HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2003_04_1411111111111111111111111
*NEW FILE*
i
•
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
April 14,,2003
7:00-9:00 p.m.
I. Welcome & Introductions
II. Approval of Minutes
March 24, 2003
Police Department Auditorium
870 Santa Barbara Drive
III. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City Council
IV. Traffic Model Results for Existing Development & Existing General
Plan Buildout
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
V. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
VI. Public Comments
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, March
24, 2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Roger Alford
Bob Hendrickson
Phillip Bettencourt
Tom Hyans
Carol Boice
Mike Ishikawa
Karlene Bradley
David Janes
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Laura Dietz
Alex Kakavas
Grace Dove
Todd'Knipp
Nancy Gardner
Donald Krotee
Louise Greeley
Lucille Kuehn
Ernest Hatchell
Phillip Lugar
Members Absent:
Patrick Bartolic Alan Silcock
Dorothy Beek Jackie Sukiasian
Florence Felton
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patty, Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Members of the Public Present:
Bill Kelly rCoralee Newman
Gay Kelly Cris Trapp
Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Jan Vandersloot
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
•
L1
0
a2
I. Welcome
Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order and introduced Mayor Steve Bromberg.
Mayor Bromberg asked to attend this meeting to thank returning members of the
Committee and welcome new members.
II. Introduction of All Members
Mr. Lugar asked each committee member to introduce him or herself and
indicate their interest in this committee.
III. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the December 2, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.
IV. Overview of State General Plan Law & Planning Principles
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant, reviewed a Power Point presentation. The
presentation will be included in the next agenda packet. After the presentation
he opened the floor for questions.
V. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City
Council
• This item was continued to the April 14d' meeting.
VI. Discussion of Future Agenda Items
See Future Meeting Schedule for Future Agenda Items.
VII. Future Meeting Schedule
Sharon Wood reviewed the meeting schedule with the issues to be discussed at
the meetings.
April 14d' - Traffic Model Results for Existing General Plan Build -out
May 12t' - Fiscal Impact Analysis of Existing Development
June 9d' — Results of Biological and Hazards Studies
June 231d — Analysis of Key Planning Issues
Ms. Wood also indicated that future meetings would be scheduled on the
Mondays prior to City Council meetings. Ms. Wood also announced that the
Visioning Statement had been endorsed by the Planning Commission and was on
the March 25d' City Council agenda.
VIII. Public Comments
• No public comments offered.
2
3
Comprehensive General Plans:
Legislation, Scope,
and State -of -the -Art Practices
Government Code Section 65300
"Every City and County must adopt a
General Plan for its physical
development and any land outside of its
boundaries which bears a relation to its
planning'
n
0
i
4
■ City's Police Power
■ GP is a city's constitution --basis for
long-term physical development
■ Implementing actions, development
decisions, and other actions related to
city's physical development must be
consistent with the General Plan
Police Power
General Plan
Specific Plan
Zoning
Sub- Develop -
division ment CUPs Variances Etc.
Maps Permit
f�
LJ
7
5
■ Comprehensive
■ Geographic
• Issues
■ Internally Consistent
• All Elements are Equal
■ Consistent
■ Text and Diagram
■ Long -Term Perspective
6 Ultimate pattern of development
■ Central role: correlates all plan
elements
■ Standards for population density &
building intensity
0
3
I
n
■ Land Use Diagram —The Paradigms
• Generalized
• Problem: interpretation for development
entitlements
■ Parcel Specific
• Provides clarity
• Problem: no flexibility to reflect changing
market forces
■ The Solution: A Hybrid
■ Typica
Diagra
State
M
•C
G
■ Circulation of people, goods, energy, water,
sewage, storm drainage, & communications
■ Mobility
• Streets/highways
• Transit
• Bicycle
• Aviation and railroad
• Navigable waterways
• Parking
• Transportation system management
• Road system must be "closely,
systematically, and reciprocally related to the
land use buildout"
n
u
41
u
■ "Adequately plan to meet existing &
projected housing needs including
share of the regional housing need"
■ Mandatory HCD review & comment
■ Update no less often than every 5
years
■ Recent & pending legislation —
incentives?, penalties?
n
u
Detailed Statutory Requirements
■ Quantified housing needs/RHNA
■ Review of previous element
■ Resource inventory (land, financial)
■ Constraints
■ Housing program
■ Quantified objectives by income group
u
n.
7
■ Preservation of Natural Resources
■ Managed Production of Resources
■ Outdoor Recreation
■ Public Health & Safety
n
u
r�
u
10
O Limit the exposure of the community to
excessive noise
■ Analyze & quantify noise levels —
contours must be mapped
■ Mobile & stationary sources
■ Land use compatibility standards
■ Reduce risk of death, injuries, property
damage, & economic & social dislocation
• Seismic hazards
• Flood hazard
■ Fire hazard
■ Landslides
■ Other (tsunami)
■ Basis for development
■ Emergency response
i3
■ May adopt any other elements or
address any other subjects, which
relate to the physical development of
the community
■ Carries the same weight of law as the
mandated elements
■ Newport Beach
• Recreation (with Open Space)
• Growth Management (OC—required per Measure
M)
• Harbor and Bay
■ Other Examples
■ Cultura6 Resources
• Historic Preservation -
Community Design
• Economic Development
■ Air Quality
0
■ Separate elements, per statute
definitions; or
■ Integrated/consolidated elements
■ Discussion of related issues into functional
chapters
Eliminates redundancy
o Easiest with comprehensive updates
Consolidation Model
■ Community Development & Character
■ Infrastructure & Services
■ Environmental Resources Management
■ Safety
•
LUO
13
■ Goal
■ General direction -setter; desired end state
■ Policy
■ Specific statement guiding decision -
making
■ Clear & unambiguous; action forcing; clear
commitment
• "Shall" versus "should"
• "Require" versus "encourage"
■ Standards
• Rule or measure establishing a level of quality or
quantity that must be complied with or satisfied
(e.g., traffic level of service, park acreage)
■ Implementation Measure
■ Action, procedure, program, or technique that
carries out policy
■ Each policy must have at least one corresponding
implementation measure
!I
n
U
11
14
• Goal
Attractive commercial streets
• Policy
Require installation of street trees, planters, &
consistent signage along all commercial
streets
• Implementation
e Revise zoning ordinance to require
developers to install street trees at a 30'
spacing along commercial streets
• Establish a Business Improvement District to
assess local property owners fees for the
installation of street trees, planters, & other
L
•
Annual.reportto City Council, OPR, & HCD--
status of the plan & implementation progress
■ OPR Guidelines
"At least once each 5 years, should review its
entire GP & revise the document as
necessary"
■ 5 Years: Required Housing Element Update
■ 8 Years: OPR notifies city
■ 10 Years: OPR notifies Attorney General
(risks for failure to maintain an adequate
plan)
10 Legislation & .court decisions
Q State requirements for issues to be
addressed
Community conditions, characteristics,
issues, needs, visions, & policy
10 Understandability, usability, effectiveness
Feasible
[�1 State-of-the-art practices
Action -oriented
Internal consistency,
13
16
■ "During the preparation of the general plan,
opportunities shall be provided for the
involvement of citizens, public agencies,
public utility companies, and civic,
education,and other community groups,
through public hearings and any other
means the city deems appropriate"
■ "Make a diligent effort to achieve
participation of all economic segments of
the community'
40
14
D
_M1i
it 1• .� I
1
q
1� N
'A13�„��rr l�
•
is
11
■ Goal
A vibrant community center that serves as the
symbolic and functional "heart" of the City
■ Policies
■ Uses -integrated mix of housing, retail, office,
entertainment, cultural, civic, and open space
amenities.
. Form -dense, pedestrian- and transit -oriented,
intermixing of uses and buildings
•
•
16
II
Newport Beach General Plan Update
Contemporary Planning Practices
Newport Beach General Plan Update
Contemporary Planning Practices
a
u ��� AJ��� j4S��f
•
■ Land Use -Economic Development
Relationship
■ "Smart Growth" and "Livable
Communities"
■ Resource Stewardship
■ Statewide & Regional Population
Growth and Local Implications
■ "Smart Growth" Implications (infill,
density, sustaining community
character)
■ Housing Adequacy
■ Water Supply
In
21
City of Newport Beach General Plan Update •
GENERALIZED SCOPE OF WORK
EIP Associates, REVISED March 21, 2003
Task
Planning
Public Workshops
Preliminary
Commission/City
and Forums
Schedule
Council
(Additional to
GPAC)
1. Project orientation (schedule,
responsibifidesj GPAC and
public forum, Geographic
Information System (GIS),
product review process, erc.)
2. Baseline data compilation,
analysis, and documentation
3 — 4 months
(Product: TechnicaI13ackground'
Report and EIR "Existing
Setting" section).
3. Identification of planning issues
Study session:
Documentation of key
(as derived from the technical
presentation of
planning issues•in
data studies and public input for
background data and
newsletter
the Visioning process).
summary of issues
4. Definition of Guiding Principles
Study session to review
based on GPAC input and in
and comment on
consideration of technical
Guiding Principles
analyses and Visioning process
input. These will define the
fundamental"rules" underwhich
all 'land use alternatives will be
formulated. For environmental
resources and hazards, they will
articulate the policies that may
affect land use type, distribution,
and/or density. "White Papers"
will be prepared to document key
5 — 6 months
conditions, options, pros and
cons, and recommendations.
5. Formulate alternative land use
Study session to review
development and infrastructure
and comment on the
scenarios, targeted to defined
land use.options.
"areas of change". "White
Papers" will be prepared to
identify existing conditions and
key planning constraints and
opportturities for each site as the
basis for the identification of
alternative uses.
n
•
EIP/ECT/NBGPU/Work Scope/3.13.03
Z.Z
•
Task
Planning
Public Workshops
Preliminary
Commission/City
and Forums
Schedule
Council
(Additional to
GPAC)
6. Evaluate the impacts of land use
and infrastructure alternatives—
Study session to review
and comment on the
Workshop to review
and comment on the
(continued
from above)
traffic, fiscal, and general
environmental (serves as input
for the GP Environmental
evaluation of
alternatives and input
for a preferred plan
alternatives in
consideration of their
impacts and
Impact Report).
recommendations for a
preferred plan.
7. Select preferred land use and
development and mobility plans
(the latter to reflect the land use
plan)
Study session to review
and comment on
preferred land use,
development and
mobility plans
Review preferred land
use and mobility plans,
following GPAC input.
2 — 3 months
8. Formulate policy "white papers"
for remaining General Plan
elements or topics. These will
describe pertinent issues,
optional or preliminary policy
approaches, and the pros and
Study session to review
and comment on
preliminary Plan
policies
Workshop to review
and comment on
preliminary policies (as
derived from GPAC
input)— structured as a
"Community
7 — 8 months
•
cons of the alternatives
(submitted for GPAC review and
Congress"
comment)
9. Prepare updated General Plan
document, incorporating land
Publication of
summary document
1— 2 months
use and mobility plans and
selected element/topic policies
and implementation programs
10. Prepare and publish updated
I
2 — 3 months
General Plan EIR.
11. Public hearings and adoption.
Study sessions and
public hearings
2 — 4 months
Note: "White Papers" are considered to be similar to "research papers" in that they
investigate planning issues or topics such as view preservation, or mansionization. In
addition, they are used to identify a geographical area's key conditions, potential land use
options, pros, cons, opportunities, -constraints and recommendations.
