Page 18 Bikeways------------------------------------------------------Page 22 Amendments----------------------------------------------------Page 27 '. INTRODUCTION The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan is based upon the Newport Beach Traffic Study prepared by the Consultant Firm of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Alan M. Voorhees & Associates was authorized to begin work on a three- phased study for the development of a transportation plan for the City of Newport Beach in October, 1971. Assisting in this study were Behavior Science Corporation of Los Angeles, and Toups Engineering, ' Inc. , of Santa Ana. Phase I defined the magnitude and location of present and future problems. Phase II investigated alternative transportation plans which could provide for future travel demands, receive public acceptance, and create minimal environmental dis- turbance. The Phase III Report covers the final stages of the study and recommends an implementation program of specific improvement projects. Alternative plans were evaluated, and a final plan was recommended by the Consultant. The Consultant's report is the basic source document for the Circulation Element and should be referred to for the various alternatives that were considered in developing this report. 3 A Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee was authorized by the City Council in October, 1970 for the purpose of meeting with the Consultant throughout each phase of the study to provide citizen input. The Committee held approximately 38 evening meetings during the three study phases, many of these meetings lasted four hours or more. Throughout the study, the Citizens Advisory Committee strongly pre- sented the citizens' point of view in their considerations and deliber- ations, while the Consultant attempted to present the best realistic technical solutions to the City's transportation problems. The final recommendations contained within the Phase III report represent the best technical solutions that the Consultant felt would receive the necessary public support for implementation. - 1 - � 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE It is intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans contain a "circulation element." Section 65302 of the Government Code states in part, that local General Plans shall include: "A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, trans- portation routes, terminals and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." In addition, the State of California Council on Intergovernmental Relations has adopted the following guidelines for the scope and nature of the Circulation Element: "A. Identification and analysis of circulation needs and issues. B. A statement of goals, objectives and policies based on the total circulation needs of the community, including priorities among modes and routes and distinguishing among short, middle and long-term periods of implementa- tion. C. A diagram, map or other graphic representation showing the proposed circulation system. D. A description of the proposed circulation systems and III the interrelationships among system parts. E. Standards and criteria for the location, design, operation and levels of service of circulation facili- ties. F. A guide to the implementation of the circulation system." _ 2 _ ' C I R C U L P R O P O S A L S A T I O N E L E M E N T Basic Concept The area's cultural activities, financial activities, commercial activities, industrial activities, civic activities, and recreational activities, all place their demands upon a transportation system which should bring people to activity centers, allow them to circulate among activities and carry them back to their point of origin. In that regard, it would appear to be clear that as much as an urban area requires transportation facilities which provide easy access and circulation for persons within, it is just as important that people and vehicles without interest, origin, or destination in the area be kept out. The key to the solution of the traffic problems in Newport Beach is the development of a major bypass route around the City, so that through traffic does not use the Coast Highway traffic corridor. This proposal is consistent with the policies contained within the General Plan Policy Report adopted by the City Council on March 21, 1972. A corollary policy to the development of a major bypass route is development of a series of major arterials in a north-south direction for people and vehicles witli a specific destination within Newport Beach. Master Plan of Streets and Highways ' Attached is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulation Element - Master Plan of Highways (page 28) ." It is intended that the Master Plan of Highways satisfy the State requirement that the Circulation Element contain a diagram or map. The major proposals described within the Element are illustrated on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The road classifications are the same as used by Orange County for the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. These can be summarized as follows: Approx. Road R. of W. Width Curb # of Median Capacity Classi£. - Feet - Curb.Ft. Lanes Width.Ft. ADT* Freeway Variable Variable 4 Variable 55,000 Variable Variable 6 Variable 100,000 Variable Variable 8 Variable 135,000 Maj or Modified Variable Variable 8 Variable 55,000 Major 120 102 6 14-18 40,000 Primary 100 84 4 16-20 25,000 6 0-4 35,000 Secondary 80 64 4 0 14,000 *(ADT) Average Daily Traffic - 3 - Couplets Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for each leg Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financing Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To participate in this program, each city has to have a Master Plan of Highways which is mutually satisfactory and in confor- mance with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The proposed relocation of Pacific Coast Highway and the Corona del Mar Freeway, and the extension of 17th Street have potential effects on cities adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, and, therefore, have been classified as routes that require further coordination. However, it is intended that the alignments shown on the Master Plan of Highways for each of these routes represent the policy of the City of Newport Beach. Although the Newport Beach Circulation Element is limited to the boundaries of the City, coordination efforts with adjacent and sur- rounding jurisdictions must at some point be accomplished. The absence of coordination in the study was not an oversight. The City desired to proceed with no constraints in the development of a plan, recognizing that differences in the presently-adopted Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways would have to be resolved. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS 1. Corona del Mar Freeway - Bonita/Coyote Canyon Alignment. This project provides for the construction and continuation of the Corona del Mar Freeway downcoast through Bonita/Coyote Canyon. The present State-adopted route is the same alignment as "old" MacArthur Boulevard and, therefore, this proposal is shown on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as -a route that requires further coordination. The importance of constructing the •Corona del Mar Freeway on the Bonita/Coyote Canyon alignment and contiuu- ing downcoast cannot be over stressed. This particular alignment provides an attractive alternate route which will divert an es- timated 15,000 vehicles per day away from the Coast Highway corridor. 