The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE*NEW FILE* CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 640-2153 January 28, 1982 Mr. Ray Smith 110 McFadden Place Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Smith: On January 26, 1982,'the City's Traffic Affairs Com- mittee again reviewed the matter of proposed traffic modifications in the Ocean Front Parking Lot'area. Enclosed is the plan prepared by the Police Department. The purpose of this plan,•'as explained at•the meeting, is to restrict "cruising" and its associated problems in the area. The proposed modifications include: 1. Traffic will be able to enter the'lot at either,MCFadden Place or 23rd Street.- 2. 23rd Street will be changed to two-way traffic. 3. Right turns from 23rd Street onto Balboa Boule- vard will be prohibited. 4. A physical barrier will prevent cars from re- peatedly circling through the lot. It was agreed that you would assume the responsibility of "shopping" this plan in the Ocean Front area and of gathering.signatures,on a petition of support. Additional- ly, it was suggested by Mr. Frederickson of the Central Newport Parking Committee that simultaneous with this plan, it be proposed to the City Council that a consultant be retained to study the larger concerns regarding traffic and circulation in the McFadden, Ocean Front area. This latter proposal would also, it is understood, be included along with the petition and recommendation concerning the more limited parking lot traffic flow plan prepared by the Police Department. The Committee would suggest, in addition to obtaining a petition of support from owners/merchants etc., that City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Page -2- written endorsements from the•Central Newport Parking Com- mittee and any affected homeowners' associations be ob- tained. When the above material has been assembled please deliver it to Mr. Rich Edmonston,.Traffic Engineer, 33b0 Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach. Thank you for your continuing interest and cooperation. P•OLINT, Chairman fairs Committee GJB : mm XC: Traffic Engineer Traffic Division Commander, Mayor Heather Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Fire Chief General Services Director .� Bill Frederickson Mr: Tom Blurock N�wP�r 1 � r OL V". x 1 A r A V / C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER December 21, 1978 DAVE HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR TO: MARINE DEPARTMENT FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: ATTENDANT PARKING AT MC FADDEN V�� OC�,�RCEE 0EIVED ommunity P� DeveDlBpPtmont Y� DEC2 81978> 10 NEWPCR, CALL. The City Council, on -December 20th, received the recommendation of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, wherein it was recommended that the City implement the attendant parking lot concept at McFadden. Additionally, that a new structure eliminating in lieu parking be adopted. The Council referred this to staff for study and report back. I believe you have some data on the attendant parking concept, and Dick Hogan's Office can provide some input on the in lieu parking program. It would be appreciated if you could have this study -for a Council meeting some time in February. R�_Wl�/�, ROBERT L. WYNN RLW:ib Attachmmaants cc:kebick Hogan, Dirdctor-Community Development AY OF NEWPORT 60H COUNCILMEN •9� G 22 0 ti� i ROLL CALL OR FILE COPY December 20, 1978 00 N'0T R MINUTES INDEX 2. Ordinance No. 1788, being, Com Dev Procedures AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1788 AMENDING SECTION 20.81.070 OF THE NEWPORT (1376) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE APPEAL PERIOD FROM THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM SEVEN (7) TO NTY-ONE (21) DAYS, was presente r second reading. Ordinance No. 1788 was ntroduced changing the Motion x "twenty-one (21) days" to rteen (14) days," All Ayes and passed to second reading on uary 8, 1979. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A letter dated August 28 to Mayor Ryckoff from Com Dev Motion x William Morris resigning as a member of the SG' All Ayes Community Development Citizens Advisory Committee (2127)�\ was received and ordered filed. 2. A report was presented from the City Manager Central Npt Prkg Dist regarding the Parking Needs and Economic Feasi- (2745) bility Stu y of the Central Newport Beach Area. A letter received after the agenda was printed was presented from the West Newport Improvement Association opposing the Wilbur Smith report. Milbeth Brey, Chairman of the Central Newport Parking Committee, addressed the Council with the Committee's recommendation that Council take no action at this time, but refer the entire matter back to the Planning Commission with instructions to work with the Central Newport Parking Committee and the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee to evaluate the current situation and produce fresh recommenda- tions for the Council for its future consideration. Merrill Skilling, representing the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, addressed the Council regarding the Committee's recommendations. Raymond Smith addressed the Council and stressed the need for traffic flow as well as parking. Dick Kent of Sham & Kent, architects, addressed the Council and agreed with the Central Newport Parking Committee and also supported a parking structure in Cannery Village. Motion x The Wilbur Smith study was accepted as a resource All Ayes ec1�d t document; the Planning Commission was as o- move ahead with —the �CaSpe f_ic rea Plan foxes'` McFad`d'en and the nnery Area_andto incorpo- rate the insight from m the Study document into their planning andJto meet with the Central Newport Pa' rking-Committee and move forward with plans there, the redevelopment and the recommends- ,. __ tions for__the "attendant"parking ibE—concept at Volume 32 - Page 327 COUNCILMEN CO OF NEWPORT BE^ MINUTES 4TSW December 20, 1978 INDEX McFadden with a new parking fee structure eliminating "in lieu parking alternatives and encouraging long-term parkers wag referred to staff for further study and report back. 3. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Eastbluff/ ment Department regarding proposals received Park i from appraisers in connection with a request to (1711)r establish the fair market value per acre of the land in Eastbluff Park, if such land were not % used for park or recreational purposes but used for subdivision purposes. ! f Motion x The report regarding the proposals was accepted, All Ayes and the staff was directed to prepare the necess$ 1 documents for an agreement between the City and Charles E. Wadsworth in the amount of $2000. 4. A report was presented from the Marine Department regarding a request by Thomas Evans for refund of the late penalty on his mooring £ee.f Motion x The request of Thomas Evans for a refund was All Ayes denied. 5. A report was presented from the arks, Beaches Transfer and Recreation Commission regarding a request Station for relocation of Corona dei,Mar main beach (2046) transfer station. Motion x The item was postponed b January 22, 1979. All Ayes J/f 6. A report was presented from the City Manager Traffic regarding the adm ietrative procedure for Phasing implementing th 'Traffic Phasing Ordinance. (3006) A report was resented from Mayor Pro Tem Williams. Motion x The item s postponed to January 22, 1979. All Ayes c. cu BUSINESS: 1. A eport was presented from the Community Develop- Tract 8681 ent Department regarding the Final Map of Tract No. 8681, a request of Holstein Industries to approve a Final Map to subdivide 1.75 acres into seven numbered lots for attached single-family residential development and one numbered lot to be developed as a landscape area, private driveways and guest parking spaces, on property located at 1976 Vista Caudal, southwesterly of Vista del Oro and northeasterly of Vista Caudal in The Bluffs; zoned R-4-B-2 P.R.D. A letter from Holstein Industries was presented regarding park dedication requirements in connection with Tracts 8681 and 8682. Volume 32 - Page 328 \ • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER December 20, 1978 COUNCIL AGENDA NO. F-2 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: PARKING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH AREA On September 11, 1978, the City Council received a recom- mendation from the Planning Commission that the Wilbur Smith and Associates Study, entitled "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" be set for public hearing C by the City Council. The Council, rather than setting the matter for public hearing, referred the report to the Transportatioh Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and the Police Department for review and comment. Attached, you will find a copy of comments from the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and a report from the Police Department. This item is being recycled through the City Council for final disposition of the matter. Please note that Page 6 of the comments from the Traffic Plan Citizens Advisory Committee contains three recommendations to the City Council. Staff concurrs with recommendations made by the Traffic Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, with the exception that attendant parking needs additional staff stugfiy. Z,roD*t, ROBERT L. WYNN Attachments Fred Talarico Jerry Bolint `— Corfimunity Development Dept' Asst. City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 William Schock W.D. Schock Corporation 3502 S. Grenville Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Bliss Minton Helane Ekdahl Joy, G.R.I. Jean Van Bergen Newport Coast Insurance Associated Brokers Service Lido Village Center 3355 Via Lido #325 2025 West Balboa Boulevard 3475 Via Oporto #205 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Paul Ryckoff Pat Harrison Dean Reevie Newport Beach City Hall Lido Fashions Via Lido Drug 3300 Newport Boulevard 3424 Via Lido 3445 Via Lido Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Russ Fluter John Loomis Peter Torre Jones Realty Thirtieth Street Architects 102 McFadden Place 2001 W. Balboa Blvd. 425 - 30th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Jackie Heather Betty Hogan Mr. Edward Ziemer 1500 Dorothy Lane 1100 W. Ocean Front Newport Yachts Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 2033 E. Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Mr. Mark E. Simmons Jean Dingel Scott Sarkisian City National Bank Storeroom Antiques Normandy Refinishers 3388 Via Lido #100 439 - 31st Street 510 - 31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. William Blurock Cher Taylor Susan Canine 2300 Newport Blvd. 3103 Villa Way 3103 Villa Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 PERSONAL Jeri Holmes Bob Millar Nancy Sandler 9162 Hyde Park Drive 116 Crystal Avenue The Antique Garden Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Balboa Island, CA 92662 431 - 31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dorothy G. Stansbury Kay Reed Robert E. Slater 427 - 31st Street 402 - 38th Street 428 - 31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Robert Rubian Mr. John Shea Mr. Hans Dickman 2200 Newport Blvd. 2214 W. Ocean Front 321 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Milton Bren Mr. Mike Singer 100 W. Wind Way c/o Twenty -Eighth St. Marina Newport Beach, CA 90024 2602 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 t _r-,. Frank H. Trane Ms. Eileen Hudson Ms. Marguerite Forgit 2018 E. Bay Front 36 Pine Valley Lane • 2205 W. Balboa Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Jack Zaremba Mr. Tim Strader Mr. Fred McLaren 1263 Rutland Road The Koll Company Hughes Market Newport Beach, CA 92660 1901 Dove Street 2716 San Fernando Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Los Angeles, CA 90039 Mr. Roger Rendell Ms. Francis Delaney Mr. James Person, Jr. Hughes Market Delaney's P.O. Box 86 2716 San Fernando Road 632 Lido Park Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Los Angeles, CA 90030 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Robert Shelton Mr. Thomas Blurock Mr. Richard Lawrence Robert Shelton, Inc. Bissell August Associates 505 29th Street 500 Newport Center Drive 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Ms. Milbeth Brey Mr. John Curci Mr. William Clapet Manager, The Lido Bldg. Curci-Turner Company Archi-Tekton 3355 Via Lido, Ste. 215 717 Lido Park Drive 359 San Miguel Road #303 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mr. Robert E. Lee Mr. Jim Wilson Mr. Richard Elliott Lee Klages & Associates Thirtieth Street Architects 96 Linda Lane 2815 Villa way 425 30th Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. John Laun Mr. Dick Kent Mr. Bill Rayburn Los Angeles Federal Saving Mr. Zachary Sham Warehouse Restaurant 3201 Newport Blvd. 501 31st Street 4519 Admiralty Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Marina del Rey, CA 90291 Ms. Doreen Marshall Mr. Richard Hogan Mr. Bill Frederickson 367 Via Lido Soud Dir. of Community Development 2133 Channel Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 3300 Newport Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Robert G. Norris Mr. Bill Hamilton Ms. Marie Schock Manager, Bank of Newport Cannery Restaurant 501 29th Street 32nd at Lafayette 3010 Lafayette Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Hugh R. Coffin Mr. J. Peter Barrett Ms. Trudi Rogers City of Newport Reach 2888 Bayshore Drive, #A-14 429 Seville 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ms. Lucille Kuehn Mr. Carl W. Ackerman Mr. Sid Soffer 1831 Seadrift 810 Laguna Road 107 21st Place Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Fullerton, CA 92635 Newport Beach, CA 92663 �1 G Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMENs MINUTES \�� y� S �N ROLL CAL\. d'� �s November 13, 1978 INDEX Motion All Ayes Advisory Committee to fill the unexpired term of William H. Morris ending December 31, 1978 was p st nedp�_ to November 27, 1978. 2. (Distri�c^t"•^-1•) •Co~un`ci a trauss' appointment of CEQAC Joseph L. Tomchak as a mem a the Environmental (1058) Quality Citizens Advisory Committee to -the Motion x unexpired term of Dennis M. Reid ending Decemb-e-r-31 Ayes 1978 was confirmed. 3. A report was presented from the City Manager Central Npt Prkg regarding the Parking Needs and Feasibilit Study of the Central Newport Beach Area. District (2745) Reports from the Community Development Department dated September 5, and letters from Wilbur Smith and Associates, •Inc. and the Orange County Transit District dated September 1, 1978 were presented. Motion x The item _was_post oned to December 20, and the All Ayes staff was directed Co forward the report to the Central Newort Parking Study Citizens Committee for study in the meantime along with the Council's report on the Off-street Parking Study. 4. A report dated October 14, 1978 was presented from OrCo the City Attorney regarding an agreement between Airport the City and the County concerning the future (195) growth of Orange County Airport. A letter from the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee was presented. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. W.•J. Bransford s presented objecting to expansion of the rport and to the present airport variance. An excerpt from the Minutes of t Board of Supervisors meeting of October 8 was presented stating that a hearing had b en set for November 15 1978 in connection with t proposed negotiated agreement between the y and the County regard- ing Orange County Ai ort. A letter from G ry Short, protesting the opening of Orange Co y Airport to 327 aircraft was received a er the Agenda was printed. The if: owing people addressed the Council in su ort of the proposed agreement: Dan Emory, ad Alberts and Gordon Glass. The following people addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed agreement: Stuart Williams, George Ochsner, David Saxe, Roy Skultin and Charles Griffin. Motion Mr. Williams was granted one more minute for his Ayes x x x x presentation. Noes x x x The following people addressed the Council relative to problems in connection with Orange County Volume 32 - Page 282 Ory OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN d-A o � O�\q�y p ROLL CAL\\ 9�\s� � November 13, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Airport: Al Cree, Jean Waggoner, Ted Lindstedt, and Jane Walsh Courtney. Motion x Resolution No. 9458, approving in concept an R-9458 Ayes x x x x agreement between the County of Orange and the Noes x City of Newport Beach regarding the future growth Abstain x of Orange County Airport, was adopted. CURRENT BUSINESS: Motion x 1. The following items were postponed to November 27, All Ayes 1978: (a) A report from the Public Works Department Energy regarding proposed re -institution of a street Conservation lighting energy conservation program in (1817) conjunction with conversion of existing systems. (b) A report from the Traffic Affairs Committee Traffic regarding speed bumps on streets and alleys. Regulations (132F) 2. A let r from the National Arboriat Association, Inc. w a presented stating that their Annual City Seal Meeting is to be held in Newport Beach and (567F) request g permission to use the City Seal on charms t t are engraved with the date of the meeting a d the City Seal of the City where the meeting to as place. Motion x The request of the National Arborist Association, All Ayes Inc. for use of the City Seal in this manner was denied. 3. Community Dave opment Director Richard Hogan General t reported on the Planning Commission's discussion Plan concerning the view of the Circulation Element. (673) Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Wil isms made a motion to direct the Planning Comm i sion to provide the Council with a series of f e density alternatives for the remaining undev loped parcels, including vested, but unbuilt lanned Communities, as followa: 1 - No reductions 2 - To be determin d by Planning Commission 3 - To be determin by Planning Commission 4 - To be determine by Planning Commission 5 - Low density rest ential and to provide with each a ernative supporting data, both positive and neg tive. Written data is to be solicited from Co ssioners, staff, developers, environmental gr ps, Chamber of Commerce, and other individua or groups as may be appropriate. Specific data is to be provided along with the sources of that ata, including number values where possible. ecific criteria may include, but not be limited o, traffic considerations, openness of vista or view, City i I Volume 32 - Page 283 In • • • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 13, 1978 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager BILE COPY Do floT F3E- jf COUNCIL AGENDA N0. F-3 SUBJECT: PARKING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH AREA On September 11, 1978, the City Council received a recom- mendation from the Planning Commission that the Wilbur Smith and Associates Study, entitled "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" be set for public hearing by the City Council. The Council, rather than setting the matter for public hearing, referred the report to the Transportatioh Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and the Police Department for review and comment. Attached, you will find a copy of comments from the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and a report from the Police Department. This item is being recycled through the City Council for final disposition of the matter. Please note that Page 6 of the comments from the Traffic Plan Citizens Advisory Committee contains three recommendations to the City Council. Attachments ROBERT L. WYNN 0 Fm..., . '1 November 1, 1978 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT I. Introduction The Council has requested this committee to review the proposed parking plan and comment on its implications from a traffic standpoint. II. The Project I. peripheral parking: 800 spaces at Cal Trans property in combination with bCTD shuttle bus. II. Establish large one -hour parking area in the residential section combined with a resident parking permit program. III. Add parking meters in the area. Iv. Revise the McFadden parking lot to attendent parking 6 variable fees - loW for short term - high for long term. The intent of the program is to move long term parkers such as beach goers and employees out of the peninsula area to provide more parking for short term parkers and residents. III. Areas of Traffic Impact: A. Coast Highway at the Arches 1. East bound 2. West bound B. Newport Blvd. 1. North bound 2. South bound C. Balboa Blvd. 1. West Newport 2. Central Newport 3. Peninsula Point D. Current Status - 1977 Staff Analysis* Location Lanes Capacity Current Use Level "D" Coast hghwy E. of Arches 5 380000 50,000 it 4 " " W. It 32,000 3511000 Newport Blvd, by Lido 4 32,000 471,000 Balboa beyond pier 4 32,000 33,000 Balboa, West Newport 4 25,000 22,000 E • is -2- C E. Future _ Most Recent Projections* Location Lanes Capacity 1990 Use Coast Hghwy E. of Arches 6 43,000 51,000 (53,400 if Ford Develops) Coast Hghwy W. of Arches 6 43,000 62,000 (65,000 if Ford develops) *Submitted to Council 13 June 1977 (H-7(a). Please review Conclusions (p.7) and Recommendations (pg. 9) of this report to Council. *NOTE: The capacities noted anticipate substantial road improvements. It is highly unlikely that these improvements will be completed in the ;near future. See A. g and C sttached, F. Implementation of Improvements in Impacted Areas. Since the Circulation Element of the General Plan • was adopted in 1974, very little has been done to construct even the highest priority improvement items. The State Highway Department and the County Transporation Commission must approve and fund these projects. Their priority system places out= top priorities in a much lower status. Cutrent state economics indicates that all services and projects will slow down in the future, rather than speed up. Improvements in the impacted area are of 2nd, 3rd and 4th priority in our General Plan. It must be concluded then, that improvements on Coast Highway near the Arches'y. Newport Blvd. from the Arches to 32nd Street, and Balboa Blvd. from 32nd Street to Coast Highway will not be completed in the forseeable future. (See Table 4 from the Circulation Element of the General plan.) . IV. General Observations on Traffic in the Study Area. A. This area is unique in that it combines a very attractive beach, tourist attractions, high quality residential and commercial properties. I 1 The demand for beach parking is almost limitless. if we doubled or quadrupled the parking in the area, the spaces would be filled. The only limiting factors would be: 1. Overutilization of the beach (similar to Coney Island) whereby the desire to go to an undesirable beach decreases. 2. Inability to get to the parking lot, i.e. totally clogged streets. B. Commercial Development (with the exception of the boat repair industry) generates parking demand. The current practice of allowing "In Lieu" parking fees compounds the problem. The result of increased demand and inadequate facilities creates a "cruising potential parker" traffic problem that affects the entire circulation system. We are now charging $150 per year - value estimate $1230/yr. C. The geographies of a peninsula severely limits the ability to improve the road system serving the area. The circular system recommended by this consultant was • found totally unacceptable some years ago. D. Residential parking and access is a problem. When an individual elects to move to a beach area, he must accept various problems such as rust, lack Of privacy and traffic -parking intensity'.. Many residents compound their own problems by utilizing their garages :for purposes other than storing automobiles. over -crowding of rental units also adds to the problem. V. Data from the Wilbur Smith Report. A. 38% of parkers from Newport Beach. B. Duration of Parking: 44% 1 hour or less 21% 1 hour to 4 hours 35% 4 hours or more Workers average: 6.9 hours Shoppers .7 hours Diners 1.1 hours • Beach 3.4 hours Residents ? C. Demand Creation of Various Land Uses: Retail Commercial 5 spaces/1000 ft2 Office Commercial 2 spaces/1000 £t2 Restaurant commercial 10 Spaces/1000 ft2 Light Industrial 0.5 spaces/1000 ft2 D. Parking deficiency Area of major deficiency McFadden Place: 67% of parkers at McFadden are beachgoers. The 1995 estimate of McFadden deficiencies: 1670 spaces; but no estimate of increasing beachgoer demand. E. References given to successful peripheral parking: Beverly Hills, Westwood and San Francisco. Note extreme traffic problems in each of these areas. F. Traffic impact estimates 1. Low intensity - reduction of 2,000-6,000 trips per day. • 2. Medium intensity - reduction of 3,000-4,000 trips per day. 3. High intensity - No traffic reduction. 4. "Recommended pattern" - No traffic reduction. None of these assumptions is supported by any data. We believe them to be incorrect. G. 'Funding recommendation sets aside all income for parking authority. Police would have to control limited parking. This would reduce traffic control staff in other areas. VI. Staff comments on traffic impact (attached). Excerpts: Convenience parking - increased traffic anticipated peripheral parking - increased traffic anticipated on coast highway. - Slight decrease of Newport Blvd. traffic will be more than offset by increased • availability of parking. residential permits - No permanent change anticipated. Parking space and meter rate increase - Expect higher turnover rates - therefore, traffic. Commercial development of parking structure - Staff comment not clear. VII. "It is important to note that the parking program as presently drafted changes the responsibility for off-street parking from individual.property owners to the City." Orange County Transit District Comments: The participation of the OCTD with shuttle bus facilities is essential to the peripheral parking element of the proposed plan. Portions of the letter from OCTD to Mr. Hogan state: 1. -it is unfeasible to reroute or restructure the existing OCTD lines to serve the remote parking lot." 2. "Turning movements of buses and automobiles in and out of the lot onto PCH would require the installation of a traffic signal which in turn would d#gr►ipt the flow of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway; 3.--11It is unlikely that the District can finance such localized shuttle service." Note: Our committee was informed that only 8% of operating cost of OCTD were paid out of fares. VIII. Conclusions A. There is a current traffic problem in the study area. It should be minimized. B. It is expected that the current problems will increase in the 1990-1995 period. If all recommended road improvements are made, there will still be substantial deficiencies in the area. C. The proposed program will cause higher parker turnover. This will cause increased traffic. D. Coast highway traffic will be impeded by implementation is the plan. B. Beach parking is insatiable. Additional parking (within, rational limits) will create additional demand and substantially more traffic congestion. h 1 0 -6 r� u F. Substantial expansion of traffic capacity is almost impossible on the peninsula and will be long delayed at Coast Highway and Newport Blvd. G. It is unlikely OCTD can or will cooperate with the pro- posed shuttle bus service. H. Already extended police facilities would be stretched further to monitor a one -hour long curb parking limit. I. Additional commercial development (of certain types) creates increased demand for road and traffic. a. Note low impact of light industrial and residential. b. "In Lieu" parking fees are seriously underpriced and increase traffic problems regardless of price. IX. Recommendations. A. Consider applementing the "attendent" parking lot concept at McFadden. Do not set price structure to encourage short-term parkers. If any rate variation is considered, encourage long-term parkers.., B. Scrap the balance of the plan. C. Eliminate "In Lieu"'parking alternatives. Richard Clucas Chairman ply It is possible to Work out final locations of routes and to plan future land developments around these commitment's. Designation of future locations allows consolidation of local land planning and zoning. In fast growing areas land development and transportation facilities can proceed together. Definite commitments enable the adjustment of people and land uses to a revised highway system. To make this process of advance designation of specific rights -of -way both fair and effective, the responsible agencies should have funds for buying the required property in advance. Zoning and other legal me►ns can control land development, but cannot reserve land for ultimate highway purchase thereby preventing building on the land, The most practical way of making advance transportation location designations -is to purchase right-of-way as far In advance of construction a■ is consistent with the public interest. Access Control Transportation facilities in recent years have usually been built with either full control or no control of access. Often this all or none situa- tion prevents agencies charged with transportation from responding in an effective manner. While full control of access around a freeway is important, the arterial street or highway is the backbone of the City in terms of land development and traffic service, and some access control should be considered. Urban arterials should primarily serve traffic, and direct property access should be minimum. The arterials should provide direct access to the collector street system and large traffic generators. To plan and con- struct such facilities and ensure their future usefulness, selective control of access is required. Without it, the area may be left with no arterial type traffic service, and there may not be opportunity for providing future arterial facilities. -48- IMMM Proposed Projects O Project Number ® Interchange A Indicates Priority FIGURE. 