HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road/Marine Avenue Improvements - Award of Contract - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
November 27, 2018
Item No. 21
Subject: FW: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attachments: Bayside 11-27 -18 letter to Council.docx
fyi
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
Phone: (949) 644-3131
Fax: (949) 644-3139
Email: aharp@ newportbeachca.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail message is intended for the confidential use of the addressees only. The information is
subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or may be attorney work -product. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly
accessible records. If you are not an addressee or an authorized agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to a designated addressee, you have
received this e-mail in error, and any further review, dissemination distribution, copying or forwarding of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
Moreover, such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege as to this communication. If you received this e-
mail in error, please notify us immediately at (949) 644-3131. Thank you.
From: Paul & Marilyn Teslow <paulteslow@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy
<dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff
<iherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Peotter, Scott <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William
<woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Leung, Grace <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Missirlian, Suzy<SMissirlian@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron
<aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Webb, Dave (Public Works) <DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attached is a letter regarding tonight's City Council agenda item on the Bayside Improvement
project. Although it is lengthy, hopefully Council Members will take a brief look at its content prior to
the meeting this evening. As we just learned of this agenda, it seems important to get these newly
disclosed nationwide street design fundamentals on record with each Council member so that each
can make an informed decision tonight.
With this email, the burden of disclosing newly discovered knowledge of yet undisclosed critical
street project fundamentals is now out of our hands and is passed into the hands of each voting
Council Member for achieving the most prudent project outcome.
Thank you for the priority attention you will give to this urgent issue.
11-27-18
To: the Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Other Interested Parties
Re: Bayside Street Safety Project
This communication relates to the 2 -lane Bayside Drive Safety Project that was approved
by the 2016 Council 2 years ago on November 22, 2016.
Today we were surprised to learn from a Daily Pilot article that the Tuesday Council
agenda includes a proposal to award a contract for construction of the controversial 4 -
lane Bayside Drive project. The surprise was because for the past 18 months, final plan
preparation by City Officials was quietly performed without any good -faith updates or invitation
for comment from impacted users of Bayside.
In consideration of the following disclosures, the Council is urged to table award of a
construction contract at least until the following newly discovered data can be reviewed
by internal NB leaders and qualified outside street design/engineering firms, and legal
experts in design liability.
Over a year of NB staff study of solutions for Bayside endangerment and much Bayside
impacted resident input was gathered prior to the initial 2016 approval of the 2 -lane design. But,
some 2017 Councilmembers obviously had a different and very curious agenda than the 2016
Council's 5-1 approval of the Bayside project. Although unfamiliar with lengthy 2016 project
studies, as one of its first actions the new 2017 Council quickly voted in February, 2017 to
" revisit" the previously approved Bayside Safety Project.
Following the revisit vote, NB Director of Public Works then presided over an ad hoc community
advisory committee for several months until he (very predictably) announced no consensus,
other than a safe street, was possible. In spite of the Committee's concurrence that safety
was very important, on 5-9-17 the 2017 Council inexplicably voted for the least safe of
four design options and reversed the nature and intent of the initial 2016 Bayside project.
The following is a brief summary of a large volume of data on how the NB Council
grievously "erred" in a 5-9-17 decision to overturn the previous Councils approval of the
Bayside Drive Safety Project. Not included is a 50 page supplement that describes
underlying specifics of the, who, what, when, where, and why of the past 2 years of
questionable Bayside actions.
Traffic safety endangerment on Bayside Drive has long been known. This 50 year-old, 1.3 mile
long wide-open space functions like a freeway and is an inherently perilous residential street
design that (according to safe street design standards) promotes extraordinary speeding. With
6'/2 lanes consisting of 4 wide travel lanes, 1 turning median, 1 parking lane, and 2 unprotected
bicycle lanes, this lightly -traveled residential street is wider than most 4 -lane freeways.
City staff reports Irvine Avenue and Bayside Drive are the only 2 such 4 -lane residential streets
with abutting home driveways in all of NB. As the sole gateway to PCH and the outside world
for the communities of Harbor Island, Beacon Bay, Harbor Island Drive, Linda Isle, Promontory
Bay and a secondary access to PCH for Balboa Island, the Bayside corridor is a strategic
passageway for all these communities.