2. Coast Highway Between the Santa Ana River and Newport Boulevard. The future 24-foot minimum widening of Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and 59th Street will be on the southerly side; and from 59th Street to Newport Boulevard, the widening will be on the northerly side. Additional widening beyond the 24-foot minimum will be required at intersections to provide for turning lanes. - 4 - 1 3. Interchange at Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. This project provides for the construction of a new interchange on Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard. No specific geometries are sug- gested other than a single structure for the interchange. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be included in this project. 4. Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. It is proposed that this segment of Coast Highway be widened to a major road (six travel lanes and a center median) with a right-of-way width of 112 feet. The additional 12 feet of width will be added to the northerly side of Coast Highway. 5. Coast Highway from Upper Bay Bridge to Dover Drive. This project includes the construction of a bridge on Coast Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge which is not only deficient in 1 capacity, but is becoming structurally deficient. A bridge of relatively low profile would permit most trailerable vessels to pass under. Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to provide two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover Drive. The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six lanes of which would provide for relatively free flow of traffic, the additional width being for the other facilities. No traffic deficiency is projec- ted with this design. These improvements would eliminate what is considered to be the most heavily-congested section in the City of Newport Beach. 6. Coast Highway Between Jamboree Road and the Upper Bay Bridge. 1 This improvement provides for widening Coast Highway to six lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge replacement. This segment of Coast Highway will have signalized intersections at Jamboree Road, Promontory Point and Bayside Drive. Future ' capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur at these intersec- tions. It is important that this project be implemented in conjunction with the improvements to the new Upper Bay Bridge. 7. Coast Highway from MacArthur to Jamboree Road. This project is the widening of Coast Highway to six lanes from MacArthur Boule- vard to Jamboree Road. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities will be included in this project. In addition, a one-way couplet on MacArthur and Avocado between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road is to be given further study. 8. Coast Highway from MacArthur through Corona del Mar. This segment of Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard through Corona del Mar includes proposals for additional street improvements, improved signalization and additional off-street parking. The Fifth Avenue corridor was considered and rejected as an alternative because of lack of community support and other considerations. In addition, it will be the policy of the City of Newport Beach to develop additional off-street commercial parking. Traffic deficiencies on 5 - this section will be substantially reduced with the construction M of the major road network to the north and east, particularly the Corona del Mar Freeway and San Joaquin Hills Road, and connecting north-south roads such as Canyon Crest Drive. 9. Superior Avenue. This project is essentially widening Superior Avenue on the existing alignment to four lanes divided. A short new section would be constructed on the southerly end to connect as a tee intersection with Coast Highway. With Coast Highway relocated northerly of its present alignment, the increased elevation of Coast Highway would enable good alignment and grade to be maintained on Superior Avenue. No traffic capacity defi- ciencies are projected. , 10. 15th Street from Superior Avenue Westerly. This is a partially new road which is on the present Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four lanes undivided to a point just westerly of Monrovia Avenue, and continuing on with new construction at four lanes divided, crossing and intersecting with the proposed relocated Coast Highway, then turning southerly and connecting as a tee intersec- tion with existing Coast Highway. This roadway provides a good alternate for the south part of Superior Avenue. 11. Dover Drive from Westcliff to Coast -Highway. This project provides for the widening of Dover Drive from Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway. This project on the existing alignment will improve this section to full major roadway status and complement the improvements being made at Dover Drive and Coast Highway. 12. Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Corona del Mar Freeway. This project is the widening of Jamboree Road to six lanes from Coast Highway to the Corona del Mar Freeway. All the right-of-way for widening this route is available. Although Jamboree Road is a very important route now, its importance will increase as Upper Bay develops. No capacity deficiency is projected for Jamboree Road, providing traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree splits evenly. Coast i wa to San Joaquin Hills Road. 13. MacArthur Boulevard from t H gb q q The following shall pertain to MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road: A. MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Miguel , Drive shall be improved to lower the grade up to 13 feet, and align the road approximately 50 feet west of the existing center line; install necessary sound walls to mitigate noise, and submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the city Council. B. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards 6 - r I the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, as a minimum, shall be met: 1) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial con- figuration (4 lanes, divided) , from Coast Highway to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard. 1 2) An average weekday volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.00 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, it is the position of the City Council that a primary purpose in considering this General Plan Amendment is the reduction of diver- sion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is anticipated that if the average weekday volume-to-capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.00, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth Avenue would occur. 3) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial configuration (4 lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. i D. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commis- sion and the City Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 1 E. That funding for this project shall consider the City's Fair Share Fee program, and/or other possible available sources. 14. MacArthur Boulevard from San Joaquin Hills Road to State Route 73. From San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road, ,MacArthur Boulevard will be a Major Road (6 lanes, divided) ; from Ford Road to State Route 73, MacArthur Boulevard will be 8 lanes, divided. 