EIP/ECT/NBGPU/Work Scope/3.13.03
2
23
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SPECIFIC PLANS AND •
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
3121103
SPECIFIC PLAN'
PROBLEMS/ISSUES
•
Are development incentives
1.Old Newport*
appropriate?
•
Use Incentives?
•
Land Use Direction?
•
Land Use Direction? ( Marine incentives,
vehicles sales, housing)
2. Mariner's Mile*
•
•
Parking
Continuous Bayside Walkway
•
PCH Widening?
•
Specific Plan for entire area?
•
Land Use Direction (mixed use?)
•
Design Guidelines without a process
3. Cannery Village/McFadden Square*
Local
•
Pedestrian access
Pedescircutrian access
•
Separate plans for Cannery Village and
McFadden Square
4. Santa Ana Heights
Review
5. Newport Shores*
•
Should commercial remain?
•
Mobile home parks
6. Central Balboa*
Too much commercial?
*Re-evaluate detailed public improvement plans
•
zY
•
n
U
E
Geographic Area
Problem/Issues
•
Under performing uses
•
Possible SP area
1. Airport Area
•
Possibility for Urban High Density
Residential
•
Unresolved in visioning
•
Transportation Level of Service
•
Upgrade
•
Facilitate owner occupancy, and
Newport residential
2. West New p (residential)
other means of controlling parking
problems, party atmosphere and
public safety costs
•
Short-term lodging
•
Future of Industrial uses
•
Future of residential uses (mobile
3. West Newport (Industrial)
homes, density, affordability)
•
Fragmented ownership
•
Coordination with Costa Mesa
•
Open Space
4. Banning Ranch
•
Affordable Housing (esp. re: AB
2292)
•
Is existing General Plan
appropriate?
5. Corona del Mar
•
Vision 2004
6. Newport Center/Fashion Island
•
More development?
7. Lido Marina Village
•
Future use and development
8. Civic Center Area
Future of City Hall
25
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SPECIAL TOPICS
GPUC SCOPING SUBCOMMITTEE
3/21 /03
1. Community Character (including mansionization, HONs edge
issues & interface)
2. Economic/Fiscal Development
3. Tourism
4. Hotels
5. Historic Preservation
6. Transportation'Improvements
7. Public Transportation
8. Remedies for Traffic in Neighborhoods
9. Coastal Bluffs
10'. View Preservation (public and private, buildings and trees)
11. Tidelands
12. Integrating conservation policies with land use element
13. Commercial/Residential interface
14. Arts and Cultural Resources Element
15. Noise (including air conditioners, leaf blowers, party boats,
restaurants, etc.)
16. Affordable Housing
17. Lot Mergers
2L
DRAFT
• TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
Prepared For:
Mr. Rich Edmonston
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Prepared By:
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
is Irvine, CA 92606
John Kain, AICP
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
March 26, 2003
JK:CW:MW:pr
• JN:00460-21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE •
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
2.-0 MODEL STRUCTURE/EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................ 6
2.1 Existing Land Use Data
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data
2.3 2002 Trip Generation
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
2.6 2002 Trip Distribution
2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
2.7 2002 Traffic Source Analysis
2.8 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS......... 38
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
3.2 General -Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
3.3 Buildout Trip Generation
3.4 Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
3.5 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
n
• LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT PAGE
A
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY
STUDYAREA.....................................................................................
3
B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS......................................................
7
C
MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACHRESIDENTS..........................................................................
13
D MODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACHWORKERS............................................................................ 14
E PURPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
BYDESTINATION.............................................................................. 16
F PURPOSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ........... 18
G DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ... 19
• H PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
BYORIGIN.......................................................................................... 20
I PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH .......... 21
J ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ............... 22
K NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES .......................... 23
L EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ..................... 24
M NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS ..... 27
N TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE ............................................. 28
0 TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER ........................................................ 30
P TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BLVD.
NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE ............................................... 31
• Q INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS .............................................. 33
R NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
THROUGHLANES............................................................................. 44
S GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ...... 45
•
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 LAND USE SUMMARY .......... 8
2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY ................................................. 9
3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 TRIP GENERATION .................... 11
4 DELETED
5 NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY
UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY........................................................ 35
6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
LANDUSE SUMMARY......................................................................... 39
7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON .......................................... 40
• 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
TRIPGENERATION............................................................................. 42
9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION
COMPARISON...................................................................................... 43
10 NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
(ICU) SUMMARY.................................................................................. 47
0
TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (01
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary has been prepared to provide an overview of existing traffic
conditions and forecasts of future conditions, based on'the currently adopted General Plan
of the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan forecasts have been prepared using the
Newport Beach Traffic Model, version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). The NBTM 3.1 travel demand
forecasting tool has been developed for the City of Newport Beach to address traffic and
circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in
accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea
Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998). The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used. for
roadway planning and traffic impact analysis, such as:
• General Plan/Land Use analysis required:by the City of Newport Beach. •
• Amendments to the Orange County Master Plan, of Arterial Highways, (M PAH).
• Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis.
The NBTM 3.1 is a vehicle trip based modeling tool, and it is intended for evaluating
general roadway system supply and demand problems and issues. The NBTM 3.1 has
been specifically calibrated to provide the most representative conditions in the City of
Newport Beach. This is sometimes described as "shoulder season" conditions, which are
experienced in the spring and fall seasons.
NBTM 3.1 differs from previous Newport Beach Traffic Models in several key ways. First,
NBTM 3.1 is a traffic model that includes most of Southern California, although the level of
detail is much less for areas further away from Newport Beach. Previous versions were
"windowed" models, that ended a short distant beyond the City's primary modeling area.
NBTM 3.1 also includes an additional step, which is a conversion of the City's land use
data into socioeconomic data. The socioeconomic data is then used to calculate trip
1
generation. Both of these changes are required by regional modeling consistency
guidelines, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for
certifying the consistency of local models. Additionally, this updated model also includes
greater level Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) detail in key areas of the City where the question
of future development levels is in question, particularly the area adjacent to John Wayne
Airport. Greater detail has also been added in the Newport Coast/ Newport Ridge area,
due to its annexation into the City. Another difference in this traffic model from prior
versions is an improved methodology to conduct intersection analysis, which insures that
the traffic flow between related intersections is reconciled.
1.1 Basic Methodology and Assumptions
The NBTM follows the model structure recommended in the subarea modeling
guidelines, which is a "focused" modeling approach. The concept of a focused
model is to provide the greatest level of detail within the primary modeling or
• study area, with the least detail for those parts of the model which are
geographically distant from the primary study area. The guidelines refine this
concept into a three-tier system, with tier 1 being the least detailed component
(used to account for regional traffic), tier 2 being the previous regional framework
(County; sub -regional traffic). And tier 3 being the primary study area (local
traffic).
The primary study area of the NBTM is shown on Exhibit A. The primary study
area of the NBTM is generally bounded by the Brookhurst Street/Santa Ana River
on the west, Adams Avenue/Baker Street/Campus Drive/SR-73 on the north,
Crystal Cove State Park on the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. The
primary model area includes the City as well as portion of Costa Mesa and Irvine.
The areas outside NB are included in the primary modeling area due to the
proximity of adjoining land uses and their interrelationship with Newport Beach
development resulting from the structure of the road system.
2
EXHIBIT A
I w
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY STUDY AREA
r
I
♦` i
a'�OA 4L B<
NEWPORT REACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California-00460:040 URBAN
NBTM 3.1 is highly dependent on the Orange County Transportation Analysis
• Model, Version 3.1 (OCTAM3.1). The primary modeling steps or processes used in
the development of NBTM 3.1 are:
• Land use to socioeconomic data (SED) conversion
• Trip generation and mode choice
• Trip distribution
• Time of day factoring
• Traffic assignment
• Post -assignment data refinement processing (validation)
NBTM relies on regional model estimates of trip generation, trip distribution, and
mode choice. The model accommodates changes in land use/socioeconomic and
roadway network characteristics in the following manner:
• Trip Generation - Trip generation estimates are based on socioeconomic
data driven by the City's land use data. The number of
trips calculated from this source is then used to adjust
the regional projections to reflect local conditions.
Trip Distribution - Trip distribution estimates are based on distribution
patterns estimated by the regional travel demand
model and incorporated into NBTM. The regional trip
distribution is adjusted to match local trip generation
using an industry -accepted approach known as the
Fratar model.
Mode Choice - Mode choice is the method of transportation selected
by individuals traversing the region. These modes
include single and multi -occupant automobiles, buses,
• trains, bicycles, pedestrian, etc. Mode Choice is
estimated by using regional model mode share
4
projections, which are incorporated into the subarea
model. .
Traffic Assignment - Traffic is assigned to the roadway system on the basis
of travel time and cost. Tolls are explicitly included in
the traffic assignment process using the procedures
obtained from the regional travel demand model. Traffic
is assigned separately for the AM, mid -day, PM and
nighttime periods of the day, to allow to more accurate
representation of the effects of the congestion on the
choice of travel routes by drivers.
Post Model Refinements -The goal of volume forecast or post model refinement is
to utilize all available information to assure the model is
able to predict future traffic conditions. The NBTM
refinement procedure incorporates 2002 traffic count •
data, 2002 model validation data, and future model
forecasts as inputs to this process.
n
U
• 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter of the executive summary describes existing 2002 shoulder (fall/spring)
season conditions the City of Newport Beach. Traffic Analysis Districts have been
established that group areas with similar characteristics. These districts help to refine
estimates of where traffic originates, identify trip generation/distribution adjustments, and
make land use occupancy adjustments, all to reflect the characteristics of a geographic
area. The Traffic Analysis Districts are shown on Exhibit B.
2.1 Existinq Land Use Data
Land use data within the primary study area is a key input to the modeling process.
The initial land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by the City of
Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the existing 2002 land uses for the City of
• Newport Beach, by land use type. These land uses were then converted to
socioeconomic data as part of the initial modeling process.
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data (SED)
City of Newport Beach SED that has been converted from the land use data in
Table 1 is summarized in Table 2. Conversion factors were established using
those from previous conversion efforts in the County. These were then refined to
more closely match citywide summary data and the regionally accepted Orange
County Projections (OCO-2000). Occupancy factors and SED conversion factors
have been differentiated for the 'Balboa" area (districts 3, 9, and 10 on Exhibit
B). This differentiation was necessary because of inaccurate initial model
predictions compared to existing street counts. These differences can be related
to unique spring and fall trip generation, which is different from other seasons.
• For instance, lower retail occupancy is experienced during the "shoulder"
(spring/fall) seasons represented by the NBTM.