By any credible nationwide standard for a street with Bayside's unique characteristics,
the existing 4 -lane residential street is unnecessary, hazardous, obsolete, and is in need
of substantial retrofit. Street design scientists describe lightly traveled 4 -lane residential
streets (with characteristics similar to Bayside) to be "Dangerous by Design. Again, as
opposed to a 4 -lane concept that encourages the spectacular speeds (86mph) on Bayside,
significant built-in speed reduction is inherent in a 2 -lane "Safety by Design" concept, where
the "design itself" limits drivers to reasonable residential speeds.
Council action at the 5-9-17 meeting seemed incredulous. Without providing any reasoning,
the 2017 Council rescinded the 2016 Council approved "safest" 2 -lane street design. At
the same time, several Members promoted and replaced that with the "least safe" 4 -lane street
design from among several concepts considered.
By rescinding the safest 2 -lane street design approved by the 2016 Council, the 2017
Council replaced the safest design with the least safe 4 -lane design from among several
concepts considered. (The relative safety of the 2 different designs will be confirmed by
expert data indicated below). This 2017 reversal action ignored the principle purpose of the
project was to correct well-documented life -safety dangers with a safer and more efficient street
design that best protects "14,000 daily Bayside motorists" plus bicyclists and pedestrians.
This Council vote also ignored the revisit Advisory Committee only consensus that safety is
important.
From all appearances (minutes, videos, and public statements), little or no Council logic,
reasoning, or transparency was ever offered to justify the 2017 Council 5-9-17 action.
This hasty and surprise vote appeared to be pre -orchestrated by several members. In a
lengthy public response session, attendees overwhelmingly stressed the safety advantage of
the initial 2 -lane design. The meeting video also reveals several Councilmembers as highly
confused by the specific motion proposed and rushed vote.
The only enlightened persons on street design, (at the 5-9-17 meeting), were 2 City traffic
engineer heroes who appeared restrained but yet courageously shared their expertise. The
professional NB traffic engineer who studied the unusual characteristics of the Bayside corridor
before preparing several street design options was asked for his opinion. He gave a highly
informative power point presentation on residential street design science and engineering. .
This comparative analysis of several street design options confirmed that only the 2 -lane
concept would result in significant speed calming and safety. The engineer's explanation
was consistent with his written report prepared prior to the 2016 Council approval of the safest
2
2 -lane concept. In answer to questions, he substantiated that traffic congestion would rarely
occur now or in the future, even during peak hours.
The NB engineer who very knowledgably presented several Bayside options to attendees did so
very ably. Curiously, he was then humiliated and publicly chastised by the Chair for having
informed the audience about unwelcome nationwide safe -street design standards. (see video).
Aside from the video, this curious outburst was also picked -up by a savvy reporter who noted
the embarrassing outburst in a press report of the meeting. Curiously, the Public Works
Director, who oversees the traffic engineers, said nothing to defend his own staff.
In short, expert NB engineers are on verbal and written record stating the 4 -lane version
substituted by the 2017 Council is less safe and efficient than the initial 2016 2 -lane
concept. The 5-9-17 meeting video reveals several Members flatly rejected professional
advice from NBs traffic engineer while making a grossly uninformed 5-9-17 Bayside decision.
Most importantly, the Council was unable to address the 3 other undisclosed street
design imperatives described below.
Review of the 5-9-17 meeting video confirms a high level of confusion and lack of preparation
by most Councilmembers on the dais. Viewing the video clearly reveals confused Members
had little idea of which Bayside concept they were specifically voting for. The video
reveals seemingly pre -orchestrated quick floor motions from Members of a Council faction
(discussed later) and a rushed vote to quickly seize a moment of confusion to obtain a
spontaneous 4 -lane vote.
We acknowledge that a few minor assertions may be somewhat circumstantial. All
others are carefully documented with back-up project records, public statements,
minutes, videos press releases, etc. To the extent Councilmember and City officials
produce legitimate documentation that our assertions are inaccurate, we will publicly
retract and apologize for conclusions formed from many different clues.
