The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About88-101 - General Plan Amendment 87-1E Circulation ElementRESOLUTION NO. 138 -101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, AS WELL AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN TO INSURE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -1(E)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Circulation Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies for the design and implementation of an adequated circulation system, which will provide an adequate level of service for the development envisioned by the Newport Beach Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, prior to the development of the specific programs and policies of the Circulation Element, the City developed a new, state- of -the- art traffic model; and WHEREAS, this traffic model enabled the City to assess various development and circulation system alternatives in order to determine the related effects on roadway capacity and intersection function; and WHEREAS, the study identified as series of improvements to the City's circulation system which are necessary to insure correlation of said system with the development envisioned by the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the element also sets forth a specific program to fund the needed circulation system improvements in a manner which is timely with future development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing and taken public testimony over the course of five meetings to consider the Circula- tion Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, and has recommended adoption of said element to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan; and 1 WHEREAS, approval of the Circulation Element will provide for a balance between anticipated development and the capacity of the circulation system; and WHEREAS, approval of the Circualtion Element will assure consis- Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan rescinding the Circula- tion Element (adopted March 11, 1974, as amended); and adopting the Circula- tion Element with related provisions and requirements as completely des- cribed and attached hereon as Exhibit 1, as well as all amemndments to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan necessary to insure internal consisten- cy, is adopted. ADOPTED this 24th day of October , 1988. ATTEST: LOR PLT/WP WP \CC \GPA87- lE.RS1 2 tency between that element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan rescinding the Circula- tion Element (adopted March 11, 1974, as amended); and adopting the Circula- tion Element with related provisions and requirements as completely des- cribed and attached hereon as Exhibit 1, as well as all amemndments to the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan necessary to insure internal consisten- cy, is adopted. ADOPTED this 24th day of October , 1988. ATTEST: LOR PLT/WP WP \CC \GPA87- lE.RS1 2 City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element 1 1 1 1 1 1 Circulation Element of the City of Newport Beach Adopted by the City Council Resolution No. 88 -101 October 24, 1988 Table of Contents ' Introduction Page i Purpose and Scope Page 1 NAnalysis Page 2 ' Existing Conditions .. ...........................Page 2 Future Conditions .............................. Page 3 ' Master Plan of Streets and Highways ................... Page 4 Objectives, Policies and Implementation Page 6 Policy No. 1, Construction of Facilities' Improvements ......... Page 6 Policy No. 2, Intersection Improvements .................Page 14 ' Policy No. 3, Measures to Reduce Peak Hour Traffic .......... Page 17 Policy No. 4, Fund Costs of Major Roadway Facility & Intersection Improvements ......................... Page 18 Policy No. 5, Identify & Implement Measures .............. Page 20 Bikeways Page 24 Intent .......... ...........................Page 24 ' Local Needs ....... ...........................Page 24 Regional Needs .... ...........................Page 24 Classification of Bikeways .........................Page 25 ' Objective, Policies and Programs .....................Page 25 Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways ............... Page 27 ' Master Plan of Bikeways Map ...................... Page 28 Table I, Existing Land Use & Trip Generation Summary ....... Page 3 Table II, Projected Land Use & Trip Generation Summary ..... Page 4 Table III, Roadway Classifications & Criteria ............. Page 5 Table IV, 2010 ICU Summary ...................... Page 7 Table V, Roadway Costs & Funding ................... Page 22 Other Map, Master Plan of Streets & Highways ................ Page 29 I Introduction The Circulation Element was first adopted in 1974. In subsequent ' years the ability of the proposed circulation system to accom- modate ever increasing levels of regional traffic was evaluated in ' conjunction with major projects, but no comprehensive revisions to the Circulation Element were undertaken. ' In February 1987, the City embarked upon an ambitious program to revise and update the City's General Plan, with specific em- ' phasis on the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The focus of this program was a desire to develop a circulation system that could accommodate vehicular traffic generated by land use within and without the City at acceptable levels of service. The process of updating the Circulation Element began with the ' acquisition of current data as to existing traffic volumes and ser- vice levels. This information was evaluated in light of known community goals and objectives thatwere developed during years of discussion and debate. ' The transportation planning firm of Austin -Foust Associates was retained to develop forecasts of traffic volumes and systems sized ' to accommodate the demand. In addition, this consultant was asked to develop a traffic model, a computer program that would allow constant review and reassessment of the adequacy of the ' circulation system. Public input into the process consisted of more than 25 "Outreach ' Meetings," five public hearings before the Planning Commission and three public hearings before the City Council, all as more ' fully discussed in the Land Use Element. The result is a Circula- tion Element that is closely correlated with the Land Use Ele- ment and represents the best possible balance between roadway size and traffic service levels. The portion of the Circulation Element relating to bikeways is i based on input provided by the Newport Beach Citizens' Ad- visory Committee on Bikeways. ii ' Purpose and Scope It is intended that this Element satisfy the State requirement that local General Plans con- tain a Circulation Element. Section 65302(b) of the Government Code states in part that local General Plans shall in- clude: "...a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of exist- ing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." The term "correlation" has been construed by the courts to require the Circulation Ele- ment, including its major thoroughfares, to be closely, systematically and reciprocally re- ' lated to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The correlation requirement is designed to insure the Circulation Element will set forth standards and proposals for ad- dressing the demands on roads and transportation facilities resulting from traffic generated ' by the growth authorized, and anticipated in the Land Use Element. The issues that are addressed in this Circulation Element are major roadways and transpor- t tation routes; roadway and intersection improvements; estimated costs and funding alloca- tions; and bikeways. - 1 - Analysis , This section briefly discusses the source of the data and the method of analysis used in the traffic study prepared by Austin -Foust and Associates (General Plan Traffic Study). The General Plan Traffic Study (attached as an appendix) explains, in detail, the method of , analysis by which intersection service levels were forecast for the year 2010 (buildout). Future traffic service levels are forecast in terms of intersection capacity utilization (ICU). ICU analysis is the most widely accepted method of predicting the extent of traffics conges- tion at any given intersection in the future. Intersections are a major constraint in any cir- culation system and are thus the focus of analysis. The "ICU" of an intersection is based ' on the number of vehicles using all legs of the intersection, the manner in which the lvehicles use the intersection (left turns, right