15. San Joaquin Hills Road from "Old" MacArthur to Spy Glass Hills Road. This project is the widening of San Joaquin Hills Road from State Route 73 to Spy Glass Hills Road to a full six-lane major highway. All the necessary right-of-way is available. Further ' extension to the east will depend on how and when the area develops. 16. Bison Avenue Between Jamboree and MacArthur. This is a short section of Bison Avenue being developed as a primary road connec- tor between two major roads, Jamboree and MacArthur. This route - 7 I will provide an important circulation element in the system when the Corona del Mar Freeway is constructed. 17. Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This project involves the upgrading of Ford Road to primary status between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is important enough to be a top-priority project. 18. University Drive from Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway. This project is the construction of University Drive from Tustin Avenue to the Corona del Mar Freeway to link with the section of University Drive east of State Route 73 in the City of Irvine. A bridge must be constructed across the flood control channel. This new roadway is very important in the system since it will provide the major road link around the end of Upper Bay. Because of its importance, some capacity deficiency could develop, particularly if construction on the Corona del Mar Freeway is substantially delayed. 19. Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. Avocado Avenue between Coast Highway and San Miguel, will be developed as a secondary road. From San Miguel to San Joaquin Hills Road, it will be developed as a local street. 20. San Miguel from San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road. This is a continuation of San Miguel from San Joaquin to Ford Road. 21. Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street. This is a widening project on Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to 30th Street. A complete six-lane divided roadway would be provided , with a new bridge across the channel which would replace the existing bridge. It is expected that some capacity deficiency can still be expected. However, the improvements will significantly help the traffic flow. 22. Balboa Boulevard from 33rd Street to 44th Street. This project is the widening of Balboa Boulevard to primary status from 33rd Street to 44th Street. Traffic circulation will be substantially improved and no capacity deficiency is projected. Any future widening must be accomplished without a net reduction in existing City park facilities in the general area. 23. Irvine Coast Area. Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal Area include Pacific Coast Highway, Sand Canyon Avenue, Pelican Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road. Specific proposal for these arterial highways are as follows: A. Pacific Coast Highway: Pacific Coast Highway is a major (six lane, divided) roadway providing primary access to the Irvine Coastal Area. 8 _ ' B. San Canyon Avenue: Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a Primary Road, (two lane divided) . This road is proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways and one travel lane in each direction with an extra uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. C. Pelican Hill Road: Pelican Hill 'Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane, divided) . ' This road is proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways, and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra uphill lane will be provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. D. San Joaquin Hills Road: San Joaquin Hills Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane, divided) connecting the existing terminus of the road in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon Avenue. The following policies apply to the circulation system in the Irvine Coast Area: 1. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract ' maps or other implementing regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which- shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast Area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Relative to implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, and the State of California shall participate in providing the right-of-way and grading for the full arterial highway [four (4) lanes, divided] , and the construction of two (2) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and median improvements, while the State of California shall be responsible for construction of the additional two (2) lanes in consideration of their need for Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access. Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine Company, or its successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way and grading for the full major arterial highway [six (6) lanes, divided] , and the construction of four (4) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, and median improvements and, if the annual Development Monitoring Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to adequately serve residential, tourist recreation/commercial and/or recreational transportation needs, no additional development of any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and City agree on provisions for timely construction of the additional two (2) lanes. - 9 2. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a , program shall be established by the developer, subject to the approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improvements and dedication of right-of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor. 3. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an adequate inland circulation system, which system shall include at least one new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to serve the plan area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet the approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall include a phasing program for the developer construction of such new inland access road. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the one hundred and , first (101st) single family residence or the issuance of the building permit for the three hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly related support facilities not to, exceed 26,000 square feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the _ developer shall construct and complete a new inland road connec- tion to serve the area other than Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, all in accordance with the approved Inland Circulation System Program. i I� � II - 10 - IMPLEMENTATION Final locations of new routes require detailed study of real property, soil conditions, utilities, and intimate correlation with land use plans. Routes shown in this report which are not on existing align- ments show general rather than exact locations. Final locations will be worked out only when it is feasible to acquire property or to begin construction. In short, the plan describes a full system or network as the base from which to work towards more detailed and exact locations. 