^,
J
1
5
EXHIBIT B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS
I v a lim I Lo, 7*s
0
3 LEGEND:
= TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICT BOUNDARY
' =TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICT NUMBER
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM CODE
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS'
1
Low DensityResidential
14,841
DU
2
Medium DensityResidential
12,939
DU
3
Apartment
7,622
DU
4
ElderlyResidential
348
DU
5
Mobile Home
894
DU
6
Motel
210
ROOM
7
Hotel
2,745
ROOM
82
Resort Hotel
-
ROOM
9
Regional Commercial
1,259.000
TSF
10
General Commercial
2,926.160
TSF
11
Commercial/Recreation
5.100
ACRE
12'
Regional Commercial
-
TSF
13
Restaurant
640.520
TSF
14Z
Family Restaurant
TSF
15
Fast Food Restaurant
78.031
TSF
16
Auto Dealer/Sales
288.320
TSF
17
Yacht Club
54.580
TSF
18
Health Club
63.500
TSF
19
Tennis Club
60
CRT
20
Marina
1,055
SLIP
21
Theater
5,489
SEAT
22
Newport Dunes
64.00
ACRE
23
General Office
10,900.190
TSF
24
Medical Office
761.459
TSF
25
Research & Development
327.409
TSF
Industrial
1,042.070
TSF
Mini-StorageNVarehouse
199.750
TSF
Pre-school/Da Care
55.820
TSF
V
Elementa /Private School
4,399
STU
Junior/High School
4,765
STU
Cultural/Learning Center
35.000
TSF
32
Library
78.840
TSF
33
Post Office
53.700
TSF
34
Hospital
351
BED
35
Nursin /Conv. Home
661
BEDS
36
Church
377.760
TSF
37
Youth Ctr./Service
149.560
TSF
38
Park
113.970
ACRE
40
Golf Course
305.330
ACRE
Units Abbr
DU = Dwe
TSF = Thi
CRT = Cc
• STU = Sh
2 Uses 8, 1',
not currer
U:\UcJobs\(
TABLE 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY
VARIABLE
QUANTITY
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units
20,409
Group Quarters Population
661
Population
75.817
Employed Residents
44,379
Retail Employee
10,198
Service Employees
24,594
Other Employees
36,246
Elem/High School Students
9,164
F.1 USERS � PLN\ PTemple \ MYDOCS � (00460-21CDW_TrnfficTnbles.xlsJT2
N
0
U
• 2.3 2002 Trip Generation
Trip generation has been estimated from socioeconomic data in the NBTM model
area. The trip generation factors have been derived from regional trip generation
estimates from the regional model (OCTAM 3.1). This methodology breaks down
traffic into trips produced (productions) and trips attracted (attractions). Table 3
summarizes the overall trip generation for 2002 conditions for the City of Newport
Beach. The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach is an estimated
697,626 daily vehicle trips.
2.3.1 Trip Purpose
NBTM trip generation data has been developed for the following 7 trip
purposes:
Home -Work
• Home -Shop
• Home -Other
• Home-Elementary/High School
• Home -University
• Other -Other
• Other -Work
The "Other" category includes social or entertainment related trips and
recreational trips.
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
Most mode choice (e.g., transit, etc.) issues are regional in nature, superseding
cities' boundaries. For this reason, the NBTM approach is to incorporate mode
choice through data obtained from the regional mode choice model. This data
may be used directly for minor adjustments to account for future system
• refinements, which would then be reflected in zonal vehicle trip generation
adjustments. Regional mode choice survey data directly relevant to Newport
10
TABLE 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2O02 TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS
/
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
57,568
88,618
-31,050
0.65
Home Based School
11,424
8,730
2,694
1.31
Home Based Other'
125,826
107,619
18,207
1.17
Work Based Other
55,625
59,778
-4,153
0.93
Other -Other
91.946
90,492
1,454
1.02
TOTAL
342,3891
355,237
-12,8481
0.96
OVERALL TOTAL 69T626
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and'Home-Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
11:\UcJobs\00460\Excel\[00460-21.xis]T 10
U
•
is
11
Beach is presented to facilitate such minor adjustments and to inform the
• decision -makers regarding the role of various modes of transportation to/from
and within the City of Newport,Beach.
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
The home -work trip mode choice data provided by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) to Urban Crossroads, Inc. included
mode choice data (travel method used) for home -work (either end in
Newport Beach) trips. The main mode choices fall into the following
categories:
• Drive alone
• Carpool
• Bus
• Railroad
• Ferry
• Taxi
• Motorcycle
• Bike
• Walked
The mode choice data has been grouped into geographic areas. Within
Orange County, cities have been identified as adjacent to Newport Beach,
or generally located north of (North County) or south of (South County) the
City of Newport Beach. Adjacent cities include Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. The division between North County
and South County cities used for this analysis is the SR-55 Freeway.
Outside Orange County, cities/geographic areas have been grouped by
County.
• Exhibits C and D depict the results of this analysis for Newport Beach
origin trips (residents) and Newport Beach destination trips (persons that
12
12000 •-
10000
8000
a 6000
H
4000
2000
0
EXHIBIT C
MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS
Newport Adjacent North Orange South Orange Los Angeles Riverside San Ventura Outside
Beach Cities County County County County Bernardino County SCAG
County Region
Workplace
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California- 00460:04 u
%ODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK SIPS OF NEWPORT BEACH WORKERS
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
m
10000
F-
8000
a
6000
4000
2000
0
Newport Adjacent North Orange South Orange Los Angeles Riverside San Ventura Outside
Beach Cities County County County County Bernardino County SCAG Region
County
Residence
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California- 00460:10 UjtBAN
2.5
work in Newport Beach), respectively. The majority of trips that have one
or both trip ends in Newport Beach are drive -alone automobile trips. The .
second -most used mode for trips with only one end in Newport Beach is 2-
person carpool, while the second -most popular mode for Home -Work trips
with both ends in the City is non -motorized. Generally, travel to the City of
Newport Beach via transit is most often by North Orange County residents
who work in the City of Newport Beach. The second highest percentage of
workers that utilize transit to travel to the City of Newport Beach is from
adjacent cities. Public transportation accounts for 'less than 2% of all
home -work travel to and from the City of Newport Beach from ,all other
geographic areas within the SCAG region. The percentage is actually
higher for locations outside the SCAG region, most likely associated with
the use of John Wayne Airport to travel to and from the City of Newport
Beach for more distant destinations.
2002 Trip Distribution .
Survey data was provided by SCAG related to the origins and destinations of
trips made to and from the City of Newport Beach. The trip distribution data was
collected in the form of trip diaries in 1991. These trip diaries are an actual' log
complied by individual motorists of their daily trip activities. The trip distribution
data was organized into six (6) trip purposes for trips ending or beginning in
Newport Beach and summarized by geographic area at the other end of the trip.
Exhibit E summarizes the geographic data by adjacent cities, north Orange
County, south Orange County, and each other county in Southern California
represented in the dataset for trips originating in Newport Beach. As might be
expected, the highest totals are for trips with both ends within the City of Newport
Beach, followed by trips with one end in an adjacent city.
As shown on Exhibit E, 52% of the trips surveyed are contained within Newport •
Beach and 80% of the trips originating in Newport Beach are contained entirely in
15
P&POSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING 41 NEWPORT BEACH BY DESTINAAN
40,000
N
a 30,000
H
0 20,000
10,000
n
rvuwpun Halacent North South Los Angeles San Riverside Ventura
Beach Cities Orange Orange County Bernardino County County
County County County
Destination
M HOME -OTHER
❑ HOME -SHOP
M HOME -WORK
MOTHER -OTHER
MOTHER -WORK
❑WORK AT HOME
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California - 00460:06 u�tsn 1
Newport Beach and the adjacent cities. Exhibit F depicts the overall trip purposes
summary for trips beginning in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other •
(38%), with a high number of Home -Work (20%). The categories with the fewest
trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit G shows the City or County at
the other end of the trip for trips originating in Newport Beach. Areas closest to
Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
Exhibit H summarizes -the geographic data by County (outside Orange County) or
portion of Orange County for trips destined for Newport Beach. The highest totals
are for trips with both ends in the City of Newport Beach (52%), followed by trips
from an adjacent city (28%). Exhibit I depicts the overall purposes for trips ending
in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other (38%), followed by Home -Work
(22%). The fewest trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit J shows the
origin City or County for trips destined for Newport Beach. Areas closest to
Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
The existing number of through lanes (lanes not designed to accommodate
turning movements only) within the primary study area, are depicted on Exhibit K.
Daily traffic volume data for location's counted as part of this study effort were
collected in Spring/Fall of 2001/2002. Freeway data comes from the Caltrans
Publication, Traffic Volumes on State Highways. Exhibit L presents the daily
traffic volumes, which have been used to validate the NBTM. Daily volume is the
first level of check/verification to insure that the model is predicting traffic
accurately. Daily traffic count data has been collected and/or compiled for 64
locations in the City of Newport Beach. Additional daily volume data reported by
the 'California Department of Transportation ,has been incorporated into the
NBTM update work effort. The SR-55 Freeway north of the SR-73 Freeway
carries the highest daily traffic volume (approximately 155,000 vehicles per day)
n
f�
in the NBTM primary modeling area. The arterial roadways carrying the highest •
traffic volume in the NBTM primary modeling area are Coast Highway and
17
EXHIBIT F
Pug POSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
WORK AT HOME
1%
17%
OTHER -OTHER
16%
HOME -WORK
20%
r-I
LA
HOME -OTHER
38%
8%
EXHIBIT G
DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
Adjacent
289
North Orange Cou
it%
South Orar
4°
Lo!
(v
Newport Beach
52%
•
•
19
•
60,000
50,000
40,000
N
a 30,000
H
N 20,000
O
10,000
0
ht'll ti
PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINE FOR NEWPORT BEACH BY ORIC�N
Newport Adjacent North South Los Angeles San Riverside Ventura
Beach Cities Orange Orange County Bernardino County County
County County County
Origin
HOME -OTHER
m HOME -WORK
■ OTHER -OTHER
E30THER-WORK
131 WORK AT HOME
0
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California - 00460:09 1
EXHIBIT I
PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
W ORK AT HOME
1%
OTHER -WORK
17%
HOME -OTHER
38%
OTHER -OTHER
14%
HOME -WORK
22%
is
EXHIBIT J
ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
Adjacent Cities
28%
I
i
Newport Beach
53%
•
North Orange County
10%
South Orange County
4%
Los Angeles County Other
3% 2%
•
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California - 00460:17 URBAN
EXHIBIT K
NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES
6D
PACIFIC
OCEAN
JEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE Newport Beach Califomia-00460:27 rev.02/10/03 - -- - - - - -
LEGEND:
4 = NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
D - DIVIDED
U = UNDIVIDED
40 0 0
• HIBIT L
EXISTIA COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIr(ADT)
54
LEGEND:
10 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
18 6 29 77 recce ocux
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California - 00460:25 .rev. 03/26/03 URBAN
MacArthur Boulevard. A daily traffic count of approximately 63,000 vehicles per
day was estimated on Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive i
and on MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. Other
roadways carrying traffic volumes in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD)
include:
• Newport Boulevard (maximum volume of 53,000 VPD south of Coast
Highway).
Coast Highway (53,000 VPD east of Newport Boulevard).
These links are highlighted because they represent the highest volume roadways in
Newport Beach. This does not automatically lead to deficiencies, but it will help to
identify areas where intersection deficiencies could lead to significant capacity
deficiencies.
Daily traffic counts (24 hour counts) were collected at 55 locations on the City's •
roadway system. This data was collected in 15 minute intervals. The areawide
volumes were then analyzed to determine the peak characteristics for the study
area. The results of this analysis show that 8.67% of daily traffic occurs during the
AM peak hour, and 10.63% of daily traffic occurs in the PM peak hour. The peak
hour (time of highest relative volume) was determined within typical peak periods
(6-9 AM and 3-7 PM). For the entire primary study area, the AM peak hour begins
at 7:30 AM, and the PM peak hour begins at 4:45 PM.