turns, etc.) and the capacity of each lane of the inter- ' section. The General Plan Traffic Study has forecast ICU's for 8 groups of intersections. This , method of analysis is a more accurate method of forecasting ICU's and significantly reduces the statistical error inherent in computer modeling. Research has determined that the ser- vice level (ICU's) of intersections located along a linear traffic corridor or on alternate , routes serving traffic moving in the same direction, tend to equalize. Drivers respond to road congestion better than computers. The average "ICU's" in the General Plan Traffic Study represent the most accurate method of forecasting future traffic service levels. , Existing Conditions The land use inventory, and traffic volumes generated by development on the ground in , late 1987, serve as the basis for the following summary of existing conditions within the City of Newport Beach, its sphere of influence, and portions of the Cities of Costa Mesa , and Irvine that contribute traffic to the City of Newport Beach circulation system. In 1985, the City of Newport Beach commissioned a study of lane capacity. The study revealed that, ' during a typical peak hour, approximately 1,850 vehicles per lane travelled through major intersections for each hour of green time. The ICU's in the General Plan Traffic Study are based upon lane capacity , assumptions of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green with no yellow time factor. 1 -Z- 1 0 1 11 [1 This inventory of land uses and vehicle trips provides the basis for the trip generation rates used in the General Plan Traffic Study. For example, the inventory disclosed that com- mercial land use, on average, generates approximately 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. These rates were used to determine traffic volumes generated by future development. Future Conditions -Year 2010 The Land Use Element of the General Plan describes in detail the types and amount of growth anticipated upon buildout of the City in the year 2010. Trip generation rates derived from the inventory described above were multiplied by the additional growth per- mitted in each major land use category to determine the additional trips that could result from the growth authorized in the land Use Element. These additional trips were added to existing volumes to determine ultimate traffic levels on buildout. ' The following chart summarizes the major land use categories, the total amount of develop- ment anticipated at buildout in the year 2010, the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, overall daily traffic volumes at buildout. -3- Table I Existing Land Use and Trip Generation Summary (1987) AM PK HR PM PK HR TOTAL LAND USE UNITS TOTAL TOTAL ADT Newport Beach Residential Res -Low (SFD) 16,997 du 15,297 18,697 186,967 Res -Med (SFA) 9,945 du 7,956 9,945 85,527 Apartment 5,396 du 3,238 3,777 35,074 Park Newport 1,306 du 522 653 6,269 Other Residential 1,064 du 618 715 6,184 Motel/Hotel 2,637 rm 2,331 2,088 27,604 Commercial 3,089,300 sf 2,115 7,889 121,418 Restaurant 692,200 sf 895 3,727 50,308 Office 10,897,800 sf 22,887 25,842 166,547 Industrial/R &D 2,554,900 sf 2,708 3,270 19,668 Other - 1,529 2,802 31,975 SUBTOTAL 60,096 79,405 737,541 Other Areas 63,659 81,935 759,498 TOTAL 123,755 161,340 1,497,039 This inventory of land uses and vehicle trips provides the basis for the trip generation rates used in the General Plan Traffic Study. For example, the inventory disclosed that com- mercial land use, on average, generates approximately 40 trips per 1,000 square feet of building area. These rates were used to determine traffic volumes generated by future development. Future Conditions -Year 2010 The Land Use Element of the General Plan describes in detail the types and amount of growth anticipated upon buildout of the City in the year 2010. Trip generation rates derived from the inventory described above were multiplied by the additional growth per- mitted in each major land use category to determine the additional trips that could result from the growth authorized in the land Use Element. These additional trips were added to existing volumes to determine ultimate traffic levels on buildout. ' The following chart summarizes the major land use categories, the total amount of develop- ment anticipated at buildout in the year 2010, the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, overall daily traffic volumes at buildout. -3- In comparing the traffic generated in 1987 with that anticipated in the year 2010,1, it can be seen that approximately 852,984 (345,235 from within the current City boundaries) new vehicle trips will be added to the system daily. In order to accommodate these additional trips revisions to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways are necessary. Master Plan of Streets and Highways Incorporated within this Element is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulationj Element - Master Plan of Streets and Highways" which satisfies the state requirement that the Cir- culation Element contain a map or diagram of the existing and proposed circulation sys- tem. The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financ- ing Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To participate in this program, each City must have a Master Plan of Highways that is mutually satisfactory and in conformance with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways satisfies this requirement. 4 Table II Projected Land Use & Trip Generation Summary (2010) AM PK HR PM PK HR TOTAL IADT LAND USE UNITS TOTAL TOTAL ADT INCREASE Newport Beach Residential Res -Low (SFD) 15,535 du 13,982 17,089 170,885 (16,082) Res -Med (SFA) 15,668 du 12,534 15,668 134,745 49,218 Apartment 7,512 du 4,507 5,258 48,828 13,754 Park Newport 1,306 du 522 653 6,269 -0- Other Residential 749 du 409 464 4,094 (2,090) Motel/Hotel 3,472 rm 3,085 2,758 36,37 18,773 Commercial 5,709,300 sf 4,582 16,374 241,597 120,179 Restaurant 1,270,800 sf 2,120 7,072 97,014 46,706 Office 16,154,400 sf 33,197 38,828 263,547 97,000 Industrial/R &D 2,584,400 sf 2,790 3,458 22,156 2,488 Other - 3,815 4,993 57,264 25,289 SUBTOTAL 81,544 112,616 1,082,776 345,235 Other Areas 109,913 139,872 1,267,245 507,747 TOTAL 191,457 252,488 2350,021 852,982 In comparing the traffic generated in 1987 with that anticipated in the year 2010,1, it can be seen that approximately 852,984 (345,235 from within the current City boundaries) new vehicle trips will be added to the system daily. In order to accommodate these additional trips revisions to the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways are necessary. Master Plan of Streets and Highways Incorporated within this Element is a map entitled "Newport Beach Circulationj Element - Master Plan of Streets and Highways" which satisfies the state requirement that the Cir- culation Element contain a map or diagram of the existing and proposed circulation sys- tem. The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financ- ing Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. To participate in this program, each City must have a Master Plan of Highways that is mutually satisfactory and in conformance with the plans of the County and all adjacent cities. The City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways satisfies this requirement. 