21. -67 - p 400'_ Soo' 1200' i•.eoo' Iv 0 Projects 33 be 34 Descriptions These projects provide for a second crossing over Upper Newport • Bay. A new four -lane divided roadway would begin on the Westcliff Drive alignment at Dover Drive, cross the Bay and continue on to the Bayside Drive alignment. The roadway would then curve around the Bay, connecting back with Jamboree Road at San Joaquin Hills Road. This is a very long range project (Priority D), but it was recognized that recommendations of the General Plan Circulation Element would not be complete without some provision for a second Bay crossing. Many proposals were made, but this particular align- ment offered acceptable traffic service, with the least disruption of existing and future facilities. The estimated cost of road construction (Project 33) is $5, 000, 000, and $3, 4600 000 for the bridge (Project 34). Project 35 Description This is a Priority B widening project on Newport Boulevard from i Coast Highway to 30th Street. A complete six -lane divided roadway would be provided with a new bridge across the channel which would replace the existing bridge. The State has responsibility for the project from Coast Highway to Finley Avenue, including the bridge, ? :� for an estimated cost to the State of $2, 360, 000. The estimated cost to Newport Beach is $560, 000. It is expected that some capacity deficiency can still be expected, However, the improvements will significantly help the traffic flow. Project 36 Description This project is the widening of Balboa Boulevard to primary status from 33rd Street to 44th Street. Traffic circulation will be sub- stantially Improved and no capacity deficiency is projected. The estimated cost for this Priority C project is $2, 000, 000. .78- • TABLE 4 NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC STUDY PHASE III COMPOSITE PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS Key (1) to Table f = Freeway 8-1anes (2) N = New Construction (3) Right of way costs incluae M = Major 6 lanes W = Widen M = Modification 25% increase property costs in estimated for acquisition P = Primary S = Secondary 4 4 lanes lanes B = Bridge and costs of relocation assistance. Construction costs include 20% for contingencies. U� v sC�l --Costs $1>000's (3) Costs by Jurisdiction, $1,00 C_ N Y Project Name Right of Way Construe- tion Total Newport Beach State Other a and Limits ,:+, A Coast Highway Upper Bay M B -1,230 5,.270 61500 1,300 (4) 5,200 (4) Bridge & Dover Drive Interchange A Coast Highway from M W 870 280 1,150 1,150 Jamboree Road to Upper Bay Bridge A Coast Highway from P M 40 40 43 MacArthur Blvd. • through Corona del Mar A Coast Highway from M W 1,100 500 1,600 1,600 MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road A University Drive from P N 2,870 1,500 4,370 2,070 2,3r, Tustin Avenue to Corona del Mar freeway A University Drive Bridge P B 500 500 500 A Dover Drive from M W 100 350 450 450 Westcliff Drive to Coast Highway ii am am am 9A ' ^ so A...t■ ' on ' a!4 aar as 1 fm MR ' ice.° TABLE 4 (CONTINUED) C Y 0 L Project Name a. and Limits 3 N L-- Costs, E1,000's (3) Costs by Jurisdiction, $1,000" N d+ 9 N N C R R c o Right Construc- Newport of Hay ti-on Total Beach Sta-:e Other A San Joaquin Hills Road M W from MacArthur Blvd. to Marguerite Avenue A Ford Road from MacArthur P Blvd. to Jamboree Road B Coast Highway from Dover P Drive to Newport Blvd. B Coast Highway - Newport M 11-&ti Boulevard Interchange 8 Coast Highway from M < < Newport Blvd. to Santa l�tA� Ana River B Interchange at Newport M --r �L Ar Freeway Ext. 8 Superior Avenue from P Coast Highway to :1e'e- r Wr pit Blvd. B Jamboree Road from Coast M Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road B -'amboree Road from M San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road a Jamboree Road from M Ford Road to Bison Avenue 300 300 300 W 420 420 210 20 M 40 40 40 N 1,170 380 11550 _ 7,550 N 4,260 10,140 14,400 2,880 (4) 11,520 (4) N 1,500 1,500 M 6 N I,690 740 2,430 1,210 1,2Vb W 340 340 170 170 W 190 190 100 90 W 190 190 90 100 0 is • TABLE 4 ( 0 NUED) � r v V , 7 N 4 � �, i v Y O r Project Name II N R O Or A C ` o O• r a and Limits "" B Jamboree Road from M W & B Bison Avenue to Corona del Mar Freeway B Avocado -New MacArthur P N & W from Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road B New MacArthur from P N & W San Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road B Newport Boulevard from M W & B Coast Highway to 30th J, Zi. Street C State Route 73 from Coast M W Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road C State Route 73 from San M W Joaquin Hills Road to Ford Road C State Route 73 from Ford M W Road to Bison Avenue C San Joaquin Hills Road M W from Marguerite Ave. to Spy Glass Hills Rd. C Bison Avenue from P N & W MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road • Right Construc- Newport of Way tion Total Beach State 1,000 11000 800 700 600 1,300 300 290 410 700 350 1,800 1,120 2,920 560 2,360 130 280 410 410 200 420 620 620 100 210 310 310 nth or 200 1,000 • 350 _ 10 140 140 140 250 150 100 S. O Project Name and Limits C 15th Street from Superior Avenue to L{ VI% Coast Highway C Balboa Boulevard from 33rd to 44th D Irvine Avenue%from 15th Street to Cliff Drive Balboa Blvd. 4Yi 1„ r 7 N N 'N •Q N N L pr- QY P N 3 N P N P N TABLE 4 (CONTINJED) Costs S1,000's f3) Right Construc- of Nay tion Total 2,770 820 3,690 i Costs by Jurisdiction, S1,000 Newport Beach State Other i,85p I,840 1,500 500 2,000 2,000 1,200 270 1,470 1,470 500 500 250 250 • 7. • in g4,000 341000 (0 501 Do0 4 0J000 5" 21000. 0 S,00c 1 35 00 \. 2 {WM�ti4Tohl bfltN -n 22,000 x yr--R7 Zr 254000 r47� 4 couNy I DUNII nsreos� im NJ coo \ f33,000\ i4010oo 4- II lI 4 J l 4 / 34+1000 4640o l 31,000 J 4_ 61TY of i C17tv --RAFFtL VOLUME';. (OD,000) AYERA&E PAf LY f?5 (0) NUM6ER OF TtL'�V E L LNG E: ❑.C.s. S(001 000)14/611WAY CAPACITY 4T LEVC-L of SEgvlCE 't7" /' 28,GP0 2,ovo 4 2GY10 f 4010 a ' 4 3%00 4 39,Do0 25too 4 341WO 4 4710m m 7� teooV 111W 4pt0ep 4 4 ( - 4 4 �,OaO o ( 2�000 Napo 32�000 j41000 6rN f cI747�� (001000) AVERA&E DAILY �t?5 (D) NumoFm OF TKAVEL 41A:E' uci. SC00.1 Oa0 J9/6NWAY CAMOTY .4T LEYEL pF 56RVIGE "t)" -- / 4� lB�OOG ` 4 [aDG �s000 yea, 34,oeo 34� 4 0� ,s,Zlcc 301000 1 • September 19, 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Chief of Police "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" The accompanying reports by Sgt. Elliott and Capt. Heeres accurately reflect the potential impact of the study as implemented. While this specific phase requires the addition of only one parking control officer, it must be considered in relation to the additional • manpower needs as reflected in the other two programs. Capt. Heeres' report more fully deals with the total impact of the three programs. • Charles R. Gross Chief of Police Attachments R \1 0 POI ICE UPARCIENT September 14, 1978 • TO: Chief of Police FROM: Acting Traffic Division Commander SORJFCT: "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" by Wilbur Slaith and "s;ociations, Plunning C. •,issirn Recrroiendation Sir. In reviewing the attached report by the Department of Community Development, it appears there are two areas of manpower concern to this Department. The majority of the program recommendations will have little or no effect on the Department. The two areas of concern are: 2a) Curb Parking (increase of 269 metered spaces); and, 4a) Residential Permit Program. Both of these programs, as presented, would require the addition of a full-time Parking Control Officer at an approximate anneal cost of $12,670. It should be noted, and careful consideration given to the fact that this is but one of three projects involving a necessary increase in Parking Control Officer manpow• Attached is a prior response to a memo from Gerry Dolint in which Captain Heeres indicates a need for two part-time Parking Control Officers above current minimum. In addition, the added Newport Shores street sweeping program is going to require yet another part-time position. These two programs; one already in the beginning stages; are going to require a 75% increase in part-time Parking Control Officer manpower, at an approximately annual cost of $17,550. Combined, all three programs would require the addition of three part-time Parking Control Officers and one full-time Parking Control Officer, for an approximately total annual cost of $30,220. Respectfully submitted, D. Elliott, Sergeant Acting Commander, Traffic Division Attachment July 19, 1978 • TO: Chief of Police IItOt•1: Traffic Division Commander SU3JECT: BEACH PARKING FEES Sir: The attached memo 'From Gerry BOlint requests our comments relative to the effects certain recommended changes in beach parking fees may have on the Police Department. I received the memo on July 18, 1978, and the matter is on the Council study session agenda For July 24, 1978. I.offer the following observations based on a preliminary examination of the proposal. Our input may have been more meaningful if we were involved in the project from its inception. Recommendation No. 2 - Pieter the A and B Street parking lots. • These lots are used heavily by residents of the many multiple dwellings in the area. Both lots are succeptible to theft and vandalism due to the lack of activity in the area and the lack of adequate lighting. Recommendation No. 3 - Extend the hours for all beach meters to 10:00 pm. This change will require.the hiring of two additional part-time Parking Control Officers at an approximate annual cost of $11,700. During summer evenings, the Ocean Front lot adjacent to the Newport Pier is normally filled with parked vehicles. If a fee were charged to park, many of them would elect to cruise the area, adding to the already severe' congestion. Recommendations No. 1 and No. 4 will not affect the Police Department. I. P. Heeres, Captain Commander, Traffic Division Attachment �'2 ✓ �.f< <_,��t ��'� City Council Meeting September 11, 1978 S E P 1 1 1978 10.1y tha CifY COUNCIL TY OF i.` ,c:T Cr-'' September 5, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO" City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation on "Pa Needs and Economic Feasibilit Stud of t Centra New ort Beach rea prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Suauested Action If desired, set for public hearing on September 25, 1978. F �3 • Planning Commission Recommendation At its meettng-of August 17, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted the last of a series of -public hearings on the Central Newport Beach. Parking Study, and recommended to the City Council that a parking program be established including the following elements: 1) Coordination, design, and development of the test peripheral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD, using vacant CALTRANS property. 2) Alteration of existing parking operations and policies, including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. 3) Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City -owned facilities. 4) The implementation of the Residential Parking•Permit Program. • Background information and supporting documents will be forwarded at the time of the public hearing. Consultant, reports were transmitted as part of the Council's Study Session agenda. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT F Cr UNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGA D r or By enior anner FT/kk City Council Meeting September 11, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)l z CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • September 5, 1978 TO. City Council FROM: SUBJECT: Department of Community Development Background The "Parking Needs and Economi-c Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" was authorized by the City Council on August 22, 1977. The studed Decembers1977)dePhaseo1Iw- Economic Feasibility:(comrkinpletedsMayo19,jg), The parking study area included all commercial and some residential property between the Arches Bridge and 19th Street in the Central New- port Beach area. PHASE I Phase I of the parking study involved the review of the existing parking inventory and the evaluation of existing parker demand characteristics such as origin, purposes location, destination, walking distance and duration. Based on future land use and economic growth projections, future parking demand characteristics were determined. The Phase I report indicated immediate and long-range parking needs by the indi- cation of parking space deficiencies and surpluses on a block -by -block basis. The number and location of new spaces required to meet present parking deficiencies, as well as additional spaces to meet future needs, were described. PHASE II Phase II of the parking study involved the evaluation of alternative parking programs to overcome existing and future parking deficiencies. • Within this evaluation process, alternative sites were selected for possible parking development and analysis in terms of function and operational characteristics. In January 1978, the Planning Commission selected a parking program alternative that was recommended to it by the study consultant and the Central Newport Parking Committee. This parking program was subsequently tested for economic feasibility, The results of the financial feasibility tests were presented at public hearing before the Planning Commission in June 1978. Additional hear- ings were held in August 1978. 