1 In determining specific routes, it is of prime importance to remember that no matter how well a program is developed, little will be ac- complished if public acceptance and support is not received. It is not 1 usually very difficult to determine those improvements which will solve pure traffic problems and provide a good level of service. Often, however, the purely technical solution does not receive public support, and in some instances, it may not be possible to truly assess what may be acceptable at the time of implementation. The immediate or shorter range projects very often receive the most attention. Project Priorities Of immediate importance in implementing this plan are the questions of what to build first and what to build next. While there may be some agreement for the need of a large and accelerated program, much of the construction is far in the future and may seem relatively unimportant in contrast to the real problem of what to build first or next. The i problem of priorities is very important in directing the engineering and construction program towards efficient plan implementation. A variety of factors should be considered in assigning construction priorities. Available and committed financing is always a key factor. Availability of engineering studies, land use development programs, traffic needs, and system continuity must all be considered. In view of traffic needs, public interest, and investigative work already done, projects of most immediate need were not too difficult to classify. The further one tries to look into the future, the more difficult it becomes to assign meaningful priorities. Projects were classified into categories A, B, C, and D and are arranged in that way in Table 4. Classification A is the highest priority or most immediate concern, while classification D represents those projects not likely necessary for many years. No attempt has been made to further refine the priorities since actual order of construction will be affected by several factors such as available funds, timing of land development, coordination between projects, and ability of other entities such as the State to provide improvements. Therefore, while those projects classified A may be the most important, it may not be possible or practical to attain all of them ahead of some projects in classifica- tion B. - 11 - li Financing Resources The final question in evaluating the proposed transportation plan is financing - Can the capital investment required to obtain the economic and level of service improvements be afforded? There are no analytical techniques which can answer this question. It is a matter of policy which depends on how the community wishes to allocate total resources among many public services. The approach taken here is one of review- ing present and probable future allocations and determining whether this will result in sufficient funds to support the implementation program. The City derives its revenues for street right-of-way purchase, design , and construction from gas tax apportionment, County funds and Federal funds. The total of these revenues will average approximately $10.30 per capita in 1974 and will provide approximately $620,000. In 1990, , with population estimated at 100,000, the annual revenue will be $1,030,000 based on these same apportionments. The estimated annual available revenues from 1974 to 1990 for rights-of-way, design and construction are shown on Table 1. For the 17-year period from 1974 to 1990, the average annual revenue -is about $770,000. Financially Attainable Program It would be quite coincidental if the available revenue for street construction matched the needs. Historically there have seldom been areas where the needed program could be attained when desired. Sufficient funding is usally not available and the program lags. The main alternatives in such cases are to reduce the size of the program, obtain additional revenues, or a combination of these two things. If the decision is to continue road construction at the present level of funding, then priorities become even more important, and the program must stretch out beyond the usually accepted 20-year planning span. It is a possibility, of course, that not all of the projects proposed herein will be needed in 20 years. j _ 12 ' TABLE 1 ESTIMATED CITY REVENUES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION Estimated City Gas Tax Revenue by Year, $1,000's* 1974 $ 620 1975 640 1976 670 1977 700 1978 720 1979 750 1980 770 1981 800 1982 830 1983 850 1984 880 1 1985 900 1986 930 1987 950 1988 980 ' 1989 1,000 1 1990 1,030 Total: $13,120 Average for 17 years — $770,000 *Based on population increasing from 60,000 to 100,000 and present level of funding which includes: rCity Gas Tax Funds $ 5.00 per capita County A.H.F.P. Funds 3.00 per capita County Bridge Funds 0.30 per capita F.A.U. Funds 2,00 per capita Total: $ 10.30 1 - 13 - TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Division of Costs, $1,000's Priority Classification Newport Beachl State Other Entities Totals A $ 4,380 $ 7,990 $ 2,510 $ 15,330 B 6,460 15,430 3,130 25,020 C 4,140 1,340 1,840 7,320 D 1,720 1 Totals $ 17,150 $ 24,760 $ 7,730 $ 49,640 r F 1 1 Assumes 20% City participation in two State projects on Coast Highway: Dover Drive interchange, and Newport Boulevard to Santa Ana River. TABLE 3 A_STIM&T D AVERAGE ANNUL EXPENDITURES NEEDED, $1,000's Length of Program, Years Newport Beach State Other Entities Totals 20 $ 857.5 $ 1,238. $ 386.5 $ 2,482. 25 686. 990.4 309.2 1,985.6 30 571.7 825.3 257.7 1,654.6 14 - Table 2 is a summary of estimated costs by priority classification and anticipated funding responsibility. Since it is not known to what extent the City may participate in projects involving State highways, an estimate of 20% of costs to the City was made for those projects where there may likely be City participation. Table 2 shows that the total costs for priority classifications A through D are $17,150,000 for Newport Beach, $24,760,000 for the State and $7,730,000 for other entities such as the County, other cities and private developers, for a total of $49,640,000. From Table 1 we have seen that the estimated average annual City revenue available for rights-of-way, design and construction is about $770,000 based on a 17-year projection. This is far short of being able to finance a 20-year implementation plan. Table 3 shows an average annual expenditure of $857,500 is necessary for a 20-year plan and a 30-year program will require $571,700. City revenues available for rights-of-way design and construction are based on per capita, with anticipated population being 100,000 by 1990. Other sources of revenue could be considered to increase annual revenues available for roads. . However, there is a current trend towards diverting funds to other uses previously designated for road purposes. Rather than assume additional funds may be available for road purposes, it was assumed funding will remain constant on a per capita basis. This is certainly not an optimistic approach, but may 1 prove to be the most realistic. Further, the present methods of funding are . not geared to keep pace with inflationary construction costs and without some changes in these methods, the program could be substantially underfunded. ' With an anticipated shortage of road funds, a way of approaching this matter is to consider only those projects which are in priority classification "A", and treat them as immediate and short range, say a total construction period of five years. The City portion of these projects is $4,830,000. Table I shows the estimated available revenues for the first five years (1974-1978) is $3,350,000, which means there is a City shortage of $1,480,000 for the first five-year