4 N The road classifications used by the City of Newport Beach are the same as used by the County of Orange for its Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The following represents the roadway categories and the criteria applicable to each: Table III: Roadway Classifications and Criteria When projected traffic volumes exceed 10,000 VPD, four lane roadways should be con- sidered. Augmented Major and Primary arterial classifications are intended to indicate roadways which will carry traffic that is at the capacity level for the classification. The standard sec- tion will need to be augmented with additional through and/or turning lanes in some loca- tions along the roadway. This may be accomplished by adding right -of -way or by reducing the widths of sidewalk areas, medians, travel lanes and emergency shoulder lanes. At signalized street intersections, heavy turning movements may require the addition of extra turning lanes in excess of classification widths shown. "Routes that Require Further Coordination" are roadways on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways where precise alignments, configuration and construction phasing are sub- ject to further study and additional discretionary action. -5- Approx. Road R. of W Width Curb # of Median Capacity Classif. - Feet - Curb Ft. Lanes Width -Ft. ADT* 8 Lane Divided 158 Variable 8 14-18 60- 68,000 Major Augmented Variable Variable 6 -8 Variable 52- 58,000 Major 128-134 106-114 6 14-18 45- 51,000 Primary Augmented Variable Variable 4 -6 Variable 35- 40,000 Primary 104-108 84 4 16-20 30- 34,000 Secondary 84 64 4 0 20- 23,000 * (ADT) Average Daily Traffic Couplets: Secondary couplet - 2 lanes for each leg; Primary couplet - 3 lanes for each leg; Major couplet - 4lanes for each leg When projected traffic volumes exceed 10,000 VPD, four lane roadways should be con- sidered. Augmented Major and Primary arterial classifications are intended to indicate roadways which will carry traffic that is at the capacity level for the classification. The standard sec- tion will need to be augmented with additional through and/or turning lanes in some loca- tions along the roadway. This may be accomplished by adding right -of -way or by reducing the widths of sidewalk areas, medians, travel lanes and emergency shoulder lanes. At signalized street intersections, heavy turning movements may require the addition of extra turning lanes in excess of classification widths shown. "Routes that Require Further Coordination" are roadways on the Master Plan of Streets and Highways where precise alignments, configuration and construction phasing are sub- ject to further study and additional discretionary action. -5- Objectives, Policies and Implementation I ' MW The basic objective is the construction of public transportation facilities which, in'iconjunc- tion with programs to reduce peak hour traffic, will accommodate vehicular traffic generated by land use within the City of Newport Beach at acceptable levels of service; to reduce, to the extent possible, the impact of summer visitor and tourist travel along Bal- boa Peninsula, on Balboa Island, and West Newport, and provide a safe, convenient and enjoyable system of bikeways that meet the needs of all cyclists. ' POLICIES The policies and implementation measures described below are intended to accomplish , the basic objective of this Element. These policies and measures are not to be considered exclusive efforts the City will undertake to solve transportation problems as they arise, but , do constitute the basis for both further analysis and new solutions. Policy Number 1 Construction of facilities' improvements resulting in a roadway system that is 'sized and located to accommodate all vehicular traffic generated by existing development and an- ticipated growth, as well as some regional traffic, at service levels as close to Joel of Ser- vice D as possible. 1e]E.`ZeleJ.3.'T O3`►1 The General Plan Traffic Study has identified numerous facilities' improvements , necessary to accommodate traffic generated by the additional growth authorized in the Land Use Element, as well as some regional traffic. These improvements will, in the vast majority of cases, result in intersections functioning at "Level of Service ' D" or better. Those intersections which are forecast to exceed LOS -D in the year 2010 do so, in large measure, because of regional traffic (See Table IV). The intersections which are predicted to function above LOS -D, with few exceptions, ' are all located in proximity to John Wayne Airport (JWA). The relatively high levels , of traffic in this area are a direct result of increased operations at JWA and' develop- ment outside of Newport Beach. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways described in this Element represents a conscious decision to accept levels of service in the air- , port area that have been forecast by and focus efforts to improve service (levels on those portions of our system less affected by regional traffic. 6 , i i 1 -7- Table IV - 2010 ICU Summary Newport Beach Other Total Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. Placentia & Superior .53 .62 -0- -0- .53 .62 2. Superior & PCH .81 .73 .08 .15 .89 .88 3. Newport & Hospital .84 .95 .02 .01 .86 .96 4. SB Newport Ramp & Newport .42 .72 -0- -0- .42 .72 5. Newport & Via Lido .65 .77 -0- -0- .65 .77 6. Newport & 32nd .52 .70 -0- -0- .52 .70 7. Riverside & PCH .71 .68 .08 .11 .68 .79 8. Tustin & PCH .68 .76 .08 .11 .76 .87 9. MacArthur & Campus .34 .55 .32 .72 .66 1.27 10. MacArthur & Birch .52 .49 .31 .28 .83 .77 11. Von Karman & Campus .31 .51 .47 .42 .78 .93 12. MacArthur & Von Karman .57 .78 .13 .17 .70 .95 13. Jamboree & Campus .32 .63 .70 .60 1.02 1.23 14. Jamboree & Birch .38 .46 .40 .33 .78 .79 15. Campus & Bristol .51 .60 .35 .63 .86 1.23 16. Birch & Bristol N. .43 .58 .24 .34 .67 .92 17. Campus & Bristol S. .83 .42 .46 .47 1.29 .88 18. Birch & Bristol S. .61 .38 .28 .32 .89 .70 19. Irvine & Mesa .60 .54 .36 .42 .96 .96 20. Irvine & University .77 .57 .39 .43 1.16 1.00 21. Irvine & Santiago/22nd .55 .43 .06 .05 .61 .48 22. Irvine & Highland/20th .40 .43 .05 .04 .45 .47 23. Irvine & Dover /19th .58 .58 .05 .04 .62 .62 24. Irvine & Westcliff/17th .50 .62 .02 .05 .52 .67 25. Dover & Westfliff .38 .38 .02 .03 .40 .41 26. Dover & 16th .55 .44 .02 .03 .57 .47 27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH .78 .59 .07 .12 .85 .71 28. Bayside & PCH .81 .70 .07 .15 .88 .85 29. MacArthur & Jamboree .67 .66 .43 .43 1.10 1.09 30. Jamboree & Bristol N. .37 .65 .08 .14 .45 .79 31. Bayview & Bristol S. .41 .63 .13 .12 .54 .75 32. Jamboree & Bristol S. .58 .73 .15 .13 .73 .86 33. Jamboree & Bayview .58 .68 .17 .10 .75 .78 34. Jamboree & University .88 .85 .15 -0- .93 .85 35. Jamboree & Bison .72 .89 .04 .03 .76 .92 -7- sm Table 1V (Cont.) Intersection Newport AM Beach PM AM Other PM AM Total PM i 36. MacArthur & Bison .68 .77 .12 .07 .80 .84 37. Jamboree & Ford .87 .88 .04 .02 .91 .90 38. MacArthur & Ford .71 .78 .14 .06 .85 1 .84 39. Jamboree & San Joaquin H. .67 .72 .04 .04 .71 I .76 40. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .58 .68 .03 .03 .61 .71 41. Jamboree & PCH .78 .74 .10 .11 .88 .85 42. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin H. .21 .31 -0- -0- .21 .31 43. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin H. .37 .76 -0- -0- .37 .76 44. MacArthur & San Joaquin H. .60 .77 .09 .04 .69 1 .81 45. MacArthur & San Miguel .56 .86 .04 .06 .60 .92 46. Newport Center & PCH .84 .38 .08 .16 .92 .54 47. Avocado & PCH .38 .77 .09 .16 .47 .93 48. MacArthur & PCH .38 .76 .10 .17 .48 .93 49. San Miguel & San Joaquin H. .41 .81 .03 .08 .44 .89 50. Goldenrod & PCH .69 .62 .20 .23 .89 .85 51. Marguerite & San Joaquin H. .41 .63 .04 .05 .45 .68 52. Marguerite & PCH .60 .49 .21 .14 .81 .63 53. Poppy & PCH .51 .57 .22 .25 .73 .82 54.15th & PCH .34 .46 .19 .11 .53 .57 55. Bluff & PCH .57 .68 .08 .14 .65 .82 56. SB Newport Ramp & PCH .62 .70 .08 .11 .70 .81 sm IMPLEMENTATION Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled "Newport Beach Cir- culation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways" which is attached as Exhibit 1. The following is a detailed description of each circulation system improvement ' necessary to complete the system described in the Master Plan, together with specific information as to the location and alignment of the improvement if currently known. (Facility Improvements 1. Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to Newport Boulevard. This project invol- ves the widening to six lanes of this section of Coast Highway. The future 24 -foot widening to provide for the six lanes will occur on the southerly side between the Santa Ana River and 59th Street; from 59th Street to Newport Boulevard the widening will be on the northerly side. Additional widening beyond the 24 -foot minimum will be required at intersections to provide turning lanes. ' 2. Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to .Dover Drive. The section of Coast High- way through Mariners Mile carries both local and through traffic and is currently operating at capacity. Widening of this section of Coast Highway to six lanes and a center median with augmented intersections at major cross streets such as Riverside Avenue will accommodate both the local and regional traffic using this corridor. ' There is also a considerable amount of bicycle traffic through the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway. The bicyclists are generally travelling from ' Newport Heights to the beach; from Lido Isle and the western areas of the peninsula to Newport Harbor High School or Ensign School; or recreational cyclists travelling through the City either towards Laguna Beach or Huntington Beach. The safety of ' these bicyclists must be addressed in the final project designs. A minimum right -of -way width of 112 feet is necessary to provide for the six travel lanes and a center median. The additional 12 feet of width will be provided on the northerly side of Coast Highway. 