No evidence could be found that any 2017 Councilmember ever transparently disclosed their
logic for reversing the 2016 Council approval of a safer and more efficient 2 -lane Bayside
project and replacing that with a more hazardous 4 -lane design. The purpose for documenting
overall dysfunction of the 2017-18 Council is because that is the same undisciplined process
that underlies 2 years of indefensible floundering on a straight -forward street safety project.
Unexplained Councilmember and City official actions and the absence of any
transparency or reasoning for the 5-9-17 Council action "prompted" a probe into NB
minutes, videos, letters, emails and public statements made during months of Bayside
discourse. During this probe, no evidence could be found that top City officials had publicly
disclosed or openly discussed significant NB street safety data including extraordinary Bayside
speeding that would be game changing if disclosed.
3
Concurrently, our concerns about sound street design stimulated a different internet
search into nationwide street design policies and standards. This online search into safe
street design opened an avalanche of previously unknown nationwide street design
policies and standards that had never been disclosed by NB top officials.
This search "uncovered" highly material essentials to making an informed decision for
any viable residential street project. Although this most authoritative street design and
extensive engineering data are not included in this already lengthy summary, it is readily
available on hundreds of online sites.
"Incredulously", these combined probes confirmed that City officials had never made
any public disclosure of the following "3 critical standards and essentials" for making an
informed decision on Bayside design and engineering. During the many months of design
review, no Councilmembers, the impacted community, or even activists were informed of these
critical street project imperatives.
The followina describes 3 fundamentals and imaeratives for sound street desian that to
NB officials seemingly withheld and kept undisclosed that include:
j1) NB speed trailer report of extraordinary average -high speeds of 66 mph up to a top
speed of 86 mph on the residential Bayside Drive
(2) fundamentals of nationwide street design policies and standards
(3) need to protect against NB liability exposure of an unsafe city street
These newly discovered fundamentals confirmed that Councilmembers took the 5-9-17 action
without any knowledge of readily available nationwide street design and engineering standards.
The result was the 2017 Council blindly replaced the safer and more efficient 2016 Councils
professional design for Bayside with a less safe and grossly oversized design.
Although Councilmember promoters of the 4 -lane concept never openly provided even a single
reason for insisting on a less safe design, this initiative may have risked forfeiting over $2 million
in NB County and State grant funds to other more receptive cities.
The following newly disclosed data is so highly material and compelling that hopefully it
will result in the willingness of discerning Councilmembers restore the original Bayside
project design that complies with today's street design policy and standards. It is our
plea that Councilmembers will favorably receive and evaluate the most determinative data
available for finally making a well-informed Bayside design decision. The following
fundamentals for viable street design were apparently never disclosed to the Council, the
impacted community, and even activist protestors:
(1) Spectacular high -speeds on Bayside were recorded from NB monitoring.
The City located a speed -monitoring trailer near the Bayside/HIR intersection for 27
days. The trailer clocked eastbound Bayside traffic at average hourly high speeds
of "66 mph" with a top speed recorded at "86 mph", for vehicles passing through
121
a NB "residential neighborhood". These extraordinary speeds call for extraordinary
speed calming measures that according to traffic science metrics cannot be achieved in
a 4 -lane design with Bay side's' unique characteristics. Apparently for unknown
reasons, the stunning game -changing data collected was kept undisclosed by NB
City management. During months of the revisit process, various residents and
Advisory Committee Members periodically asked for the monitoring trailer speed reports,
but the Public Works Director obfuscated and quickly dismissed these requests.
Anyway, City records establish the uninformed Council 5-9-17 vote occurred prior to any
public disclosure or discussion of this critical speed data that is so essential to an
"informed decision"for a viable Bayside design.