Individual locations have various peak hour starttimes. Within Newport Beach, the
total trips in the peak traffic hour is approximately 19% of total daily trips. This is
higher than the typical value of 16 percent that Urban Crossroads staff has
observed in other studies in Orange.
2.7 2002 Traffic Source Analysis
The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) requested that the traffic study •
provide specific study of individual trip patterns to answer the question of how
25
many trips are going through Newport Beach, without starting or stopping inside
• the City. This was done in a study that is characterized as "Traffic Source
Analysis." For this study the consultant essentially followed cars as they
journeyed through the City. Traffic destinations for three locations were studied:
Northbound Coast Highway, south of Newport Coast Drive
o Southbound Coast Highway, south of the Santa Ana River
• Southbound MacArthur Boulevard, north of Bonita Canyon Drive
Beginning at each of the three locations, 100 cars were followed until they left the
arterial system or the City of Newport Beach. For each vehicle followed, the data
includes start time (when the vehicle was at one of the above destinations), end
time (when the vehicle left the City or the arterial system), destination
(termination of trip or crossing a cordon location), vehicle type (brief description
of the vehicle), and date. Analysts were directed to select vehicles from each
• lane, and a variety of vehicle types.
As requested by City of Newport Beach staff, data was primarily collected during
the peak periods (from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:30 to 6:30 PM). At least 30%
of samples were taken within each of the AM and PM peak periods for each of
the three (3) traffic source locations.
The City of Newport Beach has been divided into fourteen (14) traffic analysis
districts, as previously shown on Exhibit B. For the purpose of this analysis,
districts 3 and 10 have been combined. Exhibit M shows through trip destinations
(cordon locations, depicted as letters on roadways exiting the City). Once a
vehicle has left the City of Newport Beach, it is considered an external trip and is
not further studied.
Exhibit N graphically depicts generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles
• traveling northbound on Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive. Internal
traffic (with destinations in the City of Newport Beach) accounts for 64% of the
N
J
EXHIBIT M
NEW_PORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE. Now mB c .Ceiitomle-0046024
Is
EMIT N
TRAFFIC_ SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DR.
0
vehicles studied. This percentage is slightly lower in the AM peak (60%) and
higher in both the PM peak and off peak time frames. The top three traffic
districts attracting vehicles from this location are 13, 8, and 9. District 13 roughly
corresponds to Newport Coast West/ Corona Del Mar. District 8 is approximately
Newport Center. District 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island.
Through traffic from northbound Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive
travels primarily to cordons A, W, and U. Each of these .cordons was the
destination of more than 5 of the 100 vehicles followed. Cordon A is Coast
Highway at the Santa Ana River and received seven percent (7%) of the vehicles
studied. Cordon W is .Newport Coast Drive northeast of the SR-73 freeway and
was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles involved. Cordon U (the
destination of six percent (6%) of the vehicles followed is Bison Avenue northeast
of the SR-73 freeway (towards University of California, Irvine).
Survey results for southbound Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River are •
summarized on Exhibit O. Internal (City of Newport Beach) traffic comprises 66%
of the 100 trips analyzed. In the off-peak time frame, this percentage is much
lower, but the off-peak sample size is small (8 vehicles). Primary destinations
include traffic analysis districts 2, 8, 3/10, and 9. District 2 is Mariner's
Mile/Newport Heights. Newport Center is district 8. District 3/10 is Newport Bay
and the Balboa Peninsula, and district 9 is Bayside/Balboa Island.
Through traffic from the starting point on Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana
River primarily exits the City of Newport Beach either at cordon G (Superior
Boulevard north of 15th Street), or at cordon Y (Coast Highway south of Newport
Coast Drive). Cordon C captured eleven percent (11%) of traffic studied, while
cordon Y was the destination of seven percent (7%) of vehicles followed. All
other cordons had fewer than 5 of the 100 vehicles studied leaving.
Exhibit P shows generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles studied on •
southbound MacArthur Boulevard north of Bonita Canyon Drive. Almost 90% of
29
EDIT 0
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER
R
p S
Fa
Os m ER TOL ST. �2y°� x
T W
N
o= V
m
/ 5 U yF
DE R z
9�.
sry
14
SAN
/ 194ST.
o /
p C
i sr./ H a.
eO
• LEGEND:
- -x- - = INTERNAL
—x— - EXTERNAL
t (g)IM ■ ■ 3/10 (x) = PERCENT OF SURVEY
STATION TRIPS
= DISTRICT BOUNDARY
X =DISTRICT NUMBER
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, Callfomla-00460:22 URBAN
EXHIBIT P
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SD MACARTHUR BLVD.
NORTH OF BON_ ITA CANYON DR.
R
P S
d
ab 4
i re
OS - lRISTRL ST. T ?iDa
N JW
0o V
DEL R p�
AVE
whomw
an
AW
7 ♦ �,3 � 14
I1ND T. 6
HIGHUN M AN . Oq
DR. J
IsmSf.
eon `� ro o 13
1.1 a I o W
' D �
IGHWAYWJ
O 6< as
t iSr. G 9 o I - Y
o 0
Z
n
iSTH o
B z E 2 u
0
c LEGEND:
1 - -x- - - INTERNAL
3/10 —x— - EXTERNAL
(x) -PERCENT OF SURVEY
STATIONTRIPS -
- DISTRICT BOUNDARY
X - DISTRICT NUMBER
R
NEWPORT' BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE. Newport Beach, California -0046021 URaA�i
-
traffic on this segment remains in the City of Newport Beach. Major destinations
. include districts 8, 13, 9, and 12. District 8 (Newport Center) was the destination
of 37 vehicles. 32 total vehicles ended their trips in districts 13 and 9 (Newport
Coast West/Corona Del Mar and Bayside/Balboa Island, respectively). District
12 is Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge (the destination of 11 vehicles).
During the peak hours, 11 of the 100 vehicles did travel through the City. Their
primary cordon destination was Y (Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive)
to which seven percent (7%) of vehicles traveled.
None of the through -corridors studied are unusually impacted by through traffic.
The survey results indicate that less than 10% of the traffic on the corridors
surveyed is regional through -traffic. However, as might be expected, through -
traffic is greater on east -west corridors such as Coast Highway, than on north -
south routes, because the Pacific Ocean is a barrier to further through traffic
• movement.
2.8 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Peak period and hour traffic count
data
has been
obtained from
a variety of
sources. Obtaining 2001/2002 data
has
been an
emphasis of
the existing
conditions effort. Peak period and hour turning movement traffic volume data have
been compiled or counted at a total of 62 intersections throughout the City of
Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit Q. These locations were selected for analysis
by City staff because of their locations along key travel corridors within the
community. Additionally, it is important to note that while the overall daily volume as
compared to capacity is an important indicator of transportation system function,
intersection capacity can sometimes play a greater role when it comes to
constraints on the system.
. Level of Service (LOS) is defined and described as follows:
32
W
W
EXHIBIT Q
INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS
LPL
LEGEND-
10 • -INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATION
6 PACIFIC 65 - INTERSECTION ID
3 e�Bpa ec °� OCEAN
NPORT-BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, California-00460:28 rev. 03/14/03 l
• LOS A = 0.00 - 0.60 ICU: Low volumes, high speeds; speed not restricted by
other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles
waiting through more than one cycle.
LOS B = 0.61— 0.70 ICU: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other
traffic; between one and ten percent of signal cycles
have one or more vehicles which wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
LOS C = 0.71 — 0.80: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which
wait through more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard.
LOS D = 0.81 — 0.90: Tolerable operation speeds; between 31 and 70
percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
• which wait through more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in
urban areas.
LOS E = 0.91 —1.00: Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection
can accommodate; restricted speeds; between 71 and
100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more
vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods.
The data collected/compiled was input into a turning movement analysis database.
For each location, inbound and outbound volumes were calculated, by each"leg" or
intersection approach.
The number of lanes and their configuration has been collected at all 62 existing
intersections and is used to calculate existing (2002) intersection capacity utilization
• values (ICUs). Table 5 summarizes the 2002 ICUs based on the AM and PM peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes and the intersection configuration.
34
TABLE 5
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
SUMMARY
INTERSECTION (NS & EW)
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU I
LOS
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0,671
B
0.57
A
3. Superior Av. & CoastHw.
0.841
D
0.81
D
4. Newport Bi. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
A
0:66
B
5. NewportBl. & Via Lido
0.45
A
0.41
A
6. NewportB1. & 32nd St.
033
C
0.79
C
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
D
0.93
E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
C
0.68
B
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.62
B
0.77
C
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0:52
A
0.67
B
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.57
A
0.79
C
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karmaa Av.
0.40
A
0.73
C
13. Jamboree.Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.94
E
0.83
D
14. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.82
D
6.61
B
15. Campus -Dr. & Bristol St. (1)
0.78
C
0.93
E
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (1)
0.67
B
0.63
B
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72
C
0.60
A
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. (S)
0.46
A
0.47
A
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.72
C
0.91
E
20. Irvine .Av. & University Dr.
0.82
D
0.88
D
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.65
B
0.72
C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.58
A
0.62
B
B. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.66
B
0.64
B
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.58
A
0.73
C
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.40
A
0.50
A
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.53
A
0.49
A
27. Dover Dr. & CoastHw.
0.70
B
0.75
C
28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.68
B
0.69
B
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
D
0.91
E
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N)
0.57
A
0.60
A
31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. (S)
0.50
A
0.58
A
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S)
0.75
C
0.73
C
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy.
0Al
A
0.50
A
34. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDr. /University Dr,
0.62
B
0.65
B
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.46
A
0.54
A
36. Jamboree Rd. & EastbluffDr./Ford Rd.
0.70
B
0.66
B
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.66
B
D
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
A
A
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.70
B
10.35
C
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.34
A
A
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0:36
A
A
•
•
35
•
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
SUMMARY
INTERSECTION (NS & EW)
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.43
A
0.55
A
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.37
A
0.72
C
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.59
A
0.64
B
46. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.34
A
0.38
A
47. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.30
A
0.20
A
48. MacArthur Bl. & Bison Av.
0.64
B
0.61
B
49. MacArthur Bl. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.72
C
0.90
D
50. MacArthur Bl. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.651
B
0.931
E
51. MacArthur Bl. & San Miguel Dr.
0.581
A
0.68
B
52. Coast Hw. & MacArthur Bl.
0.611
B
0.72
C
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.56
A
0.45
A
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.32
A
0.41
A
55. San Miguel Dr. & Spyglass Hill Rd.
0.27
A
0.28
A
56. San Joaquin Hills Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.47
A
0.56
A
57. Coast Hw. & Goldenrod Av.
0.98
E
0.70
B
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.33
AH
59. Coast Hw. & Marguerite Av.
0.83
D
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.42
A
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.63
B
EA
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Ramps
0.47
A
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.40
A
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.49
A
• C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\0LK3275\[00460-29.xls]T 5
36
4
The following 7 intersections currently experience deficient (LOS "E" or worse)
peak hour operations under existing (2002) conditions:
• Riverside Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW)
• Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street (N) (EW)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/Mesa Drive (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW)
• Goldenrod Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW)
l�
U
•
37
3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
• This chapter presents currently adopted General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions. This
represents the amount of traffic which can be predicted if all entitlement expressed in
the current Land Use Element, and all the improvements identified in the Circulation
Element, were fully constructed. It also includes regional growth through the year 2025.
Data are compared to existing conditions to quantify growth.