118 feet of width is required in the vicinity of River- ' side Avenue. 3. Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Jamboree Road This section of Coast Highway ' serves as the only east -west route for the southern part of the City. To carry the forecast traffic demands, this section should be widened to eight lanes from wester- ly of Dover Drive through Jamboree Road. This will require either the widening of the bridge sidewalk areas or building a separate bridge for the bike lanes. 4. Coast Highway at Jamboree Road In order to accommodate forecast traffic demand ' at this intersection, a grade separation shall be considered for construction in the fu- ture. The precise alignment, roadway width, and design of the project have not been determined. Any grade separation should not increase the grade at the intersection. 1 -9- 5. Newport Boulevard from 30th Street to 32nd Street. This section of roadway shall be ' widened to six lanes. 6. Newport Boulevard from 32nd Street to Coast Highway. The widening of Newport ' Boulevard to five lanes is currently a committed project, with construction to com- mence in 1989. The roadway should be widened to six lanes, with the construction of the widened bridge across the Newport Channel. Most of the additional right -of- ' way necessary for the roadway widening has been acquired. 7. Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway. This project involves the reconfiguration and reconstruction of the existing ramps and bridge at the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. No specific geometries are suggested other than a , single structure for the interchange, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. 8. Newport Boulevard from Coast Highway to Hospital Road. It is proposed that this sec- t tion of Newport Boulevard be widened to provide six lanes. 9. Jamboree Road from San Joaquin Hills Road to the NewporterResort. This project in- t volves widening this section of Jamboree Road to six lanes. Adequate right -of way exists to accomplish this improvement. 10. Jamboree Road from Bristol Street to Ford Road. This section of the roadway shall be widened to eight lanes. , 11. Bayview Waylfrom Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard This section of roadway is the extension of Bayview Way in the J.M. Peters project from Jamboree Road to , MacArthur Boulevard. This section should be constructed to a width of four lanes in conjunction with the development of adjacent sites. This roadway, which) has been designated as University Drive North, shall be officially designated as Bayview Way. ' 12. MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road. The following & shall pertain to MacArthur Boulevard from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills 13. Road: A. MacArthur Boulevard between San Miguel Drive and Coast Highway shall be ' improved to: lower the grade as much as 13 feet; align the road approximately 50 feet west of the existing centerline; install necessary sound walls to mitigate , noise; and a landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Coun- cil. B. Two outside through lanes in each direction on MacArthur Boulevard shall be ! constructed so that additional lanes constructed, when required by the City, will occur towards the centerline of the roadway, between Harbor View Drive and , the prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive. 10 , ' C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, at a minimum, shall be met: 1) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial configuration (four lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard. 2) An average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio of 1.00 on MacArthur Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, a primary ' purpose in considering this improvement is the reduction of diver- sion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is an- ticipated that if the average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio on ' MacArthur Boulevard reached 1.00, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth Avenue would occur. ' 3) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial con- figuration (four lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. D. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and City ' Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. I 14. MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin Hills Road and Ford Road. This section of MacArthur Boulevard shall be widened to six lanes. I 15. MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and SR -73. This section of MacArthur Boulevard shall be widened to eight lanes. ' 16. Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street. In order to accommodate forecast demand, this section of Irvine Avenue shall be widened to six lanes. There is 100 feet of existing right -of -way in this section. 17. Campus Drive between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. To conform to the ' County Master Plan, this section needs to be upgraded to 6 lanes and is part of the Airport Mitigation Plan. 18. Birch Street /Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road A Secondary arterial (4 lane, undivided) is designated from Mesa Drive at Irvine Avenue to Birch Street at Jamboree Road. The precise alignment of the road shall be selected after com- pletion and consideration of a precise alignment study and EIR which will consider the realignment of the intersection of Mesa Drive and Birch Street, Mesa Drive and Acacia Street, and other possible alignments to provide a through traffic connection ' -11- between Mesa Drive at Acacia Street and Birch Street at Orchard Avenue. These ' studies will be completed prior to annexation. The connection and alignment ul- timately selected shall accommodate sufficient traffic to insure that ICU's for all in- tersections affected by the connection are equal to or lower than those predicted in ' this element. 19. Dover Drive between Cliff Drive and Westeliff Drive. This section of roadway shall be 1 widened to six lanes. 20. 15th Street between Coast Highway and Bluff Road. This is a section of roadway that will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil- Armstrong property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes. 21. 15th Street between Bluff Road and Monrovia Avenue. This is a section of (roadway ' that will be constructed in conjunctionwith the development of the Mobil- Lmstrong ' property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes. 22. 15th Street between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue. This existing roadway i shall be widened to four lanes. 23. Bluff Road between Coast Highway and 17th Street. This is a section of roadway that ' will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil - Armstrong property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes. 24. Bluff Road between 17th Street and 19th Street. This is a section of roadway that will , be constructed in conjunctionwith the development of the Mobil- Armstrong proper- ty in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lames. , 25. 16th Street between Dover Drive and Seagull Lane. This project involves the widen- ing of this section of the roadway to four lanes. , 26. 17th Street from Bluff Road to the Easterly City Limit. This is a section of roadway that will be constructed in conjunction with the development of the Mobil - Armstrong 1 property in the West Newport area. This roadway will be constructed with four lanes. 27. 19th Street from Bluff Road to the Santa Ana River. Although this section of roadway 1 is mainly outside the City Limits, the Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the construction of four travel lanes. 1 28. Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. This project involves the widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes. ' 29. SuperiorAvenue between Placentia Avenue and Industrial Way. This project involves only the acquisition of the small sliver of land adjacent to the Mobil Home Park on Superior Avenue to complete the roadway widening to provide shoulder and sidewalk area. All four travel lanes have been completed. i -12_ 1 I 30. Avocado Avenue from Coast Highway to San Miguel Drive. This project involves the construction of Avocado Avenue north of Coast Highway to San Miguel at four lanes. ' 31. Dover Drive between Irvine Avenue and Westcliif Avenue. This project involves the widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes, by covering the flood control channel. 