3 TO; City Council - 2. PARKING PROGRAM • The parking program combines strategies intended to provide a parking supply sufficient to satisfy projected parking demands, to effect an overall reduction in traffic circulation (especially in residential areas), to improve short-term parker accessibility to the parking supply, and to allow development growth while minimizing transportation, land use and environmental impacts. The achievement of these basic goals would be accomplished through stringent parking management strategies, which include pricing strategies, parking restrictions and parking en- forcement. The key elements,of the parking program include the follow- ing: Peripheral Parking_: The parking program includes a peripheral parking facility to be located on CALTRANS property on Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. This facility would be capable of accommodating 800 parking spaces and would be geared toward serving long-term parking needs of employees within the Central Newport area. Shuttle Bus Service: Connection between the peripheral park- ing facility and Central Newport Beach would be provided by an OCTD shuttle bus. • Curb Parking: In order to fortify and enhance the potential Tor -success of other parking programs, parking rate increases would be affected in the study area. Additionally, meters. would'be installed in commercial areas currently having unmetered curb spaces. Off -Street Parkin 0 erations: Recommendations for off-street parking facilities inc-u a price increases, conversion to -pay - attendant lots and increasing hours of collection. Meter Revenue Collection: All revenues derived from all parking meters within the study area would be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. Parking Fines: Parking fines emanating from Central Newport Beach parking violations would be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. Parkins Validation Commercial Areas: In order to offset parking price increases and encourage economic growth, parking validation in commercial areas is proposed. Income received from the validation program would be used in coverage of • operating and development costs of existing and proposed parking facilities. Residential Permit Program: This measure would be implemented in the ntia in the study area. It involves posting of one hour parking restrictions for non-residents of each street. Residents having insufficient off-street parking could purchase permits which would allow them to park beyond posted limits. • • TO: City Council - 3. �t FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The parking program outline was analyzed in terms of its overall finan- • cial feasibility and a report was presented to the Planning Commission in June 1978. The consultant's report indicates that the parking program is economically feasible. Two "Supplemental Information Reports" dated May and August 1978 were prepared by the study consultant and staff, which answered questions raised at the Planning Commission public hearings on the parking program (copy attached). PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE CONSULTANT'S PROGRAM Municipal Parking_Authority: The Planning commission did not recommen tat the ty Council form a Municipal Parking Authority that would have the responsibility for implementing the parking program as was suggested by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Provision of Additional Parkin Su 1 : The Planning Commission a so not recommen Additional. e construct on of three combination com- mercial parking structures within the study area (1360 total spaces) and additional peripheral parking (400 spaces) after 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 17, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted • At its meeting of August the last of a series of public hearings and recommended to the City Council that a parking program for the Central Newport Beach Area be established, including the following elements: 1) Coordination, design, and development of the test periph- eral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD, using vacant CALTRANS property. a) Peripheral Parking. A peripheral parking facility capable of accommo- dating 800 parking spaces is recommended. This facility is to be located on the CALTRANS-owned parcel on the West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The peripheral parking facility would serve the long-term needs of Central Newport Beach employees and beachgoers having trip origins external to the peninsula. To encourage the program's success, and to allow • coverage of development and operating costs, a parking rate of eighty cents per day is proposed. b) Shuttle Bus Service Connection between the peripheral parking facility and Central Newport Beach would be provided by an TO: City Council - 4. OCTD shuttle bus. Under this program, all bus lines • currently serving the peninsula would converge at the peripheral lot with all but three lines terminating at the peripheral lot. 2) Alteration of existing parking operations and policies, including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. a) Curb Parking In order to fortify and enhance the potential for success of other parking programs, parking rate increases in the study area are recommended. All curb meter rates would be increased to twenty-five cents per hour with the exception of the channeli- zation islands on Balboa Boulevard between 19th and 21st' Streets. At this latter location, the current rate structure of fifty cents per hour during the summer season would prevail all year. Additionally, meters•would be installed in com- mercial areas currently having'curb unmetered spaces. These locations include the following: LaFayette Avenue - 42 spaces Villa Way - 30 spaces 32nd Street between LaFayette Avenue and Newport Boulevard - 9 spaces 32nd Street, eastside, beside Newport and Balboa Boulevards - 22 spaces 31st Street, in Cannery Village - 47.spaces 30th Street, in Cannery Village - 31 spaces 29th Street, in Cannery Village - 31 spaces 28th Street in Cannery Village - 17 spaces Newport Boulevard, between 30th and 32nd Streets - 2 spaces 26th Street in Bayfront - 6 spaces 21st Street, westside -.14 spaces • Lido Park Drive - 15 spaces Overall a total of 269 meters are recommended for installation. Hours of meter operation presently terminate at 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. Because of the significant evening activity in the Bayfront and McFadden Square subareas, it is recommended that hours of meter operation be extended to 10:00 P.M. or Midnight. • TO; City Council - 5. b) Off -Street Parking Operation Recommendations for off-street parking facilities include price increases, as well as alterations in parking operations. The metered off-street parking facilities in the Via Lido and Newport - Balboa subareas would have a rate structure of twenty-five cents per hour. The three metered lots in the McFadden Square subarea would be converted to pays -attendant lots. The summer season rate structure would be two -tiered at fifty cents per hour for parkers less than three hours, and $100 per hour for parkers three hours or more. During the non -summer season, parking rates would be twenty-five cents per hour. c) Meter Revenue Collection It is recommended that revenues derived from all meters in the study area be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. This would entail separate meter collection and accounting procedures. d) -Disposition of Parking Fines It is recommended that parking fines emanating from Central Newport Beach parking violations be segregated from the City's Traffic Safety Fund, This can be readily accomplished by prithenting locationaoftparkingnviolationnaswhich identify Central New- port Beach. 3) Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City -owned facilities. a) Parking Validation in Commercial Areas To offset parking price increases and to encourage economic growth, parking validation in commercial areas is recommended. In terms of existing public facilities, validation would be applied to the three public lots located in McFadden Square. Administration of the validation program for existing and future City -owned facilities would be handled by the City. The City would print validation stamps and sell them to commercial enterprises expecting customer usage of City - owned parking facilities. Validation stamps would be sold at a sixty percent discount rate. Income received from the validation program would be used in the coverage of operating and development costs of existing and proposed park- ing facilities. • 0 • TO: City Council - 6. • 4) The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. a) Residential Permit Program This measure would be implemented in the resi- dential subareas of Oceanfront, Residential "A", and Residential "B", as well as the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 28th and .32nd Streets, 19th and 20th, east side of 21st Street, and Court Avenue. Its implementation includes the posting of a one hour time limit during the period of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Residents not having sufficient off-street parking would be allowed to purchase annual curb parking stickers that would permit them to park in their area beyond the posted time limitation. Proof of residence and car registration would be required. Stickers would identify the license number of the authorized vehicle and the neighborhood for which the permit is applicable. An annual permit fee of $10 per vehicle would be used to offset administrative and enforcement charges. • An analysis of the Parking Program is provided in the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study March 10, 1978 prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates (Attachment No. 4). CONSULTANT RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A letter from Wilbur Smith and Associates, dated September 1, 1978, (copy attached), assesses the long-term impact of adopting only those four portions of the consultant's program which were recom- mended by the Planning Commission. The cons.ultant concludes that implementing only that portion of the parking program recommended by the Planning Commission would result in near term improvements in parking problems, but eventually serious parking shortages would be experienced in the Cannery Village Area. RESPONSE FROM ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT A recent letter from OCTD.(copy attached) indicates that it would not be feasible to redirect all incoming bus lines to a peripheral parking lot, with shuttle service. OCTD also pointed out that shortages of • revenue would not allow its participation in running a shuttle service. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By FRED 'ALAR CO Senior Planner FT/kk u 8 TO: City Council - 7. Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Draft - "Parking Study - Central Newport Beach" - November 1977 • 2) Wilbur Smith & Associates report - December 6, 1977 3) Wilbur Smith & Associates report - December 22, 1977 4) Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study - March 10, 1978. 5) Planning Commission Staff Report - August 3, 1978 6) Wilbur Smith & Associates letter - Sep-tember 1, 1978 7) Orange County Transit District letter - September 1, 1978 • • • C (/ iAtir _ tnid and ,. ijociuiv9, —9nc. September 1, 1978 Mr. Richard V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: u 59O0 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD /SUITE 293O „Coe �IRy.C.e, CA1. 90036 PHONE 13I31 9394108 RECEIVED Cc •.'r..nny Dv.. t•; .aent .1. SEP6 1978a CITY OF NE"ORT BEACH, CALIF. !, The Newport Beach Parking Commission, at its August 17, 1978 meeting, voted unanimously to approve the implementation of four elements of the first phase of the Central Newport Beach Parking Program. The fifth element of the program we developed, the South Cannery Village Parking Project was not approved. Per your request we have examined the implications of the Commission's action in terms of the adequacy of parking in the study area over the next five years. With the assumption that the recommended test of the peripheral parking concept is successful, it is our opinion that the imple- mentation of the first four elements of Phase I of the parking would provide adequate parking in the Central Newport area through 1981. After that time a parking deficiency would develop in the Cannery Village area. To minimize that deficiency, the City should continue to actively enforce the pending parking zoning ordinances for all new development. The collection of in -lieu fees as a substitute for adequate on -site parking should also be continued. Since the three metered off-street public lots in the McFadden area would be converted to attendant parking under the Phase I program, we recommended that businesses paying in -lieu fees which apply to the existing metered parking in McFadden -Square be issued parking validation tickets. The number of tickets issued should be equivalent to use of one space all day for each space that the in -lieu fee is collected. All businesses would be able to purchase additional validation tickets from the City, under the Phase I recommendation. 'In -lieu parking fees should be directed to the funding of the existing and proposed future parking facilities. nIIIANCI,OH AIIANTA UOSTON BRISUANI, COLUMBIA,SC-DALLAS•FALLS CHURCH, VA - HONG KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLE• LONDON-LOS ANGELES MFLSOUNNE MIAMI NEW HAVEN•NEWYORK-PHILADELPHIA. RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE-TORONTO•WASHINGTON, DC-WINSTONSALEM' to Mr . k irli,11 (i V, Iluynn September,l, 1978 • p,igr 2 we trust that this information is suitable to your immediate needs, please note, however, that actual implementation of the Phase I recommendations will require the detailed development of the above programs and policies. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES/ William E. Hurrell Associate Registered P.E. California #C29293 #141300 • • ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT•OISTRICT s � SEPv '978'. September I, 1978 WE CITY IFEACH, / ^ Mr. R. V. Hogan Director of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92.663 Dear Mr. Hogan: The OCTD staff has reviewed the Central Newport Beach Parking Study by Wilbur Smith and Associates, and has examined alternative ways of providing transit service to the peninsula area. Making every attempt to explore ways to utilize the Caltrans' • excess land along Pacific Coast Highway, approximately ten unique routing alternatives were developed and evaluated. These alter- natives ranged from totally "pulling back" all lines to the remote parking lot to a partial rerouting of some lines. After intensive study and field testing, we concluded that it is infeasible to reroute or restructure the existing OCTD lines to serve the remote parking lot. Some of the determining factors in this decision are detailed below: 0 GEOMETRICS: Turning movements of buses and automobiles in and out of the lot onto PCH would require the instal- lation of a traffic signal, which in turd would disrupt the flow of the traffic on PCH. Also, the interchange at PCH and Newport Blvd, would present severe grade and turning ,problems for the buses. In addition, the time penalties for rerouting the existing lines would be considerable. 