increment. Assuming no additional funds are available, the question to be answered is: "What can be eliminated from the five-year program to reduce expenditures by $1,480,000?" A review of Priority A projects in Table 4 shows this is a most difficult question to answer. It was stated in Table 2 that 20% of Coast Highway-Dover Drive-Upper Bay Bridge costs were assigned to the City, which amounts to $1,300,000. If that amount was eliminated as City participation, or at least substantially reduced, the "A" projects would more closely fit into a five-year plan. 1 So far nothing has been said about the ability of the State or other entities to finance the construction program. Other entities include other cities and private development, and the total costs are substan- tially less. Costs to private development usually come in right-of-way dedication and street construction adjacent to property being develop- ed, which means the improvements precede or closely follow the needs. ' - 15 - Other cities finance road improvements in much the same way as Newport , Beach. An example of an "Other Cities" project is the construction of Del Mar Avenue from Newport Freeway to Tustin Avenue with an estimated cost of $2,330,000. This project is in the City of Costa Mesa.Table 2 shows the estimated State costs for Priority A projects total $12,510,000. If we again assume a five-year program, this amounts to an average annual expenditure of $502,000. Whether the State can budget these amounts will depend on statewide funding levels and priorities. The replacement of the existing Upper Bay Bridge on Coast Highway and improvements at Coast Highway and Dover Drive should be of such importance to rank in the State's top priority projects. _ In summary, assuming the entire road system will or should be built in 20 years, there are insufficient revenues under present City road funding practices to implement all projects within a 20-year span. From the current trends in road funding, additional funds cannot be expected. Some projects will have to be delayed and priorities frequently updated to ensure that the most essential projects receive first consideration. Land Use Regulations The alternate transportation plans were developed to serve a specific existing and proposed land use. If actual land development in the future departs significantly from the planned pattern, many of the projected benefits of the highway construction program may be lost. This is true both in terms of achieving overall higher levels of traffic service as well as coordinating land development and highway construction. It is not only a serious consideration within Newport Beach, but also in the adjacent communities which have a substantial , effect on traffic in Newport Beach. It must also be remembered that Newport Beach can have a substantial effect on traffic in surrounding jurisdictions. Advanced Right-of-Way Purchase Not too many years ago a familiar saying was: "No one wants a highway on his property, just near it." Today the saying must be modified for those who don't want a highway anywhere near their property, or for that matter anywhere at all. However, property must have access and people must be provided good transportation facilities. Few people are enthusiastic about selling their property at someone else's recommenda- tion even though being compensated for the property including financial assistance for residential or business relocation. These are natural and immediate reactions as people and businesses are required to move and readjust. These disruptions and shifts of people and businesses can be minimized through good planning. There are many ways in which the process can be improved, a most important one being advance designation and purchase of rights-of-way. , It is possible to work out final locations of routes and to plan future land developments around these commitments. Designation of future - 16 - ' locations allows consolidation of local land planning and zoning. In fast growing areas, land development and transportation facilities can proceed together. Definite commitments enable the adjustment of people and land uses to a revised highway system. I To make this process of advance designation of specific rights-of-way both fair and effective, the responsible agencies should have funds for buying the required property in advance. Zoning and other legal means can control land development, but cannot reserve land for ultimate• highway purchase thereby preventing building on the land. The most practical way of making advance transportation location designations is to purchase right-of-way as far in advance of construction as is consistent with the public interest. Access Control Transportation facilities in recent years have usually been built with either full control or no control of access. Often, this all or none situation prevents agencies charged with transportation from responding in an effective manner. While full control of access around a freeway is important, the arterial street or highway is the backbone of the City in terms of land development and traffic service, and some access control should be considered. Urban arterials should primarily serve traffic and direct property access should be minimum. The arterials should provide direct access to the collector street system and large traffic generators. To plan and construct such facilities and ensure their future usefulness, selective control of access is required. Without it, the area may be left with no arterial type traffic service, and there may not be opportunity for providing future arterial facilities. 1 ' - 17 - TABLE 4 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AM COSTS Key to Tale (1) F — Freeway 8 lanes (2) N — New Construction (3) Right of way costs include M — Major 6 lanes W — Widen 25% increase in estimated P — Primary 4 lanes M — Modification property costs for acquisi- S — Secondary 4 lanes B — Bridge tion and costs of relocation assistance. Construction costs include 20% for contingencies. P R 1 (1) (2) (3) Costs. S1.000's Costs by Jurisdiction. $1.000's 0 R Project Name Class- Con- Right- Construc- Newport I and Limits ifica- struc- of-Way tion Total Beach State Other T tion tion Y i A Coast Highway Upper Bay M B 1,230 5,270 6,500 1,300 (4) 5,200 (4) Bridge & Dover Drive « Interchange i A Coast Highway from M W 870 280 1,150 1,150 Jamboree Road to Upper Bay Bridge A Coast Highway from P M 40 40 40 MacArthur Blvd. through Corona del Mar A Coast Highway from M W 1,100 500 1,600 1,600 MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road A University Drive from P N 2,870 1,500 4,370 2,070 2,300 Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway i r r +rr r r r� r r r a. rr r r it r r■� s r �. TABLE 4 (CONTINM) P R I (1) (2) (3) Costs. $1.000's Costs by Jurisdiction. $1.000's 0 R Project Name Class- Con- Right- Construe- Newport I and Limits ifica- struc- of-Way tion Total Beach State Other T tion tion Y B Jamboree Rd from San Joa- M W 190 190 100 90 quin Hills Rd to Ford Rd B Jamboree Road from Ford M W 190 190 90 100 Road to Bison Avenue B Jamboree Rd from Bison Ave. M W&B 1,000 1,000 800 200 to Corona del Mar Freeway B Avocado-New MacArthur from P N&W 700 600 1,300 300 1,000 F, Coast Hwy to San Joaquin Hills Road i B New MacArthur from San Joa- P W&B 290 410 700 350 350 quin Hill Rd. to Ford Rd. B Newport Blvd. from Coast M W&B 1,800 1,120 2,920 560 2,360 Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road C State Route 73 from San M W 200 420 620 620 Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road C State Route 73 from Ford M W 100 210 310 310 310 Road to Bison Avenue C San Joaquin Hills Road M W 140 140 140 from Marguerite Ave. to Spy Class Hills Road TABLE 4 (CONTINM) P R I (1) (2) (3) Costs, $1,00011 Costs by Jurisdiction, 81,000's 0 R project Name Class- Con- Right- Construc- Newport I and Limits ifica- struc- of-Way tion Total Beach State Other T tion tion Y C Bison Avenue from P N&W 250 150 100 MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road C 15th Street from P N&W 2,770 820 3,690 1,850 1,840 Superior Avenue to Coast Highway C Balboa Boulevard P W 1,500 500 2,000 2,000 i from 33rd to 44th o D Balboa Blvd. 500 500 250 250 NEWPORT BEACH CRCIamok E1+F.MBVT • MASTER I' PLuA�/NSTREETS +�jO�•F'w�.'