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
The General Plan Buildout land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc.
staff by the City of Newport Beach. Table 6 summarizes the overall General Plan
Buildout land uses for the City of Newport Beach. An overall comparison to
existing (2002) land use is also shown in Table 6. Land uses generally increase
for the City General Plan Buildout Scenario. Areas where the most anticipated
intensification in development are in the older, on -street commercial districts,
• such as Mariners' Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, the Campus/Birch tract (near
John Wayne Airport), etc. The single most significant residential growth area is
Newport Coast/Ridge, although there are notable residential increases predicted
for older residential neighborhoods like Corona del Mar, Lido Isle, and the Balboa
Peninsula. There is only one significant undeveloped property in the City's
planning area, Banning Ranch in western Newport Beach. Reductions in specific
uses (e.g., mobile homes, movie theaters) are caused by redevelopment in the
City.
3.2 General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
General Plan buildout SED that has been converted from land use is
summarized in Table 7. Table 7 also contains a comparison of General Plan
Buildout SED to existing (2002) SED for the City of Newport Beach.
The total number of dwelling units are projected to increase by 5,452 units (16%)
• per the currently adopted General Plan. For total employment, an increase of
20,119 employees (33%) is included in the currently adopted General Plan.
38
TABLE 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
'LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
% GROWTH
1 I
Low Density Residential
DU
14.841
15.213
372
2.51%
2-1-Medium
Density Residential
DU
12,939,
17.723
4,784
36.97%
3
A artment
DU
7.622
8,468
846
11.10%
4
Elderly Residential
DU
348
348
-
0.00%
5
Mobile Home
DU
894
749
-145
-16.22%
6
Motel
ROOM
210
256
46
21.90%
7
Hotel
ROOM
2,745
2,799
54
1.97%
9
Re tonal Commercial
TSF
1,259.000'
1.633.850
374.850
29.77%
10
General Commercial
TSF
2.926.160
3,692.980 1
766.820
26.21%
11
Commercial/Recreation
ACRE
5.100
5.100
0.00%
13
Restaurant
TSF
640.520
850.900
210.380
32.85%
15
Fast Food Restaurant
TSF
78.031
94.540
16.509
21.16%
16
Auto Dealer/Sales
TSF
288.320
323,290
X970,
12.13%
17
Yacht Club
TSF
54.580
73.060
18.480
33.86%
18
Health Club
TSF
63.500
100.940
37.440
58.96%
19
Tennis Club
CRT
60
60
0.00%
20
Marina
SLIP
1,055
1,055
0.00%
21
Theater
SEAT
5,489
5.475
-14
-0.26%
22
Newport Dunes
ACRE
64.00
64.00
-
0.00%
23
General Office
TSF
10,900.190
11,760.423
860.233
7.89%
24
Medical Office
TSF
761.459
895.420
133.961
17.590
25
Research & Development
TSF
327.409
809.330
481.921
147. 99%
26
27
Industrial
Mini-Storage/Warehouse
TSF
TSF
1,042.070
199.750
1,060.762
199.750
18.692
1
1.790
0.00%I
28
Pre-school/Da Care
TSF
55.820
56.770
0.950
1.70%
29
30
31
32
33
34
EleMenta /Private School
Junior/High School
Cultural/Learning Center
Libra
Post Office
Hos ital
STU
STU
TSF
TSF
TSF
BED
4,399
4,765
35.000'
78.840
53.700,
351
4.455
4,765
40,000
78:840
73.700
1,265
56
-
-00%
20.0002
5.000123.68%
91440%
1.27/0
0.005/0
29%
%%
35
36
38
39
40
Nursin /Cbnv. Home
Church
Youth CtrJService
Park
Regional Park
Golf Course
BEDS
TSF
TSF
ACRE
ACRE
ACRE
661
377.760
149.560
113.970
305.330
661
467.2,10
155.410
94.910
45.910
298.330
89.45037
5.85091%
-19.060
45.910
1 -7.000
00%
-16.72%
N/A
-2.29 A
U:IUcJobs100460%Exce11100460.21.xls]T 6
i
•
M
•
•
TABLE 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON
VARIABLE
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
% GROWTH
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
14,250
408
3%
Occupied Multi -Family Dwelling Units
20,409
25,453
5,044
25%
Total Occupied Dwelling Units
34,251
39,703
5,452
16%
Group Quarters Population
661
661
0
0%
Population
75,817
87,886
12,069
16%
Employed Residents
44,3791
51,268
6,889
16%
Retail Employee
10,198
12,675
2,477
24%
Service Employees
24,594
28,442
3,848
16%
Other Employees
2
36,246
40,040
3,794
10 0
Total Employees
61,038
81,157
20,119
33%
Elem/High School Students
9,164
9,220
56
1%
40
3.3 Buildout Trip Generation
Table 8 summarizes the overall trip generation for General Plan Buildout
conditions for the City of Newport Beach. The overall trip generation for the City
of Newport Beach is an estimated 860,673 daily vehicle trips. Table 9 compares
General Plan Buildout trip generation to existing. Total trip generation increases
by approximately 163;000 daily trips over existing (or 23%). Regionally, total trip
generation (Post 2025) is projected to increase by 33%.
3.4 'Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
Exhibit R shows General Plan Buildout 'through lanes on Newport Beach
roadways. This exhibit is based on information provided by City of Newport
Beach staff and the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. The extension of
the SR-55 Freeway south of 17th Street is part of the assumed circulation system
as is the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile, the le Street •
Bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the circulation system Master Plan for the
Banning Ranch area. Additionally, tolls have been retained on toll roads to
provide a conservative worst -case scenario. Regionally, total vehicle miles of
travel are projected to increase by 45%, reflecting the tendency for growth to
occur in outlying areas of the region.
Exhibit S summarizes the NBTM 31 refined General Plan Buildout daily traffic
volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. The highest daily traffic volume
increase occurs on Coast Highway. Between Bayside Drive and Newport
Boulevard, traffic increases by 15,000 or more vehicles per day (VPD). This
increase is caused partly by land use increases in the Balboa area. The capacity
increase of 50% (4 lanes to 6 lanes) on Coast Highway west of Dover Drive makes
the route more desirable and also contributes to the volume increase. Finally, the
SR-55 Freeway extension makes this section of Coast Highway more desirable to
through traffic. This is reflected by the less substantial increase in volume on Coast
Highway west of Newport Boulevard (9,000 VPD increase). Volumes on Coast
41
0
L1
TABLE 8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS /
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
70,469
103,146
-32,677
0.68
Home Based School
14,125
8,845
5,280
1.60
Home Based Other
167,202
133,461
33,741
1.25
Work Based Other
66,150
70,850
-4,700
0.93
Other- Other
113.964
112,461
1,503
1.01
TOTAL
431,9101
428,7631
3,1471
1.01
OVERALL TOTAL 860,673 11
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U:\UcJobs\00460\Excel\[00460-21.xlslT 8
42
TABLE 9 Is
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
TRIP PURPOSE
DAILY TRIP ENDS
GROWTH
PERCENT
GROWTH
EXISTING
GENERALPLAN
BUILDOUT
Home Based Work Productions'
57,568
70,469
12,901
22.41%
Home Based Work Attractions
88,618
103,146
14,528
16,39%
Home Based School Productions
11,424
14,125
2,701
23.64%
HomeBased School Attractions
8,730
18,845
115
1,32%
Home Based Other -Productions
125.826
167,202
41,376
32.88%
Home Based Other Attractions
107.619
133,461
25,842
24.01%
Work Based OtherProductions
55,625
66,150
10,525
18.92%
Work Based Other Attractions
59,778
70,850
11,072
18.52%
Other - Other Productions
91,946
113,964
22,018
23.95%
Other - Other Attractions
90.492
112,4611
21,9691
24.28%
TOTAL PRODUCTIONS
1 --542,3891
431,910
89,5211
26.15%
TOTAL ATTRACTIONS
1 355,2371
428,7631
73,5261
20.70%
OVERALL TOTAL
1 697,6261
860,6731
163,0471
23.37%
' Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home -University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode, choice output,
2 Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U:1UcJobs1004601Exceil[00460-21.xls)T 9
0
43
- p
NEWPORT BEACH GARAL PLAN BUILDOUT THROUGUNBIld
L
4D
6D
LEGEND:
""1, " p 4—NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES
° \ 0 U
6 D . DIVIDED
sD � 4so PACIFIC U =UNDIVIDED
6D 6D
40 4 D OCEAN
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE Newport Beach, Calitomia - 00460:32 rev. 03/26/03 u�teAN
a.
Ln
92
EXHIBIT S
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
5
PACIFIC
OCEAN
48
K
W
LEGEND:
20 -VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
i
Highway throughout the study area generally increase, with the one exception
• being west of 15th Street. The new Santa Ana River crossing of 19th Street draws
traffic away from Coast Highway. Volumes on Coast Highway in other areas
generally increase by 8,000-12,000 VPD.
Traffic volumes on Newport Boulevard increase substantially in General Plan
buildout conditions. Land use increases in the coastal areas account for some of
the increase. Traffic is also drawn to Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport
Beach because of the SR-55 freeway extension. However, changes to the planned
circulation system Master Plan and/or the permitted level of intensification of land
uses could lead to different results in the long term.
Land use increases in the Newport Coast area cause Newport Coast Drive to have
large volume increases that grow approaching the SR-73 tollway. Increased traffic
from Bonita Canyon and Harbor View Hills/Newport Ridge cause volumes on
Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bonita Canyon Drive to go up.
Increased capacity on Irvine Avenue south of Bristol Street draws traffic to Campus
Drive/Irvine Avenue.
3.5 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
The final data required to support the Buildout Scenario of the NBTM update
process was the intersection configuration of the 63 intersections selected for
analysis. This data was provided by City staff and was used to calculate currently
adopted General Plan Buildout intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs) at all
63 analysis intersections. Table 10 summarizes the General Plan Buildout ICUs
based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and
the intersection geometric data.
As shown in Table 10, ICU values generally increase in the General Plan buildout
conditions. The exceptions occur where new parallel facilities are available, or
• where an increase in lanes results in increased capacity. The 14 intersections with
ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period are:
EI
TABLE10
NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY •
INTERSECTION NS/EW
AM
PEAK HOUR
PM
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
I FORECAST
DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
I. Bluff Dr. & Coast Hw.
ONE'
0.99
0.99
DNE
0.77
0.77
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.67
0.65
-0.02
0.57
0.56
-0.01
3. Superior Av. &Coast Hw.
0.84
1.01
0.17
0.81
0.82
0.01
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
0.73
0.19
0.66
0.90
0.24
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.45
0.54
0.09
0.41
0.49
0.08
6. Newport BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
0.71
-0,02
0.79
0.80
0.01
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
0.80
-0.03
0.93
1.11
0.18
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
0.78
-0.02
0.68
0.88
0.20
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.62
0.74
0.12
0.77
1.00
0.23
10. MacArthur Bl. & Birch St.
0.52
0.50
-0.02
0.67
0.66
-0.01
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.57
0.65
0.08
0.79
0.84
0.05
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.40
0.51
0.11
0.73
0.89
0.16
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.94
0.97
0.03
D.831
0.93
0.10
14.,Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.82
0.93
0.11
0.61
0.72
0.11
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. )
0.78
0.92
0.14
0.93
0.98
0.05
16. Birch St. & Bristol St.
0.67
0.79
0.12
0.63
0.70
0.07
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72
0:83
0.1.1
0.60
0.74
0.14
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. S)
0.46
0.50
0.04
.0:47
0.51
0.04
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.72
0:60
-0.12
0.91
0.82
-0.09
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
1.07
0.25
0.88
1.01
0.13
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.65
0.58
-0.07
0.72
0.62
-0.10
22.Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.58
0.52
-0.06
0.62
0.57
-0.05
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.66
0.65
-0.01
0.64
0.62
-0.02
24. Irvine Av. & Westcliff Dr.
0.58
0.50
-0.08
0.73
0.72
-0.01
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.40
0.28
-0.12
_ 0.50
0.50
0.00
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.53
0.46
-0.07
0.49
0.45
-0.04
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
0.72
0.02
0.75
0.75
0.00
28. Ba side Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.68
0.84
0.16
0.69
0.95
0.26
29. MacArthur B1, & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
0.91
0.03
0.91
0.97
0.06
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St.