0 SCHEDULING: Rerouting all lines to the remote lot would require several additional vehicles in order for service to be maintained at current headways. The District currently has no spare vehicles for this use. • 0 INCREASED TRAVEL TIME: The additional miles added to existing lines kEO serve the remote lot) and the transfer 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • PHONE 4714) 834.6190 12. Mr. K. V. NOgan September 1, 1978 Page 2 factor would cause increased travel time and incon- • venience to existing OCTD passengers. o OPERATING COSTS: The additional vehicles and longer routes requfr--ea would increase the District's operating costs. o HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Linking the remote lot to the hospital access road was explored. Considerable grading and paving would be required for such a connection. Furthermore, using the service road at the south end of the hospital would result in major conflicts between OCTD buses and the ambulances and automobiles. In addition, the noise generation of the buses would likely create objections by the hospital adminstration. Upon consideration of the above factors, it was concluded that a separate shuttle system superimposed on the existing OCTD services, would be necessary to provide the level of service recommended by your consultant. However, due to the recent cutback in the District's • operating revenues, it is unlikely that the District can finance such a localized shuttle service in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, several issues must first be resolved as follows: o Is the shuttle for the use of employees only (as recom- mended by Wilbur Smith and Associates) or would it be for the use of all persons traveling to the peninsula? o What is the feasibility of increasing parking fees on the entire peninsula, as well as the feasibility of adopting the parking fee proposals for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area suggested by the consul- tant? o Who would finance the shuttle? Would the local merchants and employers provide subsidy for the operation of the shuttle? o What is the status of the Caltrans owned lot on Pacific Coast Highway? Would the city acquire and improve the lot or would Caltrans donate the lot? 0 13 • LI • Mr. K. V. Hogan S<•ptember 1, 1978 Page 3 II• ynu have any questions, please call me or Dick Hsu at (714) 834- 6190. Very truly yours, I i Robert C. Hartwig Manager of Planning RCH:CHA cc: Bil Darnell thirtieth street architects October 9, 1978 Milbeth Brey Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Brey: Persuant to my earlier letter about the Cannery Village Parking Problems, I would like to see the committee make a specific and immediate recommendation to the City to Tem oraril Alleviate this situation. Our interim plan could be esigne to mesh with whatever direction the city decides to take. We simply cannot wait for the city to solve our problems. Specifically, I would like to see the controlled use of the Am- brosia Restaurant, Women's Assistance League, and Delaney's parking lots during hours of non-use by the Owners. These three lots alone could provide parking for at least 120 cars. Insur- ance liability, maintenance or control/enforcement problems can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction --not to mention a poten- tially lucrative income situation. There are simply no excuses. This concept could be implemented in just a few weeks. In my previous letter, I wrote about the mis-direction of the Women's Assistance League, a so-called public,service" organiz- ation. This time I'd like to mention the amazing policy by an- other of our "neighbors", Fran Delaney. He encourages his em- ployees to park on the street to save his lot for the retail customers. Now Fran's employees have as much right to on -street parking as anyone, but -Fran would have to cut his prices in half berore he could fill his lot with retail customers. Of course, my motivation for writing this is partly selfish. As a tenant in the factory We Are a contributing factor to this prob- lem. But if we can simply use what is already here, ever�ne in the Cannery Village will benefit. Thank you for your consideration �Vary truly yours, "•tf �i�f Hnll1 ,�-' JL/cd ' 426 thirtieth street 9 newport beach, california 92663 9 (714) 673-2643 thirtieth street architects July 31, 1978 Milbeth Brey Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee 34.75 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, CA 912663 Dear Ms. Brey: I am a CPNC committee member and have a business in the Cannery Village. I am curious if this committee has ever approached the New- port Beach Women's Assistance League about their parking lot on 30th Street. This lot accommodates about 30 cars and is in use two da s at lunchtime a month. This waste of valuable parking in such congeste area by a so-called "service org- anization" borders on lunacy and hypocrisy. Several local property owners have offered lucrative proposals for non-use hours by the League with no results. I would like to see our committee pressure this group for the up blic use of this parking lot for the benefit of the entire Cannery Village area. I'd very much like to hear your comments regarding this matter. V r trul yours, John Loomis JL:ad •.iv-L�/GtLG�-v��/L.C'� �Gh"4-.cC-E. C<1�.t-[.-¢.a'�� vC C �L ��'_. , f=-v't-�!'-L-rR-�J [O,i Y✓Z' .��. ti.eC L-Le: Ewe L>�-Li� O ,✓.z�.G'4CC.-o �-tG-J ✓f.(..bC'_- G�.'� C�Gf7a� .�,.Y.'t�scFc-..� a�•t� GL�C��[%1C.r[,i 4PC t,l�itt3�i:I� li:l OL r 11��+poiL [iaq+'its oFilifotilitl gUot1 e (714) 07n•7,043 COUNCILMEN 93 4. �nLP Knl I Cal _I_ S CPY OF NEWPORT BERICH MINUTES FILE COPY September 11. 1978 DO NOT REMOVE INDEX 5. A letter addressed to Mayor Ryckoff from William Com Dev H. Morris resigning from the Community Develop- CAC ment Citizens Advisory Committee was presented. (2127) Motion x Mr. Morris' resignation was accepted with regret; Ayes x Ix x x x x x the City Clerk was directed to prepare a ti Certificate of Appreciation; and (District 5) Mayor Ryckoff's appointment of a member to fill the unexpired term of William H. Morris was \ postponed to September 25. 6. A letter from Franklin I. Remer resigning from CEQAO the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory (1058) Committee was presented. Motion x Mr. Remer's resignation was accepted with regret; Ayes x x x x x x x the City Clerk was directed to prepare a' Certificate of Appreciation; and (District 6) uncilman Hummel''s appointment of Deborah Allen to ill the unexpired term of Franklin I. Ramer was %nfirmed. 7. The application of Candace E. Jackson to use Sound sound amps, fying equipment beginning at 8:00 p.m. Amplifying on Septembe 16, 1978 for a dance to be held at Equipment 2401 Bayshore Drive was presented. (1564F) Motion x The application proved, subject to the - Ayes x x x x x x x approval of the Po ice and Fire Departments prior to the event d with the stipulation that the time permitted wo 1d be from 8:00 p.m. to midnight. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT ENDAR: 1. A letter from Donald Dungan, P esiding Judge, Zoning The Municipal Court of Orange Co my Harbor Violations Judicial District, was presented ating that 0-1782 the City's proposed ordinance autho zing the (1264) Code Enforcement Officer to issue cit tions for violations of the City's Zoning and Pla ing Code would not cause any enforcement pro lems. Proposed Ordinance No. 1782, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 1.12.020(7) TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO CITE FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 20, Motion x was introduced and passed to second reading on Ayes x x x x x x x September 25, 1978. 2. A�report was presented from the Community Central Development Department regarding_the Planning Newport Commission recommendations on "Parking_Needs_and Parking Economic Feasibility Study of the Central_Newport (2745) Beach Area" prepared by Wilbur Smith and Assoc ates. I Volume 32 - Page 238 RTY OF NEWPORT BACH C01INCI`i MEN ,\�,��Rw��yG�22 .1r11 I ('Al i September 110 1978 MINUTES INDEX encroach one foot into First Avenue with steps and a walkway adjacent to 418 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar. \ Mrs. Turgeon's builder, who represented her, ad dressed the Council and urged approval of the one foot encroachment. Motion x The action of the Council taken on August 28 Ayes x x x x x denying Mrs. Turgeon's request was reconsidered. Noes x Abstain x Motion x y A revocable permit was granted for the one -foot Ayes x x x x :t, encroachment into City property on First Avenue, Noes x said permit to be documented, recorded and to Abstain x run with the property. T BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Balboa Department regarding the Balboa Island Bridge Island zhabilitation, Contract No. 2014. Bridge (725)- The rehabilitation program consisting of "Level Motion x 1" r� airs, plus installation of seismic ties Ayes x x x x x x x was a roved; and the staff was directed to obtain proposal for the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. from the Public Works Water 2. A report V%@ presented Department regarding the request of Spiller (576) Development C mpany for water service outside the City limit of Newport Beach. Motion I x The request for ter service to Spiller Develop - Ayes x x x x x x x ment Company was d nied. 3. A report was present from the City Manager Police regarding contract re n al and the building Substation maintenance rate increa a request for the Police Facility facility. (1474) Motion x Resolution No. 94291 autho zing the Mayor and R-9429 Ayes x x x x x x x City Clerk to execute an ame dment to the Janitorial Maintenance Agree t (Police facility) was adopted. 4. A letter addressed to Marilyn Hen ickson from Bicycle Thomas C. Moore resigning from the Bicycle Trails Trails Citizens Advisory Committee s pre- CAC rented* (205F) Motion x Mr. Moore's resignation was accepted with Ayes x x x x x x x regret; the City Clerk was directed to p #pate a Certificate of Appreciation; and (District 5) Mayor Ryckoff's appointment of Douglas W. Dreyer to fill the unexpired term of Thomas C. Moore was confirmed. I i Volume 32 - Page 237 yeµ V AY OF NEWPORT BACH' COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL �J 9 September 11, 1978 MINUTES INDEX - Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x Councilman Heather made a motion to refer the Study to the Off -Street Parking Committee. Mayor Ryckoff asked that the motion by a .µamended to also refer the study to_the_Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and to the Police_Department for comments, which amendment was accepted by the maker_ of -'the,morion. A vote was taken on Councilman_Heathexs_amended motion, which motion carried. J 3. A letter from C. A. Crain was presented con- Animal gratulating Council on its action reaffirming Control the law banning dogs from beaches and suggesting (862) that the "Dogs Prohibited" signs be replaced on the green belt park areas along Ocean Boulevard and Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues. Motion x The letter was ordered filed, and the staff was Ayes x x x x x x x directed to replace the signs as appropriate. 4. A report was presented from the City Manager Animal regarding clerical fee for animal impound s rvices Control (862) Motion x Resolution No. 9430, authorizing the May r and R-9430 Ayes x x x x x x x City Clerk to execute an amendment to the Animal Control Agreement (James Tapper, D Inc.), was adopted. 5. A resolution permitting bicycle riding on Goldenrod Goldenrod Bridge was presented. Bridge (2033) The following people addre ed the Council and opposed bicycle riding ohe bridge: Richard Wiseman who pointed oust/that it was a foot bridge, and Deborah AA1 en. Lyman Faulkner add�`essed the Council in favor of allowing bicycle on the bridge. Motion x Resolution N 9431, permitting bicycle riding R-9431 Ayes x x x x x x x do Goldenr%o� Bridge, was adopted. ADDITIONAL B SINESS: Motion x 1. 'Coup ilman Hummel made a motion to direct the General PI ning Commission to move ahead with their Plan deliberations on the General Plan revision using (673) the tools available to them now, which are the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the Circulation At Element and the traffic voltimes that are known o them at the present time. Mayor Pro Tem Williams asked that the motion be amended to add the wording, "and other data f' which may become available as the Commission f deliberates," which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. A discussion was had. Volume 32 - Page 239 *Y OF NEWPORT BACH i COUNCILMEN c�AL ��cglyq�,22� ROLL CALL\ kp \� N September 11. 1978 MINUTES INDEX Councilman Hummel amended his motion to direct the Planning Commission to proceed with their deliberations on the General Plan review with -.the tools now available to them, the Council to bacC-that up with some specifics at a later date, atidZhe staff was directed to come back with a report af`the`Study Session on October 10 as to how this might lie aegomplished. A vote was taken on Councilman HuaimeVa_s_manded Ayes x x x x x x x motion, which motion carried. Mayor Ayckoff declared the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. 1 Volume 32 - Page 240 September 5, 1978 TO FROM: SUBJECT: Background • City Council Oting September 11, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development Beach Area - " eas and Associates, and Flan The Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" was authorized by the City Council on August 22, 1977. The study was divided into two phases: Phase I - Parking Needs (completed December 1977); Phase II - Economic Feasibility (completed May 1978). The parking study area included all commercial and some residential property between the Arches Bridge and 19th Street in the Central New- port Beach area. PHASE I Phase I of the parking study involved the review of the existing parking inventory and the evaluation of existing parker demand characteristics such as origin, purpose, location, destination, walking distance and duration. Based on future land use and economic growth projections, future parking demand characteristics were determined. The Phase -I report indicated immediate and long-range parking needs by the indi- cation of parking space deficiencies and surpluses on a block -by -block basis. The number and location of new spaces required to meet present parking deficiencies, as well as additional spaces to meet future needs, were described. PHASE II Phase II of the parking study involved the evaluation of alternative parking programs to overcome existing and future parking deficiencies. Within this evaluation process, alternative sites were selected for possible parking development and analysis.in terms of function and operational characteristics. In January 1978, the Planning Commission selected a parking program alternative that was recommended to it by the study consultant and the Central Newport Parking Committee. This parking program was subsequently tested for economic feasibility. The results of the financial feasibility tests were presented at public hearing before the Planning Commission in June 1978. Additional hear- ings were held in August 1978. TO: City •anci 1 - 2. • PARKING PROGRAM The parking program combines strategies intended to provide a parking supply sufficient to satisfy projected parking demands, to effect an overall reduction in traffic circulation (especially in residential areas), to improve short-term parker accessibility to the parking supply, and to allow development growth while minimizing transportation, land use and environmental impacts. The achievement of these basic goals would be accomplished through stringent parking management strategies, which include pricing strategies, parking restrictions and parking en- forcement. The key elements of the parking program include the follow- ing: Peripheral Parking: The parking program includes a peripheral parking facility to be located on CALTRANS property on Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. This facility would be capable of accommodating 800 parking spaces and would be geared toward serving long-term parking needs of employees within the Central Newport area. Shuttle Bus Service: Connection between the peripheral park- ing facility and Central Newport Beach would be provided by an OCTD shuttle bus. Curb Parking: In order to fortify and enhance the potential for success of other parking programs, parking rate increases would be affected in the study area. Additionally, meters would be installed in commercial areas currently having unmetered curb spaces. Off -Street Parking Operations: Recommendations for off-street parking facilities include price increases, conversion to pay - attendant lots and increasing hours of collection. Meter Revenue Collection: All revenues derived from all parking meters within the study area would be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. Parking Fines: Parking fines emanating from Central Newport Beach parking violations would be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. Parking Validation Commercial Areas: In order to offset parking price increases and encourage economic growth, parking validation in commercial areas is proposed. Income received from the validation program would be used in coverage of operating and development costs of existing and proposed parking facilities. Residential Permit Program: This measure would be implemented in the residential neighborhoods in the study area. It involves posting of one hour parking restrictions for non-residents of each street. Residents having insufficient off-street parking could purchase permits which would allow them to park beyond posted limits. TO: City ancil - 3. • FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY The parking program outline was analyzed in terms of its overall finan- cial feasibility and a report was presented to the Planning Commission in June 1978. The consultant's report indicates that the parking program is economically feasible. Two "Supplemental Information Reports" dated May and August 1978 were prepared by the study consultant and staff, which answered questions raised at the Planning Commission public hearings on the parking program (copy attached). PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE CONSULTANT'S PROGRAM Municipal Parking Authority: The Planning Commission did not recommend that the City Council form a Municipal Parking Authority that would have the responsibility for implementing the parking program as was suggested by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Provision of Additional Parking Supply: The Planning Commission also did not recommend the construction of three combination com- mercial parking structures within the study area (1360 total spaces) and additional peripheral parking (400 spaces) after 1985. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its meeting of August 17, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted the last of a series of public hearings and recommended to the City Council that a parking program for the Central'Newport Beach Area be established, including the following elements: 1) Coordination, design, and development of the test periph- eral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD, using vacant CALTRANS property. a) Peripheral Parking A peripheral parking facility capable of accommo- dating 800 parking spaces is recommended. This facility is to be located on the CALTRANS-owned parcel on the West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The peripheral parking facility would serve the long-term needs of Central Newport Beach employees and beachgoers having trip origins external to the peninsula. To encourage the program's success, and to allow coverage of development and operating costs, a parking rate of eighty cents per day is proposed. b) Shuttle Bus Service Connection between the peripheral parking facility and Central Newport Beach would be provided by an TO: City 1uncil - 4. • OCTD shuttle bus. Under this program, all bus lines currently serving the peninsula would converge at the peripheral lot with all but three lines terminating at the peripheral lot. 2) Alteration of existing parking operations and policies, including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. a) Curb Parking In order to fortify and enhance the potential for success of other parking programs, parking rate increases in the study area are recommended. All curb meter rates would be increased to twenty-five cents per hour with the exception of the channel'i- zation islands on Balboa Boulevard between 19th and 21st Streets. At this latter location, the current rate structure of fifty cents per hour during the summer season would prevail all year. Additionally, meters would be installed in com- mercial areas currently having curb unmetered spaces. These locations include the following: LaFayette Avenue - 42 spaces Villa Way - 30 spaces 32nd Street between LaFayette Avenue and Newport Boulevard - 9 spaces 32nd Street, eastside, beside Newport and Balboa Boulevards - 22 spaces 31st Street, in Cannery Village - 47 spaces 30th Street, in Cannery Village - 31 spaces 29th Street, in Cannery Village - 31 spaces 28th Street in Cannery Village - 17 spaces Newport Boulevard, between 30th and 32nd Streets - 2 spaces 26th Street in Bayfront - 6 spaces 21st Street, westside - 14 spaces Lido Park Drive - 15 spaces Overall a total of 269 meters are recommended for installation. Hours of meter operation presently terminate at 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. Because of the significant evening activity in the Bayfront and McFadden Square subareas, it is recommended that hours of meter operation be extended to 10:00 P.M. or Midnight. TO: City encil - 5. • b) Off -Street Parking Operation_ Recommendations for off-street parking facilities include price increases, as well as alterations in parking operations. The metered off-street parking facilities in the Via Lido and Newport - Balboa subareas would have a rate structure of twenty-five cents per hour. The three metered lots in the McFadden Square subarea would be converted to pay -attendant lots. The summer season rate structure would be two -tiered at fifty cents per hour for parkers less than three hours, and $1.00 per hour for parkers three hours or more. During the non -summer season, parking rates would be twenty-five cents per hour. c) Meter Revenue Collection It is recommended that revenues derived from all meters in the study area be placed in a Central Newport Beach Parking Fund. This would entail separate meter collection and accounting procedures. d) Disposition of Parking Fines It is recommended that parking fines emanating from Central Newport Beach parking violations be segregated from the City's Traffic Safety Fund. This can be readily accomplished by printing separate parking citations which identify the location of parking violation as Central New- port Beach. 3) Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City -owned facilities. a) Parking Validation in Commercial Areas To offset parking price increases and to encourage economic growth, parking validation in commercial areas is recommended. In terms of existing public facilities, validation would be applied to the three public lots located in McFadden Square. Administration of the validation program for existing and future City -owned facilities would be handled by the City. The City would print validation stamps and sell them•to commercial enterprises expecting customer usage of City - owned parking facilities. Validation stamps would be sold at a sixty percent discount rate. Income'received from the validation program would be used in the coverage of operating and development costs of existing and proposed park- ing facilities. TO: City Concil - 6. 4) The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. a) Residential Permit Program This measure would be implemented in the resi- dential subareas of Oceanfront, Residential "A", and Residential "B", as well as the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 28th and 32nd Streets, 19th and 20th, east side of 21st Street, and Court Avenue. Its implementation includes the posting of a one hour time limit during the period of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Residents not having sufficient off-street parking would be allowed to purchase annual curb parking stickers that would permit them to park in their area beyond the posted time limitation. Proof of residence and car registration would be required. Stickers would identify the license number of the authorized vehicle and the neighborhood for which the permit is applicable. An annual permit fee of $10 per vehicle would be used to offset administrative and enforcement charges. An analysis of the Parking Program is provided in the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study March 10, 1978 prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates (Attachment No. 4). CONSULTANT RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A letter from Wilbur Smith and Associates, dated September 1, 1978, (copy attached), assesses the long-term impact of adopting only those four portions of the consultant's program which were recom- mended by the Planning Commission. The consultant concludes that implementing only that portion of the parking program recommended by the Planning Commission would result in near term improvements in parking problems, but eventually serious parking shortages would be experienced in the Cannery Village Area. RESPONSE FROM ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT A recent letter from OCTD (copy attached) indicates that it would not be feasible to redirect all incoming bus lines to a peripheral parking lot, with shuttle service. OCTD also pointed out that shortages of revenue would not allow its participation in running a shuttle service. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By V` l lair FRED TALARICO Senior Planner FT/kk TO: City encil - 7. • Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Draft - "Parking Study - Central Newport Beach" - November 1977 2) Wilbur Smith & Associates report - December 6, 1977 3) Wilbur Smith & Associates report - December 22, 1977 4) Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study - March 10, 1978. 5) 6) 7) FI_._.__.__ cl_rr n_— a 0.,-..-. 0 9n70 4 City Council .eting September 11, 1978 Agenda Item No. D-9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 5, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission recommendation on "Park Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the ral Newport Beach Area" prepare Er Smith and Associates. Suggested Action If desired, set for public hearing on September 25, 1978. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of August 17, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted the last of a series of public hearings on the Central Newport Beach Parking Study, and recommended to the City Council that a parking program be established including the following elements: 1) Coordination, design, and development of the test peripheral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD, using vacant CALTRANS property. 2) Alteration of existing parking operations and policies, including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. 3) Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City -owned facilities. 4) The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. Background information and supporting documents will be forwarded at the time of the public hearing. Consultant reports were transmitted as part of the Council's Study Session agenda. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT PF COM UNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGA D r or By enior Planner FT/kk e� Department of Community Deve pment u Cql FOPNP DATE: July 14, 1978 TO: New Planning Commission Members FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area," prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. In order to facilitate your review of the Wilbur Smith and Asso- ciates parking study of the Central Newport Beach area, staff has prepared the attached information for your consideration. The continued public hearing on the "Parking Program Feasibility Study" draft report is scheduled for the August 3, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions on the attached material, please contact me at 640-2261. Also, staff would be happy to arrange an informal briefing on this project, prior to the public hearing, at your convenience. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Dire for By .466 F RE 9- TAUAR I CO Senior Planner FT/kk Attachments: 1) Summary of the parking study and Planning Commission approved parking plan. 2) Draft report "Parking Program Feasibility," March 10, 1978. 3) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 15, 1978. 4) "Supplemental Information Report" 5) Planning Commission Staff Report of April 20, 1978. • . r Demand of: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Wilbur Smith and Associates Address• 4500 Jackson Boulevard P.O.Box 92 - Columbia, South Carolina In the amount of $ 3,530.15 Date 29202 June 20. 1978 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT For professional services relative to Newport Beach Parking Study Project No. 141300 (BA-19 - September 12, 1977) 022916000 Onnrnvorl �'nn Pavmonl''� TOTAL $3,530.15 Audited and Finance Director FILE COPY DO r!or r U lRur SmA and AJJociated, Jnc. CABLE WILSMITH 9900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD TELEX 57.3439 SUITE 29E0 doe .�tnSe[ee1 l.n/ al" 90036 PHONE (213( 93BA2188 June 16, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Bewport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: Pursuant to conversations with members of your staff, we are transitting this request for payment to us relative to professional services defined in the contract for the Central Newport Beach Parking Study., Our request is for payment of the $18,900 fee plus the contingency amount of $1,890, totalling $20,790, less outstanding invoices. Our Accounting Division is currently preparing a formal invoice stating all time charges and expenses. You should receive that invoice prior to the end of the fiscal year. Although we are submitting a final invoice, we understand that we are required to attend one Planning Commission meeting and one City Council meeting and also to prepare 50 copies of the final report. Completion of these items would represent full satisfaction of our contractual requirements. We trust this letter is suitable to your administrative needs. if you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES RECEIVED Commun 'Devel pment William E. Hurrell Dept Project Manager b .SUN 19 1978+w My B NEWP.w � WEH: ed O E CALIF-ACH, I *1413'00 FILE P 1i DO NOT REMOVE ALLIANCE,OH- ATLANTA-BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA, SC-DALLAS-FALLS CHURCH, VA- HONG KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLE-LONDON-LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI-NEW HAVEN -NEW VORK-PHILADELPHIA-RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE•TORONTO•WASHINGTON, DC-WINSTON•SALEM COM MISSIONERS City of Newport Beach June 15, 1978 MINUTES IN OLX Motion X� Motion was made that Planning Commission continue A11 Ayes �„ �^ the public hearing on the following three `"`� portions of General Plan Amendment 78-1 to the e.