32. 22nd Street between IrvineAvenue and TustinAvenue. This project involves the widen- ing of this section of the roadway to four lanes. 33. 32nd Street between Newport Boulevard and Lafayette Street. This project involves the ' widening of this section of the roadway to four lanes. However, based upon the potential reductions in future development on the Balboa Peninsula, this roadway improvement may not be necessary in the future. ' 34. Bison Avenue between MacArthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Al- though this section of roadway is outside of the City limits, the Master Plan of Streets ' and Highways provides for the construction of four travel lanes. 35. Ford Road between Mac Arthur Boulevard and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation 1 Corridor. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the construction of this roadway as a Primary arterial. ' a. Ford Road shall be realigned northerly of the current alignment. b. An indirect connection(s) shall be made between realigned Ford Road and San ' Miguel Drive. C. The Master Plan of Streets and Highways shall show the designation of "Routes ' That Require Further Coordination" for Ford Road and the San Miguel Drive intersection(s) with realigned Ford Road. ' 36. San Joaquin Hills Road between Spyglass Hill Road and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. This section of roadway is outside of the City limits and the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways provides for the construction of six travel lanes. Traffic projec- tions indicate that a four lane divided roadway will adequately accommodate future traffic, so the roadway has been designated as a Primary Augmented arterial on the ' City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. a. San Joaquin Hills Road maybe extended to connect to Pelican Hill Road when Pelican Hill Road is fully operational between Coast Highway and Bonita Canyon Road/Mac Arthur Boulevard. Prior to that time, the connection may be made to serve the Newport Beach Downcoast development provided that ' Pelican Hill Road does not connect to Coast Highway before it connects to Bonita Canyon/Mac Arthur Boulevard. 1 ' -13- b. San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Pelican Hill Road shall be shown on the ' Master Plan of Streets and Highways as a "Route That Requires Further Coor- dination." Until fully noticed public hearings are held, the extension ofjSan Joa- quin Hills Road east of Pelican Hill Road shall not occur as per City Council , Resolution Nos. 85-11 (Item No. 6) and 88 -89 (Item No. 5). Any future action to change the designation of Ford Road or San Joaquin Hills Road ' as described in 36 and 37 above shall be the subject of fully noticed publicl hearings with all affected arterial intersections and links being reviewed as part of the hear- ings. 37. Pelican Hill Road between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Al- t though this section of roadway is outside of the City limits but within our Sphere of Influence, the Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for the construction of sidewalks, bikeways, and three travel lanes in each direction. An extra uphill lane will , be provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. 38. Sand CanyonAvenue between Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. This ' road is to provide sidewalks, bikeways, and two travel lanes in each direction with an uphill lane provided to accommodate truck and bus traffic. Policy Number 2. , The construction of intersection improvements that are necessary to insure maximum feasible efficiency of the roadway system and service levels as close to LOS -D as pos- sible. DISCUSSION Intersections are the major constraint to the efficient operation of the circulation sys- tem. The following intersection configuration changes are suggested to augment the major facility improvements to insure traffic service levels no greater than those forecast in this Element and the General Plan Traffic Study. ' The forecast traffic volumes are based upon estimates of the possible total develop- ment within the City and adjacent areas over the next 22 years. The various intersec- tion improvements listed below are based upon projected Intersection) Capacity Utilization analyses in the computerized traffic model, projected to the year 2010. Therefore some of the intersection improvements listed may not be constructed ex- , actly as described herein, or a particular improvement may be shown to be unneces- sary over the course of the next 20 years. , It is important to note that the exact geometrics have not been prepared. During the course of the next 22years, as major development proposals are submitted, the opera- ' tion of these intersections will be analyzed to determine the need for specific im- -14- ' provements. At the time it is deemed necessary, the intersection geometrics will be ■ prepared. ' IMPLEMENTATION Construct the following intersection improvements: NIntersection Improvement 39. Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd. Add one eastbound left turn ' lane. 40. Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street Add a separate southbound right ' turn lane. 41. Riverside Dr. & Coast Highway Add an optional southbound left turn lane, a separate southbound ' right turn lane, and one east- bound through lane and one ' eastbound left turn lane 42. MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. Add a southbound left turn lane, a westbound left turn lane, a ' northbound right turn lane, and a separate east bound right turn ' lane. 43. MacArthur Blvd. & Von Karman Ave. Add an eastbound through lane. ' 44. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. North Add one west bound left turn lane. ' The intersection of Campus Drive and Bristol Street North has high traffic volumes due to its direct access to SR -73 and the fact that Campus Drive and Birch Street serve as the arterials between the Irvine Business Complex and the high intensity office ' developments in the northern portion of the City of Newport Beach and SR -73. Be- cause of the particular geometries and traffic volumes and distribution at this intersec- tion, it will be difficult for conventional intersections to carry the forecast traffic. ' Additional lanes could be provided, however the weave movements between south- bound right turn from Campus to SR -73 could make this operationally difficult to achieve. Therefore, it is recommended that this be defined as a special project area with alternative solutions being sought that could range from major intersection upgrading to possible grade- separation. ' -15- Intersectuon Em®eovement ' 45. Birch St. & Bristol St. North Add one southbound through lane and one westboun0eft turn ' lane. This may require widening the freeway bridge. 46. ]Birch St. & Bristol St. South Add one northbound Ithrough ' lane and one eastbound) through lane. This may require the widening of the freeway; bridge. 47. Irvine Ave. & Mesa Dr. Add a separate southbound right , turn lane, a northbound right turn lane, a westbound ,left turn ' lane, and an eastbound through lane. 48. Irvine Ave. & University Dr. Add an eastbound through lane. ' 49. 13over/JBayshore at Coast Hwy. Add an eastbound through lane and a westbound through lane ' (done w/8 lanes). 50. Jamboree ltd. and Bristol St. N. Add a northbound ramp on to ' SR-73. 51. Jamboree ltd. and Bristol St. S. Add an eastbound through lane and a northbound ramp on to SR-73. , 52. Jamboree Rd. and Sayview Way Add a southbound left turn lane and a westbound left turn lane. ' 53. Jamboree Rd. and Bison Ave. Add a westbound left turn lane and a northbound through lane ' (done w/8 lanes). 54. MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Ave. Add a southbound left turn lane, ' a westbound left turn lane, and a northbound left turn lane. 55. MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Bills ' (No improvement necessary; done w/6 lanes.) ' -16- ' ' Intersection Improvement '56. MacArthur Blvd. and San Miguel Add a westbound left turn lane. 57. San Miguel Dr. and San Joaquin Hills Add a westbound left turn lane. Policy (dumber 3 The City will adopt measures, such as transportation system management plans, which will reduce peak hour traffic and result in levels of service below those forecast in this ' Element. DISCUSSION ' With the exception of summer beach traffic, our roads are most heavily travelled during the morning and evening commutes. Any reduction in peak hour traffic will result in intersection service levels below those forecast in this Element and the ' General Plan Traffic Study.2 In some jurisdictions, transportation system manage- ment plans (TSM) have reduced peak hour traffic by 10 -15 %. This kind of reduction ' in peak hour traffic can reduce ICU's by similar percentages. TSM techniques include ridesharing programs, vanpooling, and flexible work hours. ' Employers with large work forces can utilize all of these techniques, while smaller companies are typically limited to ridesharing and flex -time programs. The problem with any TSM is to give the property owner or employer an incentive to implement ' the program so that it works to their economic advantage. IMPLEMENTATION ' 1. Collect and study relevant literature and reports, specifically those which dis- cuss the implementation of TSM's in cities with populations similar to that of Newport Beach; ' 2. Study means and methods, including density bonuses, that would give proper- ty incentives to implement TSM's; owners and employers and ' 2 The levels of service forecast by Austin -Foust are based upon the construction of all additional growth authorized in the Land Use Element. These forecasts represent a "worst case" scenario, since it is extremely unlikely that property owners will exercise their full rights with respect to each parcel in the ' City. -17 3. On or before august 1, 1989, submit a comprehensive report to the City Coun- cil discussing TSM techniques, the extent to which those techniques) may be useful to employers in the City of Newport Beach, and the incentives that can be given by the City of Newport Beach to encourage property owners and ' employers to develop and implement TSM's. PaUcy Number 4 , Fund costs of major roadway facility and intersection improvements through gas tax revenues, state, federal and county grants, City ordinances, and privately financed im- provements. DISCUSSION ' The total estimated cost to construct the roadway improvements necessary to com- plete the circulation system is $81,980,000. The estimated cost of the intersection improvements required to insure maximum efficiency of the system is $3,1045,000. (See Table V). Financing Resources The total estimated cost of all roadway and intersection improvements is $85;025,000, based upon 1988 dollars. These cost estimates include design and engineering fees, the cost of land for additional right -of -way, construction costs, and the cost of signals, ' other traffic control devices, and environmental mitigation measures. In the past, the City of Newport Beach has received funding from gasoline tax ' apportionment, County, State, and Federal funds, developer contributions ;required by the City's Fair Share Ordinance and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,I and the General Fund. These sources of funding are expected to continue in the future, al- ' though somewhat greater reliance may be placed on the City's Fair Share Ordinance than the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Of the total estimated cost of $85,025,000, approximately $15,250,000 will b funded , by other governmental agencies; $15,400,000 over 22 years from gas tax revenues; ' $21,168,750 will be provided by adjacent development; and $33,106,2500 will be generated by the City's Fair Share Fee Program, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and the General Fund. Given the constitutional restrictions on appropriations, it is ex- ' tremely unlikely that General Fund Revenues will be available in substantial amounts to fund roadway improvements. In all probability, greater reliance will be placed upon the Fair Share Ordinance. ' The City's Fair Share Ordinance, which was adopted in 1984, establishes a contribu- tionbased upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and High- ' ways. In essence, this program provides for a fee to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The fees are based upon the total cost of the neces- 18 �� 1 sary improvements in the Circulation Element, less the funds anticipated from the various traditional funding sources, divided by the total vehicle trips generated by fu- ture allowable development in the City. A prorata share of the total cost is assigned to each new development. ' Land Use Element, in concert with the Fair Share Ordinance, tend to insure that transportation facilities will be constructed in phase with additional development. Moreover, growth limits in the Land Use Element will reduce the extent to which a ' development phasing ordinance acts as a funding mechanism, with greater reliance placed on the Fair Share Ordinance. ' Fair Share and Phasing Ordinances should The consistent with one another to insure the City receives full fees and that property owners receive credit for any master plan improvement required as a condition to project approval. Property owners should ' be encouraged to jointly fund, and construct in advance, major circulation system im- provements which may be required of more than one developer or required in sub- sequent phases of the project. However, situations may arise where Phasing ' Ordinance requirements exceed Fair Shane Fees and, in such cases, the property owner shall have the option of making the required improvements with no guaran- tee of reimbursement. ' Periodically, the City Council shall review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded cost of required improvements and increase or decrease required Fair ' Share Fees as appropriate. Another valuable tool that the City utilizes is to require the dedication of needed right -of -way in conjunction with a subdivision map at the time a project is approved. When appropriate, the developer is also required to pay for the actual roadway im- provements adjacent to a site prior to the issuance of permits. The City Council shall, during the annual budget review, determine the projects that ' remain to be constructed to complete the Muster Plan of Streets and Highways. The projects to be funded in the next fiscal year shall be determined by analyzing current or immediate needs in the circulation system, as well as available financing from the 1 -19_ The City of Newport Beach was one of the first cities in the State to require circula- tion system improvements not adjacent to a project, as a condition of development. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been in effect since 1978 and has required developer funding of intersection improvements in instances where a proposed project has a direct negative impact on the level of service at a given intersection. Al- though the Fair Share Ordinance provides the funding mechanism required to assure the construction of the roadways included in Master Plan of Streets and Highways ultimately, it is also desirable to phase development with the construction of these facilities in order to maintain a level of traffic service that is within the limits predicted in this Element. The City should, by ordinance, control the phasing of circulation system improvements with development, and to do so in a manner consistent with predicted levels of service. However, the density and intensity limits imposed by the ' Land Use Element, in concert with the Fair Share Ordinance, tend to insure that transportation facilities will be constructed in phase with additional development. Moreover, growth limits in the Land Use Element will reduce the extent to which a ' development phasing ordinance acts as a funding mechanism, with greater reliance placed on the Fair Share Ordinance. ' Fair Share and Phasing Ordinances should The consistent with one another to insure the City receives full fees and that property owners receive credit for any master plan improvement required as a condition to project approval. Property owners should ' be encouraged to jointly fund, and construct in advance, major circulation system im- provements which may be required of more than one developer or required in sub- sequent phases of the project. However, situations may arise where Phasing ' Ordinance requirements exceed Fair Shane Fees and, in such cases, the property owner shall have the option of making the required improvements with no guaran- tee of reimbursement. ' Periodically, the City Council shall review the Fair Share Fee Ordinance, reassess the unfunded cost of required improvements and increase or decrease required Fair ' Share Fees as appropriate. Another valuable tool that the City utilizes is to require the dedication of needed right -of -way in conjunction with a subdivision map at the time a project is approved. When appropriate, the developer is also required to pay for the actual roadway im- provements adjacent to a site prior to the issuance of permits. The City Council shall, during the annual budget review, determine the projects that ' remain to be constructed to complete the Muster Plan of Streets and Highways. The projects to be funded in the next fiscal year shall be determined by analyzing current or immediate needs in the circulation system, as well as available financing from the 1 -19_ county, state and federal governments, developer contributions to either 'the Fair , Share Program or dedications and improvements in conjunction with I specific developments, and the City's (general Fund. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City shall continue to utilize gas tax revenues to fund circulation system ' improvements necessary to complete the Master Plan of Streets and Highways; 2. The City shall continue to actively seek federal, state and county assistance in funding circulation system improvements necessary to complete th ie Master Plan of Streets and Highways; 3. The City shall maintain the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance and ' amend the ordinance as necessary to insure the required fees will provide sub- stantially all the otherwise unfunded costs of completing the Master Plan of , Streets and Highways; 4. Maintain and/or modify as necessary an ordinance which will help insure that ' circulation system improvements are constructed in phase with the additional growth authorized in the Land Use Element; and I , 5. The City Council shall, during annual budget review, establish a priority of projects to be funded in each fiscal year based upon current need and available ' funding. Motley Mumber 5 Identify and implement measures to reduce the impact of high volume summer traffic on persons living along and around the beach and bay. ' DISCUSSION For many years the City has experienced extremely high volumes of traffic during the ■ summer, especially on weekend days. At times, congestion resulting from these high traffic volumes creates a "gridlock" on surface streets on, and leading to, the Balboa ' Peninsula. The problem was first studied in 1968 and periodically evaluated since that time. Public input during the process leading to the adoption of this Element has focused on the need to again evaluate even partial solutions to this long standing , problem. Accordingly, the City commits to further study of the proposals outlined in the Local Coastal Program, as well as continued implementation of certain enforcement practices that provide some relief to residents during the most con- ' gested times. 1 20 ' ' IMPLEMENTATION 1. The City shall continue to study, and implement if found feasible, the circula- ' tion policies and practices described in the Land Use Plan of the Local Coas- tal Program; and 2. The City shall continue the practice of providing additional through lanes on major streets for residents and persons with business in the area, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the policy of not restricting the public's N access to coastal resources. 1 1 1 -21- Table `' - Roadway Costs and Funding Proj Proposed Total Committed Imo cation Improvement Cos[ 171 Other Aeenciea 1 Coast Hwy (SA River to Newport) widen to 6 lanes 8,500,000 7,500,000 2 Coast Hwy (Newport to Dover) widen to 6 lanes 12,250,000 3 Coast Hwy (Dover to Jamboree) widen to 8 lanes 3,000,000 4 Coast Hwy (Bayside to Jamboree) widen to 6 lanes 8,085,000 6,500,000 5 Coast Hwy /Jamboree (intersection) grade separation 4,000,000 6 Newport (30th to 32nd) widen to 6 lanes 1,500,000 7 Newport (32nd to Coast Hwy) widen to 6 lanes 2,650,000 1,250,000 8 Newport/Coast Hwy (intersection) new grade separation 5,000,000 9 Newport (Coast Hwy to hospital) widen to 6 lanes 5009000 10 Jamboree (SJH Rd to Newporter) widen to 6 lanes 1,030,000 11 Jamboree (Bristol to Ford) widen to 8lanes 2,000,000 12 Bayview (Jamboree to MacArthur) build 4 lanes 8259000 13 MacArthur (Coast Hwy to San Miguel) widen to 6 lanes 2,500,000 14 MacArthur (San Miguel to SJH Road) widen to 6 lanes 198009000 15 MacArthur (SJH Road to Ford) widen to 6 lanes 5,0009000 16 MacArthur (Ford to SR -73) widen to 8 lane City of Irvine 17 Irvine (University to Bristol) {1} widen to 6 lanes 650,000 18 Campus (Bristol to MacArthur) widen to 6 lanes Orange County 19 Birch/Mesa (Irvine to Bristol) {21 widen to 4lanes 1,200,000 20 Dover (Cliff to Westcliff) widen to 6lanes 1,7009000 21 15th (Coast Hwy to Bluff) construct 4 lanes 9909000 22 15th (Bluff to Monrovia) construct 4lanes 990,000 23 15th (Monrovia to Superior) widen to 4 lanes 1,270,000 24 Bluff (Coast Hwy to 17th) construct 4 lanes 2,200,000 25 Bluff (17th to 19th) construct 4 lanes 1,375,000 26 16th (Dover to Seagull) widen to 4 lanes 200,000 27 17th (Bluff to E City limit) construct 4 lanes 245,000 28 19th (Bluff to SA River) {3} construct 41anes 8,000,000 29 Placentia (Superior to Hospital) widen to 4lanes 450,000 30 Superior (Placentia to Industrial) complete 4lanes 5009000 31 Avocado (Coast Hwy to San Miguel) construct 4 lanes 900,000 32 Dover (Irvine to Westcliff) widen to 4 lanes 1,650,000 33 Marguerite (Coast Hwy to 5th Ave) widen to 4 lanes 100,000 34 22nd (Irvine to Tustin) widen to 4 lanes 855,000 35 32nd (Newport to Villa Way) widen to 4lanes 65,000 36 Bison (MacArthur to SJH Corridor) construct 4lanes Irvine 37 Ford (San Miguel to E City boundary) widen to 4lanes Irvine 38 Ford (E City boundary to SJH Corr.) construct 4 lanes Irvine 39 SJH Road (Spyglass to SJH Corr.) construct 6 lanes County 40 Pelican Hill (Coast Hwy to SJH Corr.) construct 6 lanes County -22- Adjacent Dev. i 2,0 W,MO i ::I ttt PITI 1 Itl 11 I bl 111 oil .11 tll 1 I Ifi ••I 111 •1 ttl 11 III III PI1 I 11 RI I 900,000 I Public & , Fair Share tll IPI 1 1 1 111 111 li l 111 • PI1 611 11 11'1 • 11 PI1 111 111 tl rll I Ili Pli I11 rl trl 1 111 tl 111 • [n [rl 1 111 Mo ITN 1 111 11 ITI1 I Ili :11 11.1 III-If I . 1 111 1'1 I11 li l 111 1 1 1 Proj. No. ' 41 42 43 N 44 45 46 ' 47 48 49 50 51 ' 52 53 '54 55 56 57 58 '59 60 61 Table V - Roadway Costs and Funding - (Cont.) -23- Committed Adjacent Public& Other Aeencies Dev. Fair Share MITI ki, ITIf I i III 1 111 11 111 111 tl . 1 111 111 $85,025,000 $15,250,000 $21,168,750 $48,604250 Proposed Total Location Improvement Cost -171 Sand Canyon (Coast Hwy to SJH Corr.) construct 4 lanes County Newport & Hospital add EBL 85,000 Newport & 32nd f 4 add NBT {665,000} separate SBR Riverside & PCH {4} add EBT {1,500,000} add optional SBL separate SBR add EBL Tustin & PCH add EBT included w/Riverside MacArthur & Campus add SBL, WBL & NBR 385,000 separate EBR MacArthur & Von Karman add EBT 100,000 Campus & Bristol (N) add WBL 50,000 Birch & Bristol (N) {5} add SBT & WBL 1,100,000 Birch & Bristol (S) add NBT & EBT included w/North Irvine & Mesa add SBT & NBT 390,000 separate SBR & NBR add WBL & EBT Irvine & University add EBT 25,000 DoverBayshore & PCH add EBT & WBT 305,000 Jamboree & Bristol (N) {6} NB ramp to Route 73 {4,000,000} Jamboree & Bristol (S) add EBT part of North NB ramp to Route 73 Jamboree & Bayview add SBL, WBL & WBT 200,000 Jamboree & Bison add WBL & NBT 55,000 MacArthur & Bison add SBL, WBL & NBL 255,000 MacArthur & SJH Road f 4 add SBT {600,000} MacArthur & San Miguel add SBT & NBT 60,000 add WBL San Miguel & SJH Road add WBL 35,000 -23- Committed Adjacent Public& Other Aeencies Dev. Fair Share MITI ki, ITIf I i III 1 111 11 111 111 tl . 1 111 111 $85,025,000 $15,250,000 $21,168,750 $48,604250 TOTAL (all improvements) Footnotes: {1} Does not include work in County. {2} County Redevelopment Agency will pay public share. ' {3} Includes bridge; County will pay public share. {4} Part of roadway link project. {5} Includes FWY bridge widening. {6} Orange County. {7} Numbers in {brackets} not included in total. -23- Committed Adjacent Public& Other Aeencies Dev. Fair Share MITI ki, ITIf I i III 1 111 11 111 111 tl . 1 111 111 $85,025,000 $15,250,000 $21,168,750 $48,604250 Bikeways ' Pntent The City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles both for transportation, to mitigate , traffic levels, and for recreation to promote health and fitness. .