� \' �11.`is OG�� 'a,1 � g �9 ¢ t tii7ay.� : •O�� •� g H1C4i = , .` a-- _ \ That Further Coordination l Sjif�441 rn s \5 % � `3�--� '•t • ,» '.z Sendo7 Road(Four Lane Un&WW). . ?I� A i r�"// jt=' r la 8 Prnlvy Road(Far Lane Divided). r # �I B Major Road (Six Lane Divided). !!' • 1 l� �, / � {' a ',, ©Eight Lane Divided a if _ _"_ 8 Adopted Freeway Router. ✓'1F < r m Interchange �Bridge $Couplet n1 \<� �1,:�; ���,< •-_ .,• B City of Newport Beach Sphere of Inliuence. 1N+ �••` ` .l,y _ .` � ?.v` �fi-...fit`-7 .. , —".•� , i�' �. •' :. •f a `� �r 'r..• � t A �,. ° / .. fz= 1 �str��F�ii a.e•x ��j0j"$ '+ : ''' - - -- - IT �oe,_=-� �"�;i )T .ir• a',hr ;i __��� • �• ---1 � i '! i• t7 E c +•,... �,.,.� CITY Cr No euw<, ADOPTED FX CITY COUNCIL C t.' A �••�� MARCH It.1974 ! °-- REVISED JAHUARY 1987 BIKEWAYS Local Needs The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the speed of the rider. In addition, children riding bicycles for any purpose will have special needs in terms of safety. Those residents who use bicycles daily as their primary means and mode of transportation are concerned with utilizing the most convenient and direct route available to reach their destination. Consequently, there is a general aversion and reluctance to any significant out-of-direc- tion travel. Inconveniently situated bikeways will not normally be used. Studies have shown one to three blocks out of the direction of travel is about the limit, depending upon the distance to be traveled. 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 harbor view or for its open space character. The recreational rider will generally prefer to ride on a bike trail separated from vehicular traffic. Thus, it is neces- sary to provide bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation corridors as well as residential and scenic areas. Fast cyclists ride at 12-25 miles per hour. They are usually ex- perienced riders, and mix poorly with pedestrians, children and recreational cyclists because of their speed. Slower cyclists ride at , average speeds of 8-12 mile per hour. They mix well with child cyclists; only the slowest cyclists mix well with pedestrians,, but poorly with motor vehicles. It is thus necessary to provide bikeways which separate faster cyclists from pedestrian travel and children, integrating bicycle travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and bikeways which separate slower cylcists from motor vehicle traffic. Children would also be expected to utilize the latter routes. Regional Needs Several regional bikeways pass through the City of Newport Beach. These bikeways provide alternate circulation routes and access to areas of interest on a regional basis. Bikeways are an important component of the local recreation and transportation spectrum. Some potential sites have been identified as those which are appropirate for bikeways or have already been designated to be served by such a trail. The City can work closely with regional and other local governments to coor- dinate regional bikeway connections to local bikeways and to popular destinations for bicyclists which are located in the City. Classification of Bikeways , Bikeway is the term used to designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. The Master Plan of Bikeways include various types of facilities to provide for both transportation and recreation cyclists, faster and slower cyclists, and children. In order to serve varying needs, the City of Newport Beach provides the following types of facilities: - 22 _ ' 1. Bicycle Lane. A lane in the street, normally the parking lane, or a separate lane, designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of ' bicycles. Though travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be allowed. Crossflow by motorists to gain access to driveways and parking facilities is allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle traveled 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 biycle 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 vehicular traffic. Pedestrian traffic may or may not be excluded. (Also known as Class 1 bicycle trail.) 4. Backbone Bikeway. Backbone bikeways are major throughway trails that connect to regional trails. They are primarily on major roads and serve the functional and recreational cyclist. (May be a bicycle lane, route or trail.) ' 5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary Bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve cyclists and children riding to and from school. (May be a bicycle lane, route or trail.) ' Objective. Policies and Programs Objective: A safe, convenient, and enjoyable system of bikeways to provide for the needs of all types of bicyclists including children and adults; fast and slow bicyclists; and functional and recreational cyclists. Policy: The City shall endeavor to provide sale bikeways, giving special 1 attention to child safety. as a first priority item. Program: Bike trails mapped on the Master Plan of bikeways shall be developed consistent with the City's ability to do so. Program: Careful consideration shall be given to the linkage of schools and residences in 'the formulation of plans for individual ' bikeways. Program: The City shall investigate means of reducing motor vehicle and bicycle conflicts when complete separation is impos- sible or when the results of such separation is unsatisfactory, other methods of improving safety will be pursued. 1 23 - Program: The Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee shall maintain records of bicycle accidents and collect available literature on bicycle safety. Policy: The City shall endeavor to provide safe bikeways in convenient locations in the interest of functional bicyclists. , Program: The City shall endeavor to provide for the safety of functional bicyclists along all major streets and highways. Policy: The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to , encourage cycling as an alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Master Plan of Bikeways. Program: The Master Plan of Bikeways shall be implemented ' concurrent with highway and street improvements, consistent with the City's financial ability to do so and the availability of alternative funding sources. Program: Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a condition of development approvals. Program: The City will work with other appropriate agencies for development of connecting bikeways. , Policy: The City shall endeavor to provide safe and enjoyable bikeways for recreational purposes. ' Program: Bikeways shall be developed to link recreational areas where feasible. Program: Bikeways shall be developed to take advantage of scenic views where feasible. Policy: Bikeways shall be developed in recognition of the rights and , safety of pedestrians. Program: When possible, bikeways and walkways will be separated. Policy: In the development of bikeways plans, first priority shall be given to child safety, second to the needs of functional cyclists, and third to the desires of recreational cyclists. ,Implementation Bikeways projects could be financed using the City's General Fund or SB 821 Funds. SB 821 Funds are of State origin and are disbursed by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) . They are allocated for bikeway projects, including but not limited to signs, striping, staging areas, bridges, and bike lanes. Candidate projects must be a part of an adopted plan. The funds are disbursed annually. 