0.57
0.63
0.06
0.60
0.68
0.08
31. Ba view PI. & Bristol St. S
0.50
0.57
0.07
0.581
0.65
0.07
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. S)
0.75
0.82
0,07
0.73
0.82
0.09
33. Jamboree Rd. & Ba view W .
0.41
0.45
0.04
0.50
0.61
0.11
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.62
0.62
0.00
0.65
0.58
-0.07
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.46
0.44
-0.02
0.54
0.54
0.00
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.
0.701
0.741
0.04
0.66
0.70
0.04
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.661
0.721
0,06
0.88
0.92
0.04
11
•
47
TABLE 10 (CONTINUED)
• NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
0
0
INTERSECTION NS/EW
AM
PEAK HOUR
I PM
PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
I FORECAST
I DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
I FORECAST
DELTA
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.59
0.66
0.07
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.70
0.85
0.15
0.74
0.89
0.15
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.34
0.40
0.06
0.35
0.35
0.00
1. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36
0.38
0.02
0.51
0.67
0.16
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.43
0.54
0.11
0.55
0.64
0.09
44. Avocado Av. & San Miguel Dr.
0.37
0.39
0.02
0.72
0.76
0.04
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.59
0.73
0.14
0.64
0.78
0.14
46. SR-73 NB Rams & Bison Av.
0.34
0.52
0.18
0.38
0.42
0.04
7. SR-73 SB Rams & Bison Av.
0.30
0.41
0.11
0.20
0.32
0.12
48. MacArthur BI. & Bison Av.
0.64
0.75
0.11
0.61
0.75
0.14
49. MacArhtur BI. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.72
0.75
0.03
0.90
1.06
0.16
50. MacArthur BI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.65
0.72
0.07
0.93
0.97
0.04
51. MacArthur BI. & San Miguel Dr.
0.58
0.62
0.04
0.68
0.70
0.02
52. Coast Hw. & MacArthur Bl.
0.61
0.71
0.10
0.72
0.81
0.09
53. SR-73 NB Rams & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.56
0.56
0.00
0.45
0.41
-0.04
54. SR-73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.32
0.33
0.01
0.41
0.50
0.09
55. San Miguel Dr. & Spyglass Hill Rd.
0.27
0.29
0.02
0.28
0.35
. 0.07
56. San Joaquin Hills Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.56
0.66
0.10
57. Coast Hw. & Goldenrod Av.
0.98
1.07
0.09
0.701
0.77
0.07
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.33
0.41
0.08
0.38
0.50
0.12
59. Coast Hw. & Marguerite Av.
0.83
0.93
0.10
0.82
0.93
0.11
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.42
0.59
0.17
0.29
0.40
0.11
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.63
0.72
0.09
0.67
0.761
0.09
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR-73 NB Rams
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.34
0.41
0.07
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.40
0.61
0.21
0.32
0.48
0.16
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.49
0.611
0.121
0.521
0.65
0.13
IDNE = Does Not Exist
U%UcJobs\00460T-xcea100460.21.xls1T 10
U:\U cJ obs\00460\Excel\[0046(
• Bluff Road (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Superior Avenue (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Riverside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW). (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/Campus Drive (EW) (AM/PM)
• Campus Drive (NS)/Bristol Street North (EW) (AM/PM)
• Irvine Avenue (NS)/University Avenue (EW) (AM/PM)
• Bayside Drive (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Jamboree Road (EW) (AM/PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS)/San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• Goldenrod (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Marguerite (NS)/Coast Highway (EW) (AM/PM)
•
It is important to note that for both existing and build -out conditions, Intersection
Capacity'Utilization ratio calculation reflect the function of intersections for a very limited
amount of time throughout the day (the.AM and PM peak hours, or 2 of the 24 hour time
period, and only for weekdays). Within the current data limitations, we are unable to
provide ICU calculations either as an average ICU, or for,other, non -peak hours.
•
m
• GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 14, 2003
—Roger Alford
Patrick Bartolic
--Dorothy Beek
Phillip Bettencourt
Carol Boice
Karlene Bradley
Gus Chabre
John Corrough
Laura Dietz
Grace Dove
Florence Felton
•
Nancy Gardner
Louise Greeley
Ernie Hatchell
Bob Hendrickson
—Tom Hyans
Mike Ishikawa
---David Janes
Kim Jansma
Mike Johnson
Alex Kakavas
Bill Kelly
,Todd Knipp
'Donald Krotee
Lucille Kuehn
.
Philip Lugar
ice; _.fir
l
1
•
0
Catherine O'Hara
Carl Ossipoff
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Almn Cile^etr
s GENERAL PLAN ADARORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 14, 2003
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E
E-MAIL ADDRESS
�1'11ova mo w%,
O-W d at , 4t,;-t,021
(_4 _Vdalt&4, - v6a
. ern,_
0
GENERAL PLAN ADJKORY COMMITTEE
Monday, April 14, 2003
PUBLIC SIGN -IN
NAME ADDRESS/PHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
lJ
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 14,
2003, at the Police Department Auditorium.
Members Present:
Phillip Bettencourt
Bob Hendrickson
Karlene Bradley
Mike Ishikawa
Gus Chabre
Kim Jansma
John Corrough
Mike Johnson
Laura Dietz
Bill Kelly
Grace Dove
Lucille Kuehn
Florence Felton
Phillip Lugar
Nancy Gardner
Catherine O'Hara
Louise Greeley
Carl Ossipoff
Members Absent:
Roger Alford
David Janes
Patrick Bartolic
Alex Kakavas
Dorothy Beek
Todd Knipp
Carol Boice
Donald Krotee
Tom Hyans
Alan Silcock
Ernest Hatchell
Staff Present:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Temple, Planning Director
Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner
Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant
Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads
Members of the Public Present:
Maria White
Allen Beek
Charles Remley
Larry Root
John Saunders
James Schmiesing
Ed Siebel
Jackie Sukiasian
Jan Vandersloot
Jennifer Wesoloski
Ron Yeo
I. Welcome and Introductions
• Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes
Phillip Lugar commented that the minutes were brief and requested that staff prepare
the minutes a little more descriptive. Ms. Wood responded that typically the minutes
have been more descriptive but because the main event was a presentation by Woodie
Tescher and copies of the slides were attached to the minutes. Mr. Lugar felt that the
questions and answers would have been interesting to read.
Phillip Bettencourt moved to approve the March 24, 2003 minutes. Mr. Lugar
seconded the motion. Motion passes.
III. Communication between GPAC & Planning Commission/City Council
Ms. Wood commented that the Update Committee and Scoping subcommittee discussed
this item. The Scoping subcommittee had a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission, and a lot of questions were raised about how are GPAC and GPUC going to
keep the Planning Commission and City Council apprised of what they are doing so the
• process does not potentially take off down some track that the Commission and Council
are not comfortable with. The recommendation that has been made by the General
Plan Update Committee is to have some study sessions of the City Council and the
Planning Commission at key decision points in the process so that they can hear what
the recommendations and discussion of the two committees have been to that point.
For example, one of the key points is when we select which alternatives are going to be
analyzed, using both the traffic model and the fiscal impact model.
IV. Traffic Model Results for Existing Development & Existing General Plan
Buildout - Woodie Tescher of EIP Associates and Carleton Waters of Urban
Crossroads — [Slide presentation attached to minutes.]
Mr. Tescher commented that there are two perspectives of traffic in the City. The first
is sort of analogous to flying over the City, taking a snap shot and describing and
documenting what you see on the ground in terms of existing traffic conditions. The
first part of the presentation is what is there today, what is happening today, and what
are the characteristics and conditions of traffic in the City.
The second part that is the perspective of asking "what if." What if the existing General
Plan that is in place is the adopted policy of the City of Newport Beach and carried to its
conclusion. What happens to traffic if build -out to what is currently permitted under
that plan occurs. The second perspective is also asking what happens with all the
• current General Plan recommendations for transportation improvements. If they are
implemented with that additional increment of growth, how will traffic change.
0)
This will provide us with a couple of benchmarks as we go further through this General
• Plan process during which we will be identifying some alternatives. Some of the
alternatives may ask what happens if we don't build all those roadways or
improvements or what happens if we build some other improvements? We may test
those in the subsequent stages of this planning process. We may also ask ourselves,
what if that is not a realistic projection of the amount of growth we are going to
accommodate in the City? How will that affect the conclusions?
The second General Plan analysis is required by State law. The California
Environmental Quality Act requires that in the General Plan process, one of the
benchmarks you measure any modification of the General Plan against is the current
General Plan. By State law, it is technically known as the "no -project" alternative
under the California Environmental Quality Act. These should indicate the starting
points and is not a conclusion or the final analysis but a beginning to frame the
discussion we are moving toward in the next few months. Mr. Tescher reiterated again
that this is an Executive Summary document and there is voluminous research that
backs up what you are hearing here today.
Carlton Waters explained what things look like from a traffic perspective in the City
today with traffic count data based on surveys that have been performed, such, as
following vehicles from key locations that are in the City to see whether they are going
through the City or they are ending up someplace within the community.
Mr. Waters explained the primary study area for the updated Newport Beach Traffic
Model includes all of the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence, and it also
includes key portions of adjacent communities, such as parts of Huntington Beach,
Costa Mesa and Irvine, as well as communities that are farther away that directly affect
traffic conditions in the City of Newport Beach.
Mr. Waters began the PowerPoint presentation. Following are the some of the
questions posed during the trip generation portion of the presentation:
Trips are typically 20 percent of the total trips and the data for Newport Beach is
consistent with the region
• Home to Other (social/recreational/any activity that does not fall into a strict
shopping category or a work trip) are nearly twice as many as anything else. Is this
also typical, Mr. Waters responded yes. All of the percentages are within the normal
ranges of the kinds of trips that people are making.
• If you work at home, where are you driving? They are all trips that relate to what
kind of mode of transport. In the City of Newport Beach there is a relatively high
non -motorized home to work trip component, which is probably related to a very
high number home business or a business that is located near to the home.
• • How radically do you think this will change in 12 years? One of the basic premises
of travel demand model building is that behavior is expected to change slowly;
3
therefore, Mr. Waters said that these are fairly consistent percentages and should
stay fairly consistent.
• Trip generation, what type of trips is referred to? These are trips relating to
Newport Beach that could have started "at-home" in Newport Beach or may have
started at a "commercial establishment."