�,t�i ng ,of July 6, 1978: 1 ) Part "B" relative to t`h'e`.prezoning and annexation to the City of Newport BeacYl of the 2.3 acre parcel adjacent to the Newpor Terrace development; 2) that portion of Part to the Cliff Haven �Jatin Residential District;'3�the "housekeeping" revisions to the Circation E1>ement. Further, that the proposed land use-designartitign change in the Newport Heights R-2 District be",4d.eleted from this General Plan Amendment, and that'th.e.,, remaining portions of this Amendment be consider` at the General Plan Amendment session in October.'""°-� , Item #2 Request to consider the approval of the draft PARKING report on "Parking Program -Feasibility" of the STUDY OF CENTRAL "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" (Public NEWPORT Hearing). BEACH Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach CONT. TO UG. 3 1978 Planning Commission considered this Consent Calendar item at the outset of the meeting. The following action was taken: Motion X Planning Commission continued this matter to All Ayes the meeting of August 3, 1978. Item #3 Request to consider,an amendment to Title 20 MENDMENT 10. 507 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or �S adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks ONT. TO RUG. 3 '``.000m the edge of bluffs and other development s-ta-dzr,�dss. 1978 Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission considered —mkt is Consent Calendar item at the outset of the�meeting. The FILE -6- nn Nor AEPO E.. COMMISSIONERS 0 City of 0 Newport Beach June 15, 1978 MINUTES HULL CALL to establish a maximum of 5 DU's per buildable acre with a maximum of 64 DU's on the Caltrans 1 property. ` David Simms, representing the State of Californi appeared before the planning Commission and requested that the Planning Commission not take action on General Plan Amendment 78-1-A until the results of the Traffic Model tests are known He stated that the Caltrans West and Caltrans Ea properties were put up for auction within the east month; however, no bids were received 11Rcause the prospective bidders were told by the City of Newport Beach that no development would be �fermitted on those two pieces of property. With respect to Mr. Simms' statement concerning allegations that the City of Newport Beach would not permit development on the Caltrans property, City Attorney O'Neil stated for the record that this is not.the position of the City of Newport Beach. Advance Planning Administrator Dmohowski advised that inquirers about the Caltrans property were informed of the General Plan designation ar zoning on the property. They were also apprised of recent developmeints with regard to the Traffi Phasing Policy and possible adoption of a City Ordinance relating to'this matter; however, Mr, Dmohowski stated that at no time did the City staff tell anyone that development would nc be considered on either of these sites. Carmen Hubbard, owner of property in the Newport Heights area, appeared before the Planning Commission and requested that the Newport Height R-2 District item be set for a date certain. Staff reiterated the fact that the Newport Heights Homeowners Associated has indicated that it wishes to withdraw the Newport Heights R-2 District item from consideration as it feels the the revised R-2 standards would address its concerns. Therefore, staff advised that this matter could be deleted from this General Plan Amendment at this time. -5- fa t INMIX V Planning Commission Meet ng June 15, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 7, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Continued public hearing to consider approval of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area", prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. At the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the planning Commission continued the public hearing on the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report to its June 1, 1978 meeting. Attached to this staff report is a "Supplemental Information Report" which addresses the issues raised by the Planning Commission and general public at the April 20, 1978 meeting. The purpose of the "Supplemental Information Report" is to: 1) clarify existing information provided by the consultant on the parking structures and revenues; 2) explain the relationship between parking and land use; 3) provide a short discussion of alternative financial programs; 4) provide a short review or general traffic impacts of the parking program; and 5) correspondence and responses thereto received since the April 20, 1978 public hearing. Staff Analysis The purpose of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" was to determine if the parking program as recommended by the Central Newport Parking Committee and approved by the Planning Commission at its January 19, 1978 meeting was economically feasible. In terms of the program's economic feasibility, the consultant's report indicates that the parking program development costs are exceeded by parking revenues in a manner that is acceptable for a successful revenue bond financing program. In the April 20, 1978 staff report to the Planning Commission, staff outlined the major issues relating to the parking study that have been raised to date, by both the Planning Commission and the Central Newport Parking Committee. Additionally, in the "Supplemental Information Report" (attached), staff and the consultants have attempted to answer questions raised at the April 20, 1978 meeting. Suggested Action Conduct the public hearing, and on the basis of public testimony and Planning Commission discussion: 1) direct whatever changes and refine- ments the Planning Commission desires regarding the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report and forward it to the City Council with all appropriate background information, and 2) if desired, approve a re- solution supporting the formation of a Municipal Parking Authority by City Ordinance with the following direction: A. The implementation of the first phase of the recommended parking program which could include: (1) Coordination, design, and development of the test peripheral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD. (2) Alteration of existing parking opeirations including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. Item No. 2 FILE Ckj � DO P4OT REMOVE TO: Planning Commission - 2. (3) Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City -owned facilities. (4) The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. (5) The design and construction of the south Cannery Village parking project. B. The implementation of the second phase of the recommended parking program projects based on the effectiveness of phase one projects. Also, the Planning Commissiop may wish to direct staff to prepare changes to the Zoning Code to permit the integration of the recommended parking program (subject to the approval of the City Council) and any desired changes to land use and development intensity. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By 406/ !!QJ Ffed Talarico Senior Planner FT/ dt Attachments: 1) Item No. 2 4R " CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT TO THE DRAFT REPORT "PARKING PROGRAM FEASIBILITY" CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STUDY Prepared By: City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2261 and Wilbur Smith and Associates, Inc. 5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2950 Los Angeles, CA 90036 (213) 938-2189 May, 1978 'FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I Clarification of Existing Information II Relationship Parking Program and Land Use III Alternative Financing IV Traffic V Correspondence A. Wilbur Smith and Associates 1. Beverly Hills Permit System 2. Westwood/Ventura Shuttle Busses Page 2 6 17 21 23 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this "Supplemental Information Report" is to answer questions raised by the Planning Commission and general public at the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing on the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area". This report: 1) clarifies existing information provided to the City on the parking structures and revenues; 2) explains the relationship between parking and land use assumptions; 3) provides a short discussion of alternative financial programs; and 4) provides a review of traffic implications of the proposed parking program. Additionally, a' letter report from Wilbur Smith and Associates which discusses the residential permit program and shuttle bus systems is included. This "Supplemental Report" provides the Planning Commission with information which will allow them to make policy recommendation on the overall study to the City Council. I. CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION A. Questions At the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised by the Planning Commission and general public on the proposed parking structures: 1. How many parking spaces would be provided within each parking structure? 2. How many square feet of commercial space would be provided within each structure? 3. How much of the "Average Annual Net Income" for each parking structure and the overall parking program is attributable to the rental of commercial space in each structure and overall? B. Discussion The following chart indicates parking spaces and commercial development Dr000sed for each of the three mixed use parking facilities: Project Description Parking Space Allocation No. Spaces No. Spaces Sq. Ft. Commercial Remaining No. Spaces Commercial No. % No. % South Cannery Village Project 360 559000 166 46% 195 54% North Cannery Village Project 200 20,000 60 30% 140 70% McFadden Square Project 800 2b,000 75 9% 1 725 91% lEstimate a three spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of commercial development with one space per 1000 sq. ft. of commercial devoted to employee parking in peripheral parking lot. -2- t The following chart indicates the annual gross income projected for each revenue source indicated in the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility". The following is gross income data prior to annual operating costs: ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE ALL SOURCES. PROGRAMI REVENUE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE2 Revenue Source "I -A" "L.R." 1st yr. 5th yr. Avg. "Project Total Revenues Meters X 1 $42,500 42 500 $42.500 N A 2% L arklnq Fines X 1 $18,500 18,500 N/A 8% Residential Permits X - 6 150 6,150 6.150 N/A 1% Peri heral Lot X - 249,600 312,000 280,800 N/A 11 Pub is Lots McFadderr S . X - 76 100 $95 000 $85,6003 N/A 4% Parking - So. Canner Vil. X - $55,400 $68,700 $62,10o 7% 3% Commercial So. Cannery Vil. X $825 000 $825,000 $825 000 93% 34% Parking - McFadden S . - $152,200 190 200 $171,200 31% 7% Commercial - McFadden Sq.- - - $375,000 1$375,000 $375,000 69% 15% Parking - No. Canner Vil. - $33,100 $41 500 $37 300 11% 2% Commercial- No. Cannery Vil. $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 89% 12% TOTALS :�?� 5 45 5 0 2 4, , � i� 4 0 10 % 111I.A." = immediate action present to 1985; "L.R." = long-range 1985+ 2Based on average annual gross revenues. 3Deleted for overall project program. 4Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding. C. Staff Analysis Parking Space Allocation: The preceding discussion section indicates that 1,360 parking spaces will be provided under the recommended parking plan in mixed -use parking structures. Projected commercial development within the structures totals 100,000 square feet. The projected developments -3- 1 3 within the proposed parking structures will necessitate the provision of 300 parking spaces (22% of all spaces provided in the structures). The remaining 1050 parking spaces would be sufficient to meet the parking demand for the area according to the information provided to the City by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Section II of this report will discuss the relationship between the projected commercial land use development and existing and trend land use for each structure. Existing zoning requirements for 1001000 square feet of commercial development for off-street parking indicate a need for 400 parking spaces. Staff has reduced this demand by 25% to allow for employee and visitor parking in the peripheral parking facility. Revenue Sources: The preceeding chart "Annual Gross Revenues All Sources" indicates an income prior to operating expenses of $2,454,550 annually. This information is based on the draft report "Parking program Feasibility" prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Annual gross revenue from the lease of commercial floor space is $1,500,000 or 61% of all gross revenues. Due to the fact that 61% of the annual gross revenues for the parking program are derived from the lease/rental of commercial footage, the Planning Commission may wish to consider alternative methods of financing the recommended program that would place less reliance on this revenue source and a more -direct reliance on property owners and merchants within the study area. As presently drafted, the "Parking Program Feasibility" study does not provide for mandatory participation by either property owners or merchants within the planning area. The individual property owner and merchant may voluntarily participate in the commercial validation program. The Planning Commission may wish to consider maintaining the present zoning code requirements for providing in -lieu parking fees to the City (Parking Authority). -4- '55 The revenues that could be derived from this strategy are discussed in Section III of this supplemental report. It is important to note that as the Planning Commission considers changes to the revenue sources that these changes impact the number of square feet of commercial development that might be provided within each structure, parking needs in each location, traffic circulation and pedestrian circulation patterns within each of the subareas of the study. -5- II. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE AND PARKING A. Questions At the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised by the Planning Commission and general public on the relationship between the recommended parking plan and land use forecasts for the study area: 1. What is the forecasted land use for the area that the recommended parking plan is based upon? 2. What kind and amount of development was projected for the location of each recommended parking structure prior to the plan's mixed - use parking facilities? 3. Do the recommended mixed -use facilities represent an intensification of development at each individual site and if so, to what amount? 4. What types of development control strategies might the City need to implement, if the recommended parking program eliminates the need for providing on -site, off-street parking? 