50% of the County's funds are allocated to cities on a population basis. The remaining 50% are discretionary funds granted after a prescribed nomination process and technical evaluation. , - 24 - Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee ' The Bicycle Trails Citizen's Advisory Committee should be directed to: ' Review planned expansions or changes to the City's bikeway network for advisory input to the Department of Public Works and the City Council. Research bikeway implementation, education and safety techniques. ' Report to the City Council annually on report findings and progress in expanding the bikeway network. ' Coordinate with bikeway committees in adjoining communities. Develop public information materials as directed by the City ' Council. Consideration should be given to reducing the number of members so as to create a smaller technical advisory board. C\WP\CIRC\ 1 illj , i 25 - 9 Bbach General Plan rr+vanr �•/ p w III�Yf !r ��(�j, �� ^' /✓•;} .1 •\�•l r \ •`c < `-y+^i' %'_r' Of In{ IMS Il ' C' �'\Qt� ! !� ! ,at„' Z\> + z ' ,• :-'�j _ c N 4. Eje •� ������•, <.�p�y� P' _�' ;-. 1a'. �• '.^.<'�- Yj .i-� - .��'�"=- __: ® IFOtw.tnti XVI P F } C E A N i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Circulation Element 1 Amendment Sheets 1 i 1 - 27 - Revised July 14, 1986 , AMENDMENTS ' Listed below are the official amendments to the Circulation , Element, as adopted by the City Council. General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment 4 July 22, 1974 1. Change the Master Plan of Streets and Highways' designa- tion of Irvine Avenue between 15th Street and 16th Street ' from a primary road to a secon- dary road (4 lanes undivided, as currently exists) and, south , of 15th Street, from a primary road to a "local street" (2 lanes, as currently exists) . 2. Delete the proposed connection of Irvine Avenue to the Coast Highway from the Master Plan of , Streets and Highways. 3. Delete specific proposal No. 12 on Page 10 from the Circulation Element Report. 4. Delete Irvine Avenue from the Priority "D" projects on Table 4 on Page 27 of the Circulation Element Report. , 5 July 22, 1974 1. Change the Master Plan of , Streets and Highways' designa- tion of 15th Street between Placentia Avenue and the property line between the Bond Publishing Company site and the Banning Property (just west of Monrovia Avenue) from a ' "Primary Road" to a "Secondary Road." Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 1 , ' General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment ' 5 (Cont.) Revise the second sentence of item 10, ' Page 9 of the Circulation Element report to read: "It involves the widening of existing 15th Street to four lanes undivided to a point just , westerly of Monrovia Avenue, and continuing on with new construction at four lanes divided, crossing and inter- secting. . ." ' 9 Dec. 9, 1974 Delete the third sentence on Page 8 of the Circulation Element referring to the "interchange" of Coast Highway with Dover Drive. ' 23 (Portion) March 10, 1975 1. Revise the "Master Plan of Streets and Highways" (map) to designate Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile as a "Major Road Six Lanes Divided." 2. Reword Proposal No. 4 on Page 7 of the Circulation Element to read as follows: "It is proposed that this segment of Coast Highway be widened to a major road (six travel lanes and a center median) with a right-of-way width of 112 feet. The ' additonal 12 feet of width will be added to the northerly side of Coast Highway." 1 Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 2 General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment ' 23 (Portion) March 24, 1975 1. Revise the "Master Plan of , Streets and Highways" (map) to designate Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard as a "one- ' way couplet." 2. Replace the second and third sentences of Proposal No. 14, , on Page 11, with the following: "'MacArthur Boulevard and ' Avocado Avenue, between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, will be developed as a , one-way couplet with a total of six travel lanes, three in each direction." 3. Replace Proposal No. 20, on Page 12, with the following: ' "Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills ' Road, will be developed as a one-way couplet, as discussed under Proposal No. 14." ' 77-1-B March 28, 1977 An amendment to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to delete the "Secondary Road - Four Lanes Undivided" designation for that portion of Backbay Drive between San , Joaquin Hills Road and the intersec- tion of Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road just north of Coast Highway. , 78-1-C August 14, 1978 An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: 1. Indicate proposed realignment , of superior Avenue at intersec- tion with Coast Highway on Master Plan of Streets and ' Highways. Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 3 General Plan Date of Amendment City Council ' Number Adoption Amendment ' 78-1-C (Cont.) 2. Amend Master Plan to show extension of Balboa Boulevard north of Coast Highway relo- cated to a more westerly alignment. 3. Amend the Circulation Element text to reflect the ongoing widening of Coast Highway between the Santa Ana River and ' Newport Boulevard. 4. Delete the previously proposed northerly alignment of Coast Highway around Newport Shores from the Master Plan. 79-2 December 8, 1980 Change the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as follows: ' 1. Coast Highway westerly of the Santa Ana River be designated as primary road, four lane divided. 2. Brookhurst Street be designated major road, six lane divided. 3. 19th Street westerly from Santa Ana River to Brookhurst be ' designated as primary road, four lane divided. ' 4. 17th Street between Placentia Avenue and Balboa Boulevard extended be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided. 5. 17th Street between Newport Boulevard and Placentia Avenue be designated as primary road, four lane divided. ' 6. Orange Avenue, between l7th Street and 19th Street be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided. ' Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 4 General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment ' 79-2 (Cont.) 7. 19th Street, between Irvine , Avenue and Tustin Avenue be designated as secondary road, four lane undivided. ' 8. Del Mar Avenue, between Irvine Avenue and Newport Boulevard be designated as primary road, , four lane divided. 9. North Bristol Street, between , University Drive North and Red Hill be designated as primary couplet. 10. University Drive, easterly of , MacArthur Boulevard be desig- nated as major road, six lane divided. 