(2) The existence of overriding nationwide street design policies and standards
According to historical accounts over the past decade, street design policy was
developed through consensus among nearly all nationwide street design experts. Later,
these standards were promoted by Grant funding authorities to "constrict municipal
leaders (as in NB) from squandering public funds with irresponsible street design
decisions". These overarching policies can be quickly confirmed with an online
search for Safe Street Design that will open hundreds of safe street design policy
websites such as Vision Zero. Vision Zero types of standards and policies have been
enacted and embraced by over 1,300 up-to-date cities from NYC to LA. Incredulously,
top city management officials are seemingly unable to verify they ever openly disclosed
the most "authoritative street design policy standards" in our nation. The big question is
why should NB (and 14,000 daily Bayside motorists) be deprived from these nationwide
safety initiatives?
(3) Protection against liability exposure of an unsafe street. Recently, nearby
Orange County cities that neglected to correct known street endangerment (like
Bayside) paid huge jury awards or settlements to plaintiffs, ranging from $3 million to
$50 Million in Dana Point. The 2017 Councils blatant 5-9-17 action to overturn the 2016
Council's "safest" 2 -lane design and replace that with the "least safe"4-lane design
probably exposes NB to a uniquely vulnerable liability position.
The 2017 Council revocation of the safest 2 -lane concept leaves NB at uniquely high risk
for huge jury awards or settlements to plaintiffs for negligence to effectively correct a
foreseeable design endangerment. Very likely, the "deliberate nature"of this decision
denies NB from any plausible defense against lawsuits claiming negligent design liability.
"Intentional" neglect to correct the well-documented endangerments of a 4 -lane
Bayside design probably puts NB into a worst possible position to defend against
inevitable litigation by high-speed crash victims. Hopefully, legal counsel familiar with
recent California "design liability" litigation has been consulted. Cities are no longer
immune from design liability in its projects.
The following presentation confirms that any one of the above 3 fundamentals for modern street
design is, by itself, sufficiently compelling to restore the original 2 -lane design. But, willfully
5
ignoring all 3 criteria in order to cling onto an unnecessary 4 -lane Bayside design seems far too
irrational for any Council member to defend. Both nationwide standards and NBs own
expert engineers document that more than 2 -lanes results in added endangerment and,
moreover, are "unneeded" to maintain uninterrupted traffic flow either now or in the
future. Collectively, incorporation of the 3 criteria provides needed safety and legally
defensible assurance of the best near and long-term outcome for this challenging and
problematic residential Bayside corridor.
City records relevant to Bayside reveal the Councils 5-9-17 decision for a 4 -lane design was
reached without any knowledge or discussion of the three most determinative fundamentals for
viable residential street design. The following describes why nondisclosure of
extraordinary Bayside speeding and basic street design fundamentals (during the entire
Bayside decision-making process) suggests even the "veracity and validity" of the 5-9-17
Bayside action may be open to question. .
While the date is late, time has not been a priority for the Bayside project. Although the
prosect was approved 2 years ago, no shovel has yet gone into the ground. Presumably
reconfiguring the project engineering calcs and specs from a 4 -lane to a 2 -lane concept can be
creatively fast -tracked to receive either revised construction bids or a negotiated unit cost- plus
contract (if feasible). Modification of the design that reduces the project scope would seemingly
result in a lower project cost. In view of the above 3 highly material new data discoveries and
imperatives for modern street design, City leaders are urged to find a creative solution to
achieve a 2 -lane concept.
The stunning discovery of "core fundamentals" in modern street design science opened
a new world of issues related to NB street design and engineering. Ongoing observations
of Bayside project actions led to months of detailed notes that form the basis for this
presentation. It was quickly discovered that, over the past decade, a consensus of nearly every
recognized traffic engineering firm and public authority in the US are now actively collaborating
on an overarching new fundamental in sound street design and engineering.
This revolution involves "a nationwide paradigm shift away from the old mentality of
favoring rapid movement of vehicles that is being replaced by a new -generation of safe
and efficient street policies often identified as Vision Zero standards". The creation of
nationwide safe street design policy and standards envisions city streets as public space
that can often be inexpensively repurposed into safer, more efficient, and livable
community street environments that are friendly to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
alike.
Presumably, these decade-long nationwide street design policies would be, or should be,
well known to paid top city management professionals. Ironically, staff level NB traffic
designers of the initial Bayside project were obviously highly aware these prevailing standards
because they incorporated them into their 2016 design options.