• Work at Home clarification — At one time it was very common for shop keepers to
live upstairs from the shop, and over time there got to be a very, very few people
that were actually working at home. In today's information and technology age, the
regional surveys ask the question so they can gauge whether or not there is a
significant change in that kind of activity occurring. Technically, the question is, "do
they really travel anywhere?" The answer is no, they did not travel to work but
after they were done with their work, they might have embarked on a home/other.
• Home to Other — Does that include Home to School if you use a car pool lane to go
to day care or pre-school? Yes, that is Home to Other.
• Was demographic information considered and would your forecast include the
changing demographics for the City? Aging population will add more trips to doctors
and not trips to work so how is that included in this chart? — This is an existing
travel pattern, and the that type of demographic change could effect these statistics
in the future forecasting but right now, assuming we are going to have less traffic
because we have a higher proportion of retired population, in a sense you could say
these forecasts might be a little conservative if you see this huge change in the
demographic.
. • What is not typical in this chart? — This is a fairly typical chart. People might ask if
Newport Beach is an unusual community but this chart says that Newport Beach is
in fact a typical community and there are not a lot of retired people that do not have
to work.
• Would we be similar to our neighbors, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Laguna
Beach? Would you expect the chart to be the same? Mr. Waters responded that he
would expect the chart to be very similar although they have not done an analysis
for the other communities. Looking at the more generalized statistics from the
region wide, as well as basic background on travel behavior, these types of statistics
of home to other is very important, home to shop trips — very typical statistics.
• You would expect them to have similar situations? — Similar — There is one table that
was dropped out of the Executive Summary package, which dealt with a lot of
obscure time of day relationships that are not that important but they describe what
proportion of the AM peak hour trips occur during the 3-hour AM peak period, what
proportion of daily trips are the AM peak hour trips. That table shows that the City
of Newport Beach has a very traditional traffic peaking characteristic. Twenty years
ago, the rule of thumb was that your PM peak hour traffic volume would be around
10 percent of the total daily traffic. In most of the Southern California Region,
traffic is spread a bit more than that because of things like congestion effects or the
need to live farther from your job.
• How was this information actually gathered? — This information is based on the
home survey data that was collected as part of this origin destination survey. There
• is a statistically significant sampling of people in each community in the region. This
particular data is originating in Newport Beach, at least for the home -based trips.
0
The following slides are the reverse, people that started from other points and were
destined for the City of Newport Beach.
• • How did you count the people coming to Newport Beach? — This survey was
conducted region -wide. There were several thousand surveys conducted in Ventura
County, even more in Los Angeles County because the survey is weighted to try and
capture a statistically valid sampling throughout the region. There are surveys that
were done for people that live in Costa Mesa and were asked about their travel
behavior for that particular day. Irvine, Newport Beach and another location.
• Re the Pie Chart — If you were to provide a good local transportation system, you
may be able to lessen the amount of traffic. — Mr. Waters said that the issue -'for us
as transportation planners or as people trying to facilitate an efficient transportation
system is that you have to have good local coverage and be able to compete with
the automobile. The automobile is ready to leave whenever you are; you never
have to stand to wait for it to show up. Because we set our standards fairly high in
terms of mobility, a level of service is needed for the City and so a very efficient
alternative transportation is needed. Mr. Waters agreed that the thought that you
could provide good local transport of some sort would potentially satisfy a lot of
demands.
Where does Riverside County fit in the pie chart? — Other
Los Angeles County? — Los Angeles County is a larger percentage than the
combination of Riverside and San Bernardino County. Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties combined account for perhaps 1.5 million population. Los Angeles County
alone accounts for 10 million. Proportionately to the number of people, there is
• more interaction on a percentage basis with the population of those two counties
since it is only one -tenth of Los Angeles. If it were a proportionate population, then
the other category which is San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, would be 0.3%.
Did your firm do the survey? — No, this is data that is available from the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG). We went through the process of
analyzing those records that are specific to the City of Newport Beach.
• How current is the survey that SCAG did? This was based on a 1991 Origin -
Destination Survey.
• Is this chart what is referred to as regional traffic? These trips are strictly trips that
were destined for a location in the City of Newport Beach. They have nothing to do
with regional traffic. Does that include beach traffic? Yes. So the only thing it
would not cover is the trips through traffic to Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach,
Irvine, etc. — Correct. There are separate slides for those.
Is it correct that this is a shoulder season survey — so beach traffic that we are used
to in the summer time is not reflected here? — Mr. Waters responded that he could
not say for sure when they did the survey. — Some of the committee members
responded that it does include fall and spring. Mr. Waters responded that this data
may have been collected any time during the course of the year. They tend not to
like doing the survey during the summer months when people are not doing their
normal routine. A committee member responded that beach traffic is a normal
routine for Newport Beach residents every year.
• The information in this study says that these surveys were done in the fall and
spring. Is the data that you accumulated also in the fall and spring? — Mr. Waters
5
responded that all the data that they have been responsible for was collected during
those shoulder seasons. This data is a large-scale survey done throughout the
• region and feels that it would not be the summer but would be reflective of those
shoulder seasons because they like to do these surveys when they get a typical
travel pattern. They would most likely not reflect the beach travel.
• When you say "through -traffic," does that mean, except maybe stopping for gas,
they are going directly through the community? — If they stop for gas, they stop in
the community. That would be an internal trip as well. A through trip is travel on
through without stopping.
• One of the questions that came up at the GPUC meeting is, what were your
statistical contents in these percentages? — Mr. Waters made a guess and promised
to get this information into the final version of this Executive Summary.
• In response to a committee member's question — We were directed to purposely
point our sampling towards periods when we thought we would capture maximum
through traffic so we collected 30 of those samples in the AM peak period, 30 in the
PM peak period, and the remaining 40 percent during the middle of the day
sometime. We did that for all three survey locations. It could be considered to be
somewhat conservative because we tried to capture times when the regional people
would be most likely to choose this route.
• Where were you picking up the people north of Newport Coast Drive? — South of
Newport Coast Drive. This diagram does not tell you exactly what route people took
to get someplace.
• Is the volume of traffic on Pacific Coast Hwy expected to change at the mid -point
• where the volume is 51,000? We can use the model to answer that question — This
is an actual survey and tried to follow a mix of all the different vehicles that were
crossing those points. When looked at how it validated against this data, results
suggest that the model is very close to the same type of statistic today. Mr. Waters
said he would not expect that percentage to change a lot. The growth of the City is
lower than the growth County -wide.
In response to a committee member's inquiry — Mr. Waters pointed on the slide that
the going back again from that direction has a similar percent. 7 percent of the
traffic crossing the Santa Ana River on Coast Highway southbound was destined for
someplace beyond the City limit at the south end of town. Unlike the cordon they
were just looking at, the lines for external or the through traffic going elsewhere are
much smaller — no 5 or 7 percents as in the last slide. Everything is one and two
percents. The total traffic crossing for Santa Ana River into town, perhaps 15
percent of that traffic is through traffic bound for someplace outside the City of
Newport Beach, and everybody else is ending up in Newport Beach.
Regarding the incidental increase in trips question — Ms. Gardner suggested that
because, some of these questions require judgments and might be evaluated better at
the end of the presentation to focus the questions on areas where an explanation is
needed as to what we are seeing in the slides. This is -definitely shoulder season data
and trying to understand a little bit about what the summary is important to this
• community, and in discussions with staff, we recognize that importance. Those topics
N.
come under the heading of special issues. This kind of data collection analysis might be
very appropriate for the summer time.
• . Peak time — have we done anything about the rush hour? — This data is 60
percent collected during the peak time and about 40 percent collected during the
off peak. There are tables that break data down by repeat in the off peak areas.
That kind of information is available.
How long did it take to conduct this 3-point survey? — We probably spent about
two to three weeks of having staff technicians go out and collect this data
depending on the availability of our technicians. It was collected over a period of
two or three weeks. We tend to survey during Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday conditions because we do not think Monday and Friday is
representative of the typical week day.
Summer impacts — Ms. Gardner suggested this is an item for the end of the
presentation.
Delineate the six intersections? — Listed on page 37 of Executive Summary.
Statistical average or estimate as to what might be likely to be built -out? - Question for
end of presentation
Mr. Waters finished the presentation and discussion was opened.
• John Saunders questioned the 100 percent buildout projection. Doesn't that overstate
what will really happen in the future? Ms. Temple responded by introducing the start of
a thought process to begin trying to help the GPUC come up with what the planners
and consultants will be looking for by way of what kinds of alternatives to look at
because what John is alluding to is the basic data structure of this part of this exercise.
One of our mandates based on CEQA and other parts of State Planning law is that
projecting our existing General Plan buildout, both land use and circulation system
improvements is something that we are required to do and that is one of our first base
line analysis.
In terms of what that particular component of this traffic modeling process means is
that it is full build out of Newport Beach land use and roadways. The projected growth,
both land use growth and transportation improvement growth, for the rest of the region
(the entire six county SCAG region) to the year 2025. They do not go all the way to
build out, they go to a planning horizon currently 2025.
In terms of what John's question is, as we as local planners know, there is little
likelihood that every single house will be built that could be built under the zoning and
general plan and not ever will there be 100 percent of all those square feet built. There
is always going to be a property owner that elects to use his property differently. Case
• in point — what is our greatest trend on Balboa Island? Each lot is allowed two houses.
What are most people building? One.
7
One thing to start thinking about by way of alternatives is whether one alternative to
. assess is one that does not really look at actual changes to entitlements but looks at
looking at a projection based on our current trends. In other words, if we are only
growing by x-houses per year citywide and we know the concentration is in these four
geographic areas to look at pushing that projection out to 2025 is going to be
substantially less than what the General Plan numbers are. That may be an interesting
point of beginning just to get a handle for what we technically would call the planning
horizon. We are working with a 2025 horizon at this time. The General Plan is
supposed to be fluid and when we next update this plan 5 to 10 years after this one,
we will be throwing the horizon out again another 25 years so that we are not getting
behind the game but are dealing within a planning universe that one might actually be
able to reasonably project.
The committee members might want to think about this even before thinking about
land use alternatives in terms of lets rezone this or change this from commercial to
residential, try and get this area open space, etc., which are important but there may
be a progression of alternatives that will help this committee as well as Planning
Commission, City Council and the community to see what the opportunities are.
One other thing that Carlton wanted me to help you understand was the issue of the
projected growth, where some of that is so that you might get a handle on how likely it
is to actually occur. One thing that some members of GPUC were questioning, is if you
• look at it on a Citywide basis, there are about 2 million square feet of un-built non-
residential development, and they are going where? Most of the un-built entitlement in
Newport Beach is in areas that I call the older on -street commercial districts. Ms.
Temple commented that if she had to pick out the four that constitute the majority of
that number, well over half, probably almost three quarters, it is four areas: Mariners
Mile (from Dover to Arches bridge), Old Newport Boulevard (the old Newport Boulevard
on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard across from Hoag Hospital), the industrial
area behind Hoag Hospital, and an area by the airport that I call Campus tract, which is
an old Irvine industrial subdivision between Birch and Campus, Bristol and Macarthur
Boulevard. Those areas all have several hundred thousand square feet of non -yet
implemented General Plan entitlement. Therefore we are looking at areas that are
somewhat geographically diverse although three of them are in the West Newport area
and one by the Airport but we are also not talking Newport Center, Koll Center
Newport, and those areas that, in the past, were the primary sources of our commercial
and jobs growth. When you look at the charts and you see x-percentage of job growth,
and you think about where that growth can occur right now, one might think, "you
know, I'm not sure that projection is reasonable for the next 25 years." As John said,
maybe it is only 10 or 15 percent of that and we can look at some of those scenarios to
help get a grasp as to where we are headed.