11. San Miguel Drive, north of Ford , Road be realigned to more closely conform to alignment shown on the Master Plans of Orange County and City of , Irvine. 12. Bonita Canyon Road, easterly of , MacArthur Boulevard be desig- nated as major road, six lane divided. ' 13. San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor - extend "Routes that require further , consideration" designated as major road, six lane divided. 14. Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boule- vard Primary Couplet be extended to show the couplet beginning northerly of San Joaquin; MacArthur Boulevard, between Avocado Avenue and Coast Highway be designated as , primary couplet, Avocado avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road be , designated as primary couplet. Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 5 , General Plan Date of Amendment City Council ' Number Adoption Amendment 79-2 (Cont.) 15. Spy Glass Hill Road, between San Joaquin Hills Road and Coast Highway be deleted. The number of lanes to be included in the various categories of one- way couplet be defined in the ' Circulation Element as follows: a. Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for each leg. b. Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg. C. Major couplet - 4 lanes for each leg. ' The number of lanes would be considered to be through-lanes with ' added turning lanes being provided, where necessary, at intersections and drive entrances. ' 81-2-F February 11, 1985 The Master Plan of Bikeways and Bikeways Plan Text is to be incor- porated into the Circulation Element. ' 82-1 October 24, 1983 An amendment to the Circulation Element as follows: ' 1. That the Eastbluff Drive exten- sion be deleted from the City's Master Plan of Streets and ' Highways. 2. That the extension of Univer- sity Drive South to Eastbluff 1 Drive North be designated on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a ' Primary Road, four lane divided. ' Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 6 General Plan Date of , Amendment City Council , Number Adoption Amendment 84-1 September 24, 1984 An amendment to the Circulation , Element as follows: Arterial roads in the Irvine Coastal , Area include Pacific Coast Highway, 84-1 (Cont.)Sand Canyon Avenue, Pelican Hill Road, and San Joaquin Hills Road. Specific proposal for ' these arterial highways are as follows: 1. Pacific Coast Highway: Pacific ' Coast Highway is a major (six lane, divided) roadway provid- ing primary access to the Irvine Coastal Area. 2. Sand Canyon Avenue: Sand Canyon Avenue is designated as a Primary Road (two lane, divided) . This road is ' proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways and one travel lane in each direction with an extra uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. 3. Pelican Hill Road: Pelican Hill Road is designated as a Major Road (six lane, divided) . , This road is proposed to provide sidewalks, bikeways and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra uphill ' lane will be provided to accom- modate truck and bus traffic. 4. San Joaquin Hills Road: San , Joaquin Hills Road is desig- nated as a Major Road (six , lane, divided) connecting the existing terminus of the road in Newport Beach to Sand Canyon Avenue. Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 7 General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment ' 84-1 (Cont.) The following policies apply to the circulation system in the Irvine Coast Area: 1. Concurrent with the approval of any area plans, tentative tract maps or other implementing ' regulations for areas inland of Pacific Coast Highway, The Irvine Company, or its succes- sors or assigns, shall prepare a phasing program which shall provide for the construction of ultimate street improvements in the Irvine Coast Area for Pelican Hill Road as a major arterial highway and Sand Canyon Avenue as primary arterial highway, in a timely manner meeting the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Relative to implementation of Sand Canyon Avenue within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine ' Company, or its successors or assigns, and the State of California shall participate in providing the right-of-way and grading for the full arterial highway [ four (4) lanes divided] and the construction of two (2) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median improve- ments, while the State of California shall be responsible for construction of the addi- tional two (2) lanes in con- sideration of their need for Sand Canyon Avenue for Crystal Cove State Park access . Relative to Pelican Hill Road within the Irvine Coast Area, The Irvine Company, or its ' successors or assigns, shall be responsible for providing the right-of-way and grading for the full major arterial highway [six (6) lanes divided] and the construction of four (4) travel lanes with parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk and median Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 8 , I General Plan Date of Amendment City Council Number Adoption Amendment 84-1 (Cont.) improvements and, if the annual ' Development Monitoring Program shows that the additional two (2) lanes are necessary to ade- quately serve residential, Tourist Recreation/Commercial and/or recreational transpor- tation needs, no additional development of any kind shall be approved until The Irvine Company and City agree on provisions for timely construc- tion of the additional two (2) lanes. ' 2. Prior to any development inland of Pacific Coast Highway, a program shall be established by ' the developer, subject to the approval of this Board, to assist in financing of improve- , ments and dedication of right- of-way for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. 3. Prior to recordation of the first tract inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall establish a program for providing an adequate inland circulation system, which , system shall include at least one (1) new road connecting to acceptable inland highways to serve the plan area other than , Pacific Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road. Such circulation system program shall meet the approval of the City of Newport Beach and shall include a phasing program for , the developer construction of such new inland access road, 4. Prior to issuance of the , building permit for the one hundred and first (101st) single family residence or the , issuance of the building permit for the three hundred and fifty-first (351st) hotel or motel room (and directly rela- , Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 9 General Plan Date of Amendment City Council ' Number Adoption Amendment ' ted support facilities not to exceed 26,000 square feet) inland of Pacific Coast Highway, the developer shall construct and complete a new inland road connection to serve the area other than Pacific ' Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, all in accordance with the approved Inland ' Circulation System Program. 86-2(A) July 14, 1986 Amend the Circulation Element as excerpted from the City Council Resolution below: Add an additional arterial highway designation, as follows: Major-Modified: 8-lanes divided.. Change the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as follows: ' Reclassify the portion of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and ' State Route 73 as a "Major-Modified" arterial; 8-lanes, divided. ' C\WP\CIRCAMEN.388 1 1 Circulation Element Amendment Sheet - Page 10 I -