0
Again, (unless otherwise produced), no project records or open communication can be
identified to confirm these design standards or speed reports were ever openly disclosed
Anyway, these nondisclosures deprived both the Council and community from informed
decision-making essentials for a viable and sustainable modern street design.
Because of the length of this email, a 50 page Supplement is "not included". The
Supplement addresses underlying details of who, what, when, where, and why of how City
Officials grievously "erred "in its 5-9-17 action to overturn the previous Councils approval of the
Bayside Drive Safety Project. The supplement describes nationwide standards and specific
details of the 5-9-17 Council action that reversed the safest 2 -lane Bayside 2016 design and
then replaced that with its own least safe 4 -lane design. The supplement also confirms why this
curious substitution in street design is irresponsible and legally indefensible.
The 5-9-17 meeting video reveals Councilmembers flatly rejected advice from NBs professional
traffic engineer. This advice by NB's own experts was fully consistent with conclusions by
nationwide experts. In a comparative analysis of several street design options, expert NB
traffic engineers are on both verbal and written record stating the 4 -lane version substituted by
the 2017 Council is less safe and efficient than the initial 2016 2 -lane concept. Without
knowledge of the 3 undisclosed street project fundamentals, Councilmembers presumably relied
upon personal preferences in making a grossly uninformed 5-9-17 decision.
At the time of the 2016 Bayside project approval, staff reported it was fully budgeted and
fully funded. It was indicated these funding sources were $1,750m from Measure M
County sales tax grants, $900k from SB -1 State gas tax grants, and only $350k in City
funds. Over the past 2 years while the Council fiddled with the project, it was of concern
that these grant funds may be defaulted to other cities more anxious for these significant
grant funds than our NB Council.
In terms of performance, continuing press coverage revealed a uniquely troubled 2017-
2018 Council term. Nearly a dozen former NB Mayors, Councilmembers and Republican
leaders recently described the 2017-2018 Council as the most dysfunctional in memory.
Reporters noted various flip-flops that include overturning the Bayside project, the
Museum House issue, and reversal of their vote to forfeit County and State grant funding
for NB street projects following NB outrage. Press reports also revealed the costly
forced early termination of the NB City Managers contract by a 4 -member faction, an
effort to recall a Councilmember, an internal defamation lawsuit, and also coverage on a
4 Member faction that was asserted to have covertly circumvented the other 3 Members.
Now, with a very welcome new City Manager and a new Councilmember mix in the 2019-
2020 Council, a significant opportunity exists for NB transformational change and new
leadership reforms. Because 2 of the 4 alleged Council faction were apparently not re-
elected, there is less chance of hidden agendas and behind the scenes deal -making. We
trust that the remaining 2 participants and all Councilmembers will embrace the
challenge given by our new City Manager Grace Leung. She has obviously gained
7
unique insight to recent leadership problems by stressing "effective and transparent
communication, trust and teamwork, setting priorities, and being strategic and proactive
versus reactive".
Hopefully, this commitment will restore civility, transparency, and discernment in
decision-making to an awesome NB culture that deserves responsible and accountable
leadership. Hopefully, there will be no more hidden agendas and behind the scenes deal -
making in the 2019-2020 Council.
Although this (previously undisclosed) game -changing data surfaced late -in -the game,
after 2 years of the Councils rather obvious mishandling of the project, no shovel has yet
pone into the ground. Hopefully Councilmembers will receive this newly disclosed data with
an open mind and not be annoyed and resent the attached concerns. An indignant reaction
would probably result in greater disservice to NB than for courageous Members to collectively
embrace the noble challenge for a design that best serves safety and efficiency of the Bayside
corridor for generations ahead.
Given the irrefutable data in this email, Councilmembers will be unable to identify even a single
legitimate reason to support the proposed 4 -lane concept. If some critical -thought is given to
the newly disclosed data, the following should become clear to discerning Members. The only
defensible Bayside design option is for each Councilmember to support and restore the 2016
safest most efficient 2 -lane street design that complies with nationwide standards, and assures
the best protection against City liability.