Carl Ossipoff observed that this is frightening if they are trying to accommodate traffic
• and the growth. He said his idea was to try and make Mariners Mile more pedestrian
than mixed use. Mr. Ossipoff asked if they are just creating a conduit to run vehicles
N
through, doesn't that create bottle necks in places like Corona del Mar or Mariners Mile?
Ms. Temple responded there is a good thing and a bad thing about widening a road. As
• Carlton noted, by widening the road you may relieve some of your congestion in the
short-term but you may also be creating a more attractive road for more people to use,
and would they go another route if there was more congestion? Ms. Temple noted that
is a judgment call for the community.
Mr. Corrough referred to the uniqueness of this community as a desirable destination
place the region, it tends to get a tremendously asymmetrical loadings on a very limited
number of access routes to the beach. Mr. Corrough commented that he knows they
are not anticipating building out beaches and that is probably why beaches are not
listed but beaches are a trip generator in the sense of being a destination point and
eventually a larger point for the home -bound route. Mr. Corrough said that he is
presuming they are not covered under part or any other use but somehow hopes they
are covered under the total list of trip generating categories.
Ms. Temple commented that is a question, and once again, they are stepping aside
from the summer season for this purpose, but are not going to avoid it altogether.
Basically, trips to the beach otherwise tend to be covered within the actual other uses
in areas like the Peninsula. When you look in the first shoulder seasons and how much
commercial we have down there, what we are probably doing is sort of assigning it to
all of the commercial uses even though they might be under performing or even closed
. during those times. But basically what happens from a modeling point, is we try to get
the model to reflect the actual trips that are on the road regardless of their purpose,
and I think that what we have found is by using usually more typical generation factors
for the other uses in the area, including the beaches and the homes and everything
else, that it tends to account so the numbers come out okay because it is really hard to
figure out whether that trip is going to B.J.'s or whether they are going to the beach.
They're probably doing both.
Mr. Corrough commented that we tend to count the trips coming down to the water's
edge for things like our commercial vessels and uses in terms of the primary use that
contains the operator, so for that we look at it as an office use, in which there are four
to six people and maybe two or three others on -site and is that properly parked and
how many trips do they generate? Also Mr. Corrough said that he is not sure that they
are counting the average number of people and trips generated by the commercial
vessels and the persons on each of those vessels. The problem with peak and off peak
shoulder season, etc. is the Chamber of Commerce and the business community is
praying for those shoulder seasons. The traditional effort of any community like this
with a moderate climate as opposed to colder climates that have a very discreet
summer season and gets boat usage of over 60-percents of boats going out on any
week -end day, we are lucky if we get 15 percent usage here. The problem is we tend
to stretch out the impacts on these amenities, on transportation systems, demands on
the public services, etc. Even though we have a tremendous peak in the summer, we
• are pushing these shoulder seasons out, and it is the tendency for that industry and
those communities to have to deal with this extending now not over 3 to 4 months but
{7
6 to 7 months. We get other people coming into the area, we are in the right season
and they are freezing somewhere else, we get those peaks around Christmas and New
• Years that belies the question. We get not only the Christmas shopping but we also get
the Christmas visitors. All of these key areas, the beaches, commercial boats and the
Harbor itself hinge on a couple of very important gateways and essentially a dead-end
transportation system and limited capacity out on the Peninsula and Pacific Coast
Highway corridor.
Catherine O'Hara — What is a realistic analysis for General Plan Build -out?
Improvements that were assumed, are they realistic? Executive Summary — Exhibit E,
page 16, ways we can try to change traffic patterns —It looks like if we did not charge
money for Newport Coast road, that traffic is 7 percent per 62,000 trips, 37,000 trips —
could we get rid of those trips off our streets by just having no toll. The question is it
worth it to evaluate each of those hundred and narrow it down to something that is
acceptable. Or is it political. Do we have a chance to get the TCA to agree to getting
rid of the toll?
Mr. Tescher responded to Catherine's question about the evaluation of alternatives, and
said he thought he raised the question about, that happens if not all those roadway
improvements get constructed." The alternatives will look at, not just land use, but will
address those kinds of issues as well, so what are the alternatives, the consequences of
removing a lane off of Pacific Coast Highway or any other improvement that is there.
. That is part of the testing that will occur during the next phases of this process as well.
Ms. Wood commented that they will be looking for input from this committee, as well as
the Update Committee to help define which alternatives we are going to analyze both
with this model and with the fiscal impact model.
C1
Ms. O'Hara turned to page 20 and asked if those trips originated inside or outside of
Newport Beach. Mr. Waters commented that these are trips that originated outside of
Newport Beach or could actually have originated in Newport Beach but are already
destined definitely for locations in Newport Beach. Fifty percent of these trips both
started and ended in Newport Beach, but all of them ended in Newport Beach, Ms.
O'Hara commented that compared with other cities, this seems very untypical. Mr.
Water said that within the City of Newport Beach, that home to other trip purpose that
was doubled in size of any other part of the pie is more than double the trips that are
destined for Newport Beach from Newport Beach. The first column areas, the trips that
were 50 percent that were both starting and ending in Newport Beach, the next step of
ours is related to that 28 percent that were destined to Newport Beach from the
adjacent cities. The home to other trips is not as important proportionately as the
home to work trip. The home to work bar for the adjacent cities has now become the
second largest of the bars. If you go to places even farther away from the City the
home to work bar becomes dominant. The reason for the majority of those people to
come to Newport Beach is to go to work.
10
Mr. Bettencourt commented that he understood the condition of the debt service on the
San Joaquin Hills corridor segment is already at least less than satisfactory from the
• standpoint of bond holders. Any further erosion of their revenues would probably look
at in a very unfavorable light, not that there couldn't be some sort of a buy-out or
subsidy because it does affect travel patterns. Also from the standpoint of Newport
Coast residents, Mr. Bettencourt said he thought they were servicing about 70 million
dollars of debt to pay for the road that other Newport Beach property owners are not
paying for. Mr. Bettencourt felt that most Coast residents would take a dim view of
being a dumping ground for regional traffic.
Mr. Chabre referred to page 22 where 53 percent of the traveling within the City and
others adjacent 28 percent is not typical. Is that correct? Mr. Waters responded that
he did not know if he would say it is not typical but it might be slightly higher and that
professional judgment on his part is based on the fact that the longest trip purpose is
home to work trips. Because the community has nice quantity of jobs, it is a high
possibility that the citizens of Newport Beach are employed within the City. In response
to inquiry, Mr. Waters commented that the model itself definitely deals with the
automobile mode of .transport but this survey data is multi -mobile. All of these pie
charts are looking at all modes of transport.
Jennifer Wesoloski referred to page 40 and commented on the build -out for day care,
pre-school for children under the age of 2 and then referred to page 40 where they are
expecting 58 hundred and 20 thousand employees in our City and thought that was
• something that, at some point, would have to be looked at. Ms. Gardner agreed that
was an issue for another evening.
Ron Yeo asked what does staff and consultants expect the committee to do in terms of
what direction they want to review. Mr. Tescher responded that tonight was just
informational for background but in subsequent meetings they would be looking at
alternative patterns of land uses and alternative transportation systems.
Ms. Gardner noted that there were a couple of comments from the committee that were
particularly interested in "summer" aspects of it so we do not totally ignore the special
impacts of summer, and the "beaches" and the fact that we are on the beaches.
Kim Jansma commented that the question of Mariners Mile keeps coming and thought it
is a problem area. Ms. Jansma wondered if that would be something the committee
would have any input in and it is definitely something that needs to come up. Ms.
Gardner agreed that is something the committee will definitely want to get into,
identifying those areas that they feel most need to be address and what they want to
do with them.
Mike Ishikawa commented that Newport Heights is within three of the four major build -
out areas and thought there was a traffic study being done. Ms. Gardner asked if there
• is a separate traffic study being done in Newport Heights? Rich Edmonston responded
that there is going to be one that has not officially started yet. They have a lot of data
11
already on the amount of traffic, the speed of traffic on different streets in the Heights
and that project will look at what sorts of things might be done in the Heights to
• discourage cut -through traffic, control speeds and behaviors of people. It is not
directed correlated with this project. There will be a series of public meetings and
notices will be sent to all the homeowners and business in the area in about six weeks.
Ms. Gardner commented that this is not the last time they will be talking about traffic so
they do not need to cover everything tonight.
Mr. Waters commented that there are a couple of other issues that he heard tonight as
the discussion took place. What is the shoulder season, how broad is that shoulder
season and how different is it from the summer.
Mr. Waters said what he also heard was that typically we focus on week -day conditions
because it is the week -day commute that drives traffic issue and we need to have a
little knowledge about week -day versus week -end traffic patterns. We have issues with
week -end traffic patterns that we need to be sensitive to because they are worse than
the week -day. Part of the issue from the Traffic Engineering standpoint is that when
we design a roadway for the one highest day of the year because no one can afford to
pay for a traffic system that accommodates the maximum but week -days, something
that occurs 200 or 252 days a year and everybody knows you have to design for that.
But one of the things we might try to think through is, if it is a week -end something
that we do somehow have to be concerned with.
• Mr. Chabre questioned the reliability of the date, some of it is really old.
V. Discussion of Futures Agenda Items
Ms. Gardner noted that rather than spending a lot of time discussing Future Agenda
Items, it is important, however, that we bring these up because we want to shape the
agenda and be sure that we are touching the issues, not only that staff brings to us but
that the committee feels are important to discuss. GPUC has a list of things that they
feel they want to get discussed too.
Mixing and matching these global briefings with a work shop sessions where committee
members feel more fulfilled in the process.
Ms. Wood commented that the next meeting will be May 12th, and we will be having a
similar presentation to tonight's but this will be from the fiscal consultant on the Fiscal
Impact Model and what it shows for our existing development.
VI. Public Comments
Ms. Wood commented on the Brown Act for the benefit of the newer members of the
• committee. A memo from the City Attorney on the Brown Act was included in the
"welcome packet" to the new members. Ms. Wood commented on the most important
12
things to remember. The Brown Act is a State law that required that the public conduct
its business in public and that is why we need to prepare agendas and post them ahead
• of the meeting. They are always posted at City Hall the week before, and that is why
we can only discuss what has been put on the agenda. If somebody has an idea of
something to talk about and we have not put it on the agenda, it has to wait until the
next meeting so that it could be noticed to the public.
Ms. Wood noted that committee members could unwittingly cause an unnoticed
meeting to happen if a few committee members get together to talk about an issue or if
Laura calls Phil who calls Florence who calls Jim because that is what is then called a
serial meeting. What you cannot do is have a meeting that consists of a quorum of this
committee without proper public notice and this committee has 38 members so it takes
a while until you actually get to a quorum and you would be in violation of the law. Ms.
Wood said she felt they should be more careful about because it should be happening
in the public and that is the whole point of this process, and also because you never
know if you talk to two or three people, how many people are going to have the same
conversation, so you could without knowing it cause a meeting to happen that is
improper. Ms. Wood said that she expected as they got further along in this process
they would be having some subcommittees working on specific issues and so they will
have to be careful on those of the number of people we have on the subcommittee and
cautioning even more not to then be discussing those issues with other people on this
committee who are not on your subcommittee.
• Ms. Gardner adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
13