®cal Reds The needs of bicyclists will vary with the function of the trip and the speed of the (rider. In addition, children riding bicycles for any purpose will have special needs in terms of safety. Those residents who use bicycles daily as their primary means of transportation are con- , cerned with utilizing the most convenient and direct route available to reach their destina- tion. Consequently, there is a general aversion to any significant out -of- direction travel. Inconveniently situated bikeways will not normally be used. Studies have shown one to ' three blocks out of the direction of travel is about the limit, depending upon the (distance to be traveled. These bicyclists normally will select a route along a primary or a major high- way. In contrast, the recreational rider might chose a route for its scenic interest such as ' a harbor view or for its open space character. Some recreational riders prefer to ride on a bike trail separated from vehicular traffic. Thus, it is necessary to provide bikeways for bicyclists along major transportation corridors as well as residential and scenic areas. , Fast cyclists ride at 12 -25 miles per hour. They are usually experienced riders,, and mix poorly with pedestrians, children, and recreational cyclists because of their speed. Slower ' cyclists ride at average speeds of 8 -12 miles per hour. They mix well with child cyclists; only the slowest cyclists mix well with pedestrians, but poorly with motor vehicles. I It is thus necessary to provide bikeways which separate faster cyclists from pedestrian t Tavel and ' children, integrating bicycle travel more closely with vehicular traffic, and bikeways which separate slower cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Children would be expected ito utilize the latter routes. , „: 31 Several regional bikeways pass through the City of Newport Beach. These bikeways provide alternate circulation routes and access to areas of interest on a regional basis. Bikeways are an important component of the local recreation and transportation spectrum. ' Some potential sites have been identified as those which are appropriate for bikeways or have already been designated to be served by such a trail. The City can work closely with , regional and other local governments to coordinate regional bikeway connections to local bikeways and to popular destinations for bicyclists which are located in the City. -24- , Classification of Bikeways Bikeway is the term to designate all facilities which provide for bicycle travel. The Master ' Plan of Bikeways include various types of facilities to provide for both transportation and recreation cyclists, faster and slower cyclists, and children. In order to serve varying needs, ' the City of Newport Beach provides the following types of facilities: 1. Bicycle Lane. A lane in the street, normally the parking lane, or a separate lane, designated for the exclusive or semi- exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is not allowed, vehicle parking may or may not be allowed. Crossflow by motorists to gain access to driveways and parking ' facilities is allowed. Separation from the motor vehicle travel way is normally by a painted solid stripe. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails. ' 2. Bicycle Route. A shared right -of -way for bicycle operation, whether or not it is specified by signs or markings. All main streets and highways by authority of the California Vehicle Code include bicycle routes as defined herein. Bicycle lanes and bicycle routes together are also known as Class 3 bicycle trails. ' -25- 3. Bicycle Trail. A pathway designated for the use of bicycles which is physical- ' ly separated from motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrian traffic my or may not be ex- cluded. Bicycle trails are also known as Class 1 bicycle trails. Bikeway. bikeways bikeways, 4. Backbone Backbone are major through as shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways. They are primarily on major roads. Backbone bikeways may connect to regional trails, as shown in the Master Plan. 5. Secondary Bikeway. Secondary bikeways connect to backbone trails and serve ' cyclists and children riding to and from school. Secondary bikeways may also be a bicycle lane, route, or trail. ' Objective, Policies, and Programs Oblecu e. To promote bicycling for transportation and recreation in and around Newport Beach. Policies- 1. To provide a safe, convenient, and enjoyable system of bikeways that meets the needs of all bicyclists, including children and adults, fast and slow bicyclists, and functional and recreational cyclists. ' -25- 2. The City shall insure implementation of a bikeway system to encouragl cycling , as a alternative mode of transportation consistent with the Masted Plan of Bikeways. 3. Bikeways shall be developed in recognition of the rights and slafety of ' pedestrians. Pro�ams: I ' 1. The Master Plan of Bikeways (page 29 below) shall be implemented as follows: M a. Bicycle lanes shall be included on all streets and highways desig- nated as backbone bikeways and considered on streets and highways designated as secondary bikeways in conjunction with street and highway improvements when feasible and consistent with the City's ' ability to do so. At major intersections, consideration shall be given to providing space and signal detection modifications for bicyclists to negotiate through and turning movements. ' b. Bikeways shown on the Master Plan of Bikeways shall be developed consistent with the City's ability to do so. I ' C. Careful consideration shall be given to linkage of schools and residences in the formulation of plans for individual bikeways. 1 ' d. Appropriate bikeway improvements may be required as a conditiion of development approvals. e. The City will work with appropriate agencies for development of connecting bikeways. L Bikeways shall be developed as bike trails when the opportunity lex- ists and is feasible. , g. Bikeways shall be developed to link recreational areas where ' feasible. h. Bikeways shall be developed to take advantage of scenic views when ' feasible. 2. The City intends to promote bicycle use by commuters, shoppers, beach - goers, ' etc., to help minimize auto traffic, by providing bike lanes (see above) and by providing and encouraging businesses and employers to provide: ' Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways a. Secure bike parking, including bike lockers; b. Clothes lockers and showers for employees. ' 3. School and other safety programs by the Newport Beach Police Department will be continued. 2. Research bikeway implementation, education, and safety techniques, maintain 4. When construction or repairs necessitate lane closures, every effort will be made to provide room for cyclists as well as for motor vehicles. N 3. Report to the City Council annually on findings and progress in expanding the 5. When possible, bikeways and walkways will be separated. IMPLEMENTATION Bikeway projects could be financed using the City's General Fund or SB 821 Funds. ' SB 821 Funds are of state origin and are disbursed by the Orange County Transpor- tation Commission (OCTC). They are allocated for bikeway projects, including but ' not limited to signs, striping, staging areas, bridges, and bike lanes. Candidate projects must be part of an adopted plan. The funds are disbursed annually. 50% of Develop public information materials as directed by the City Council. the County's funds are allocated on a population basis. The remaining 50% are dis- cretionary funds granted after a prescribed nomination process and technical evalua- tion. ' Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways -27- The Citizens' Advisory Committee on Bikeways should be directed to: 1. Review planned expansions or changes to the City's bikeway network for ad- ' visory input to the Public Works Department and the City Council. 2. Research bikeway implementation, education, and safety techniques, maintain a record of bicycle accidents, and collect available literature on bicycle safety. 3. Report to the City Council annually on findings and progress in expanding the bikeway network. 4. Coordinate with bikeway committees in adjoining communities. 5. Develop public information materials as directed by the City Council. -27- i6 omm m A �r e' _28_ 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Z 1 Q W 1 V O 1 U i 4 U 1 Q 1 1 1 �r e' _28_ 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Z 1 Q W 1 V O 1 U i 4 U 1 Q 1 1 1