Because of the high volume and convoluted nature of what appears as gross mishandling of the
Bayside project, our many assertions will probably appear too preposterous for believability. In
order to "validate and substantiate" our assertions, careful documentation has been provided for
each and every concern expressed. As previously noted, this documentation comes from
irrefutable Council minutes, videos, actions, press reports, public statements and emails that
related to the Bayside project.
It is not expected that the Council will buy into our layperson presentation on street design
without independent analysis. So, it is urged that up to date outside engineering and legal
experts be engaged to assess and/or validate the newly disclosed fundamental street
design data and evaluate its impact on the Bayside project.
Any reasonable grasp of these newly discovered street imperatives strongly suggests
that Councilmembers now have a much higher threshold of "moral burden and fiduciary
duty" than what was previously understood. NB City Officials now have the opportunity to
leave behind the tangible legacy of a model safe and efficient Bayside corridor that best protects
"14,000 daily motorists" plus bicyclists and pedestrians for generations ahead.
Course correction is quite explainable and understandable when the Council informs the
community that new data has come to light that compels a per se return to the original
M
plan. Given new disclosures, that response is the only "honest and credible" answer that is
defensible in decades ahead.
It is trusted that Councilmembers are "discerning and noble" and will acknowledge
newly disclosed speed reports, imperatives for modern street design as well as negligent
liability exposure, and restore the original Bayside concept_ According to these overall
fundamentals for viable street design, this choice offers the only defensible response
that otherwise will predictably always be considered negligent and indefensible handling
of a NB public safety endangerment. The Council will have provided maximum
reasonable protection against the inevitable horrific tragedy of a high-speed crash with
disabling injuries or fatalities.
Presumably, powerful City leaders who promoted the 4 -lane Bayside concept were
unaware of the full significance of that action. Without more complete insight to the newly
discovered fundamentals of a viable street, it is somewhat understandable how City leaders
may have easily gotten off course. Rather than choosing to disprove irrefutable facts, there
other more prudent responses. To the extent compelling new facts are now recognized, the
most courageous and noble response from these officials is to use their same power and
influence to immediately champion a course correction.
Hopefully, Members will choose this most prudent, visionary, and honorable course that might
result in a unanimous vote and bring "healing and closure" to all (reasonable) parties involved in
this long contentious issue. A unified Council member response might become the new spirit of
the 2019-2020 Council.
PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION
Our "immediate" plea for the today's Council meeting is that the proposal to award a
construction contract for the Bayside project will be tabled. That is until internal
officials, qualified outside street design firms, and legal experts in design liability have
evaluated the 3 undisclosed street project imperatives.
Our "ultimate" plea is that the Council to unanimously disclose to the NB community
that, "with compelling new data, the reality is that Councilmembers no longer have any
defensible "choice" but to restore the initial 2016 safest and most efficient Bayside
design concept". Finally, before continuing with the problematic 4 -lane concept, the
Council is urged to take formal action to approve and restore the initial 2 -lane 2016
concept.
Thank you for your attention to this important request.
Marilyn and Paul Teslow
paulteslow@yahoo.com
9
Received After Agenda Printed
November 27, 2018
Item No. 21
From: O'Neill, William
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:51 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Harp, Aaron; Leung, Grace
Subject: Re: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attachments: About Bayside Drive and AB 1358 (2008)
And also this attached email
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
City of Newport Beach
From: "O'Neill, William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:49 AM
To: Leilani Brown <LBrown@newportbeachca.gov>, "Harp, Aaron" <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>, Grace
Leung <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: FW: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Leilani — please include the attached in the record for the Bayside Drive item tonight
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
City of Newport Beach
From: Paul & Marilyn Teslow <paulteslow@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:40 AM
To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>, "Avery, Brad" <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>, "Duffield,
Duffy" <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>, "Muldoon, Kevin" <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>, Jeff
Herdman <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>, "Peotter, Scott" <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>, "O'Neill,
William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Grace Leung <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>, "Missirlian, Suzy" <SMissirlian@newportbeachca.gov>,
"Harp, Aaron" <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>, "Webb, Dave (Public Works)"
<DAWebb@ newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attached is a letter regarding tonight's City Council agenda item on the Bayside Improvement
project. Although it is lengthy, hopefully Council Members will take a brief look at its content prior to the
meeting this evening. As we just learned of this agenda, it seems important to get these newly disclosed
nationwide street design fundamentals on record with each Council member so that each can make an informed
decision tonight.
With this email, the burden of disclosing newly discovered knowledge of yet undisclosed critical street project
fundamentals is now out of our hands and is passed into the hands of each voting Council Member for
achieving the most prudent project outcome.
Thank you for the priority attention you will give to this urgent issue.
From: Kiff, Dave
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 3:40 PM
To: 'paulteslow@yahoo.com'
Cc: Harp, Aaron; Brine, Tony; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Sommers, Brad; Vukojevic, Mark;
Brandt, Kim
Subject: About Bayside Drive and AB 1358 (2008)
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Teslow—
First, thank you for your email to the City regarding Bayside Drive.
As we have stated, we believe that Bayside Drive is safe today, and will be safe with the improvements proposed by the
City Council. The alternative chosen appropriately respects and protects a variety of transportation users such as
bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, persons in autos, and others.
As to AB 1358 (2008), this law requires local agencies, when conducting a substantive revision of the circulation
element of the general plan (my emphasis added), to "modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced,
multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways...."
The City's proposed budget, at the Mayor's direction, has allocated $11M in the coming budget year (starting July 1,
2017) for the next update of the General Plan, which was last updated by the voters in 2006. This update will likely take
about 18-24 months, and will include the Circulation Element, Land Use Element, and more. Extensive public input will
be involved.
We will of course address AB 1358 within that update, and will welcome the thoughtful participation of you and your
neighbors in that discussion.
Thank you again for your note.
Dave Kiff
City Manager
From: Paul & Marilyn Teslow [paulteslow@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 1:46 AM
To: Muldoon, Kevin; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Herdman, Jeff; Peotter, Scott; O'Neill, William
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Sommers, Brad; Brine, Tony; Buzby, Lisa
Subject: Bayside Drive and "Complete Streets" Policiy
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The stunning May 9 decision of the Council to rescind the formerly approved plan of maximum safety
for Bayside Drive multimodal traffic and to substitute a plan with the least amount of safety
technologies is of major concern.
As emphasized in the 10 -page letter sent on May 8, critical issues within State and nationwide street
design policy were never part of the public discussion or ultimate Council decision.
Apparently Council members are unaware of both the major paradigm shift in street design
standards, as well as the the City's statutory obligation under "Complete Streets Act of 2008" (AB
1358)..
The various adverse consequences from willfully adopting a street design that blatantly conflicts with
a national consensus on safe street design can be quite serious for Newport Beach.
You are urged to read these four pages that outlines overriding street design policy and reconsider
the hasty May 9 decision made without reference to nationwide safe street standards apparently
unknown to the Council .
Thank you,
Marilyn and Paul Teslow
615 Bayside Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Received After Agenda Printed
November 27, 2018
Item No. 21
From: O'Neill, William
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:49 AM
To: Brown, Leilani; Harp, Aaron; Leung, Grace
Subject: FW: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attachments: Thank you; Hall - Bayside LTR 5-12-17[1].pdf
Leilani — please include the attached in the record for the Bayside Drive item tonight
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
City of Newport Beach
From: Paul & Marilyn Teslow <paulteslow@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:40 AM
To: Diane Dixon <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>, "Avery, Brad" <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>, "Duffield,
Duffy" <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>, "Muldoon, Kevin" <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>, Jeff
Herdman <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>, "Peotter, Scott" <speotter@newportbeachca.gov>, "O'Neill,
William" <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Grace Leung <gleung@newportbeachca.gov>, "Missirlian, Suzy" <SMissirlian@newportbeachca.gov>,
"Harp, Aaron" <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>, "Webb, Dave (Public Works)"
<DAWebb@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Bayside Drive Project Council Agenda
Attached is a letter regarding tonight's City Council agenda item on the Bayside Improvement
project. Although it is lengthy, hopefully Council Members will take a brief look at its content prior to the
meeting this evening. As we just learned of this agenda, it seems important to get these newly disclosed
nationwide street design fundamentals on record with each Council member so that each can make an informed
decision tonight.
With this email, the burden of disclosing newly discovered knowledge of yet undisclosed critical street project
fundamentals is now out of our hands and is passed into the hands of each voting Council Member for
achieving the most prudent project outcome.
Thank you for the priority attention you will give to this urgent issue.
From: Susan Skinner <savebaysidedr@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:07 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Thank you
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your decision last evening to maintain the 4 lanes of Bayside Dr. I recognize that any decision
that you made was going to make some segment of the population unhappy, but do sincerely believe that this
was the best decision.
I would also like to be sensitive to the concerns of the residents on Bayside Dr who described the fear of having
a car crash into their homes. As I expressed in my letter, I see this as the impact of the idiots and drunks who
will make poor life decisions regardless of the configuration of the road, but that doesn't address the concern of
having a car come through one's living room.
May I suggest consideration for some sort of physical barrier to protect those folks from the idiots and
drunks? They have a choice if they leave their cars out in front of their house, but they really have no choice on
the current location of their house. Perhaps some sort of bollard or post imbedded in the sidewalk adjacent to
the roadway might afford some protection for them in the case of a drunk leaving the roadway?
Just a thought seeking to address their underlying concerns and achieve some level of a win/win.
Thanks,
Susan Skinner
May 12, 2017
DELIVERY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: michelle(C7ultimoproperties. com
Ms. Michelle Hall
Ultimo Properties
Dear Ms. Hall:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3311 1 949 644-3308 FAX
newportbeachca.gov/publicworks
Council Member Will O'Neill forwarded me your E-mail expressing your concern with the recent
Bayside Drive Roadway Improvement Project. I want to reiterate that all options for Bayside Drive
are safe, and clarify a few items related to this project.
Bayside Drive in its current configuration is designed and constructed to current standards, and
is not deficient. Public Works staff offered three concepts for consideration during the City Council
presentation. Each option addressed community feedback, was safe, designed to current
standards, intended to calm traffic, improve driver attention, and reduce motorist speed.
We understand anytime there are multiple options under consideration there may be some
frustration when one option is selected in place of another. However, please be assured that
every Bayside Drive option was equally viable and developed first and foremost with the safety
and wellbeing of our residents in mind. Specifically, the option selected by the City Council
includes the following traffic calming, safety, and mobility enhancement features:
• Narrowing of four existing traffic lanes to 10 feet in width;
• Installation of raised medians with landscaping, decorative -flush medians, speed
feedback signs, and a new sidewalk segment;
• Extension of the existing bike lane; and
• Rehabilitation of the roadway pavement and existing traffic signals.
Thank you for contacting the City of Newport Beach regarding Bayside Drive.
Sincer
Brad Sommers, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Newport Beach
cc: Council Member Will O'Neill
City Manager Dave Kiff
Public Works Director Dave Webb
Received After Agenda Printed
November 27, 2018
Item No. 21
From: jskinnermd@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 4:38 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Peotter, Scott; Muldoon, Kevin; Duffield, Duffy; wco@rossllp.com;
jherdmanl@roadrunner.com; brad@nbdistrict2.com
Subject: Bayside Drive
Dear Mayor Duffield and Members of the Council,
I am not able to attend your meeting this evening but, if I had been there in person, I would have
asked you not to spend money on narrowing the lanes of a perfectly good street even though some
people tend to drive fast on it. In all the many times I have driven that section of Bayside Drive, it
seems to me that drivers exceed the speed limit no more often than PCH and other streets, major
and residential. I would be interested in knowing if the installation of the sign that tells people how
fast they are going has made any difference. I think it does for me, I have to admit.
If you want to improve safety in Newport Beach, instead of narrowing lanes on Bayside, I sincerely
believe that spending "safety -designated" money on improved safety for bicycle riders would be a
better choice. I don't know the best ways to make streets safer for bicycle riders but this seems to me
worth discussing. I'm just asking, if we are going to spend money, that we spend it to get the "most
bang for the buck." Making changes to a street that needs no changes doesn't seem to me to be a
wise use of taxpayers dollars.
Thank you for reading,
Nancy Skinner