5. What would be the general impact on neighborhood scale and character of the proposed parking facilities especially the 800-space facility in the McFadden Square area? B. Discussion The following charts indicate existing land use, and projected development within the planning area in 1985 and 1995. It is important to note that the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the parking plan based on trend growth within the planning area under the existing General Plan and Toning Ordinance with the assumption that some marine industrial activities would remain within the study area. -6- _T EXISTING PROJECTED PROJECTED TYPE LAND USE 1985 1995 CANNERY VILLAGE AREA Retail Sales 74,793 71,983 69,400 Office 52,248 74,871 83,345 Industrial 73,776 55,426 20,000 Restaurant 15,398 15,398 8,950 BAYFRONT AREA Retail Sales 40,528 32,258 31,540 Office 22,960 22,000 32,000 Industrial 11,670 5,000 5,000 Restaurant 17,172 29,276 37,276 MCFADDEN SQUARE AREA Retail Sales 25,529 70,984 90,645 Office 4,429 3,532 19,000 Restaurant 21,965 26,640 29,565 Art Museum 13,582 -0- -0- NEWPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD AREA Retail Sales 7o,436 70,408 73,425 Office 10,281 7,114 12,114 Restaurant -4,240 3,598 4,598 Hotel/Motel 13 Rooms 13 Rooms 13 Rooms RESIDENTIAL AREA "A" Retail Sales 21,136 21,136 21,136 Office 6,175 16,175 16;175 NOTES 1. All figures indicate sq . ft. of structure space unless otherwise noted. 2. Mid -range breakdowns (i.e., 1977-80/1980-85 = 1977 to 1985) are based fifth percent of anticipated growth being allocated to each timeframe. -7- In order for the Planning Commission to understand the level of development intensity permitted under the existing zoning regulations, staff has excerpted pages 7, 8, and 9 from the "Cannery Village/ McFadden Square Specific Area Plan Phase II Report", May, 1977. These figures do not include potential development/redevelopment under existing zoning regulations in the Via Lido area of Residential Area "A" of the parking study. "Potential Development - Existing Zoning The Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan area is divided into several zoning districts (see Cannery Village/McFadden Square Phase I Report, Page 32). The following chart indicates the maximum levels of development intensity for each zoning district: District Intensity (F.A.R.) Districts Intensity (F.A.R.) C-1 2 times buildable R-2 C-2 (1) R-3 C-0 3 times buildable R-4 M-1 3 times buildable 1 duplex per lot 1 unit per 1,200 sq. ft, 1 unit per 800 sq. ft. Based on the above levels of development intensity, the maximum potential intensity for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan area was developed. Because many different uses are allowed within each of the above commercial and industrial zones, it is impossible to predict exactly what will occur; however, a rough estimate can be made by projecting future uses in the same proportion as current uses. This method provides the following figures: -8- Retail Sales 1,537,289.2 sq. ft, Office 658,838.3 sq. ft. Industrial 533,345.3 sq. ft. Restaurant 376,479.0 sq. ft. Hotel/Motel 105 rooms Residential 260 units (1) The C-2 zoning district does not prescribe a maximum level of development intensity. For the purpose of this statistical analysis, two times buildable was assigned to C-2 zoned parcels. The following map indicates the total maximum possible development by block for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan area."1 1Pages 7 and 8, "Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan - Phase II Report", May 1977. (pD LA 4,yf� t.. der 41k 1/6 44 a � H At AU, 1Page 9 "Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan - Phase 11 Report", May 1977. -10- `(Pi • • The projected land use for the location of each parking structure is indicated on the following chart. The land use projections are based upon the Planning Commission's direction of trend growth under the existing zoning and general plan, modified by the assumption that some marine -related industrial activities will remain in the planning area. -11- SOUTH CANNERY VILLAGE PROJECT Existing Land Projected M- Parking Different Plan Difference Plan and Use - 1977 Trend - 1995 Plan, and Existing - Projected - 1995 1977 Retail Sales 5,790 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 55,000 sq. ft. 49,210 sq. ft. 43,000 sq. ft. Office 5,580 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. -0- [5,580 sq. ft.] [9,000 sq. ft.] Industrial 20,600 sq. ft. -0- -0- [20,600 sq. ft.] -0- Restaurant 2,100 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. -0- [2,100 sq. ft.] [900 sq. ft.] Residential 6 units -0- -0- -0- -0- Other 2 vacant lots -0- Public Parking N/A NIA MCFADDEN SQUARE PROJECT Retail Sales Other -0- Street R-O-W -0- Street R-O-W 25,000 sq. ft. Public Parking 25,000 sq. ft. N/A 25,000 sq. ft. N/A NORTH CANNERY VILLAGE PROJECT Retail Sales -0- -0- 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. Office 162 sq. ft. 162 sq. ft. -0- [162 sq. ft.] [162 sq. ft.] Residential -0- -D- -0- -0- -0- Other Parking Street Parking Public Parking N/A N/A R-O-W R-O-W ,for the purposes of this comparison, sq. ft. leasable in mixed -use structures assumed to be retail sales. The actual use (i.e., retail sales, office, restaurant, etc.) might be established at a later date by the City. 2[000] - Decrease; 000 - Increase. ��r The following indicates potential development control strategies that the City might desire to implement if the recommended parking program were to be adopted and the requirements for on -site off-street parking were to be eliminated: Floor -Area Ratios (F.A.R.) The existing maximum allowable floor area ratios in the planning area are: "C-1" = 2 times buildable area; "C-2" = no maximum; "C-0" = 3 times buildable area; and "M-l" = 3 times buildable area. A "rough" estimate of the development potential of these existing zones was provided in this section. In the preparation of "concept plans" for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan area, staff used F.A.R.'s similar to those adopted in the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan District as a starting point for Planning Commission discussion. (.5 times buildable to 1.0 times buildable for incentive uses.) The Planning Commission by reducing permitted development intensities (F.A.R.)' could bring the future development closer into line with the trend growth forecasted for the area. This type of change would impact the number of parking spaces needed within the planning area. Lot Coverage The existing zoning regulations within the study area permit full coverage of each building site minus required setbacks. The Planning Commission may wish to consider establishing a specific maximum lot coverage, (i.e., 60%, 70%, etc. of buildable area.) The impact of this type of strategy would be to lessen the amount of structure possible on a building site. Additionalimpacts of this strategy would be the provision of open space within each subarea, the encouragement of outdoor commercial activities and possibly some reduction in needed parking spaces. -13- 9 Open Space Provision The Planning Commission may wish to consider a strategy of establishing an open space provision within each zone or in the Specific plan District. This provision could be similar to that in effect within residential zones of the community. The goal of this strategy would be to maintain scale and character within the commercial community. This strategy would impact the number of parking spaces needed within the study area. Existing "Grandfather Clause" The Planning Commission, by changing the existing non -conforming use sections of the zoning code could impact development and parking space requirements within the commercial area. Presently new uses are permitted to establish themselves within existing non -conforming structures (without adequate parking, setbacks, etc.). The Planning Commission could modify this provision to allow new uses in existing non -conforming structures only if, for example, in -lieu parking fees were paid. Land Use Mix Through the development of the Specific Plan Zoning District, the Planning Commission can have a direct impact on the scale/character of development permitted within the area. The establishment of the type of permitted land uses has the most direct impact on the overall community commercial area. C. Staff Analysis The proceeding section indicates that there is a latent development potential within the study area. The effect of the recommended parking program as drafted will be to allow property to develop without on -site parking. The three most recent development -14- MO • LI requests in the study area have had the following F.A.R.: Schock UP-1867 = .75 (29th Street) Mrgudich UP-1864 = .96 (31st Street) Zemmer UP-1868.= .76 (21st Street) The proceeding section has also indicated that the parking structures will have a significant impact on the scale and character of the community. This impact will be greatest in the McFadden Square area with the development of the proposed 800 space/25,000 sq. ft. commercial mix structure. • • GU III. ALTERNATIVE FINANCING A. questions At the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised by the Planning Commission and general public on alternative methods of financing the recommended parking program: 1. Would the revenue bond approach to financing the parking program eliminate the need for voter approval of the bond proposal? 2. What is the City's liability under the revenue bond program? 3. What other sources of revenue could City draw upon to lessen the need for revenue from the lease of commercial space in the mixed -use facilities? 4. In what manner could "private" industry be involved in the funding of the recommended parking program? B. Discussion The Revenue Bond - Municipal Corporation approach to funding the recommended parking program would not require a vote of the electorate, but would require a majority vote of the City Council, Pages 13 and 14 of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Central Newport Beach Parking Study" prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates discusses this method of financing its recommended parking program. Under the Revenue Bond - Municipal Corporation approach, the City of Newport Beach (according to information presented by the cgnsultants) would not be financially liable as it would be under general obligation bonds. Wilbur Smith and Associates has noted -16- that should the Municipal Parking Authority default on the revenue bonds, the procedure commonly followed is for the Parking Authority and the bond holders to enter into negotiations. The product of these negotiations usually is a program for refinancing the bonds. Other Revenue Bonds Wilbur Smith and Associates has provided (Page 13 through 15, "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report), a general review of alternative methods of funding the overall development program. In terms of additional revenue sources, the following could be applied by the Parking Authority under the Revenue Bond -Municipal Corporation approach: In -Lieu Fees (Development Tax) The City currently provides for the collection of in -lieu fees for development in proximity to public parking lots that do not provide on -site off-street parking. The payment of in -lieu fees might be established by the Planning Commission as a means of either raising additional revenues or reducing reliance on the proposed revenue sources. Parking stickers are currently sold for $150 yearly. Based on growth and development between now and 1995, existing Zoning Code parking requirements, modified trend growth forecasts, and a yearly straight line growth projection, the following revenues would be generated by this strategy: 1979 = $11,700 1980 = $23,400 1981 = $35,100 1982 = $46,800 1983 = $58,500 Average Annual First 5 Years = $35,100 -17- 1984 = $70,200 1985 = $81,900 1986 = $93,600 1987=$105,300 1988=$117,000 Average Annual Second 5 Years = $93*600 C. Staff Analysis The preceeding section (III-B) has attempted to review the Revenue Bond - Municipal Corporation finance approach to the parking program and an additional source of income for an in -lieu fee (development tax). As identified in the department's staff report of April 12, 1978, the following two major issues remain for Planning Commission discussion: "l. The willingness of the City to establish a Municipal Parking Authority/Parking Commission. 2. The responsibilities and liabilities of the City under the revenue bonding financing approach and the sale of revenue bonds allowed under this approach without voter approval." The preceeding section outlined an extension and expansion of the existing in -lieu fee structure under the Municipal Code. The $150 per parking space per year is a minimal charge for a parking space. Based on a land cost of $35 per square foot and an average 350 sq. ft. of land area per parking space, the provision of one parking space in the study area at grade will cost a developer $12*250. Average Parking Space Cost: 1 Land $122250 Construction $ 350 $12,600 IBased on $1.00 per square foot to surface and stripe. _ 18- • • Assuming a 30-year development loan at 9.5 percent annual interest, the average annual yearly cost of one parking space provided by a "private" developer would be $1,261.32. This would not include architecture, engineering, legal, or insurance cost that might be associated with the development of parking in relation to a proposed development. -19- -1d Iv. TRAFFIC A. Questions At the April 20, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised on the general traffic impacts of the proposed parking program: 1. What will be the general traffic impact of the overall parking program? 2. What impact will the peripheral parking lot have on Coast Highway? 3. What will be the general impact on adjacent areas (i.e., Newport Heights, West Newport) of the parking program? B. Discussion: "Traffic Impacts" Based upon discussion with the City's Traffic Engineer, it can be assumed that the parking program itself will not significantly increase traffic problems on the Peninsula. The traffic impacts that can be anticipated within the study area will be primarily attributable to the projected development and redevelopment of the area. An increase in recreational traffic is anticipated with or without development and/or the parking program. It is important to note that the parking program as presently drafted changes the responsibility for providing off-street parking from individual property owners to the City. To the extent that this allows for increased development intensiti-es, these impacts can be attributed to the program. Comments on the various aspects of the parking program are: Convenience Parking: The recommended parking program would provide convenient parking to the commercial user. An increase in traffic can be anticipated through this provision of additional parking. Peripheral Parking/ Increased traffic on Coast Highway approaching Shut t"regus system the peripheral parking lot can be anticipated. This program will require a change in employee attitudes. -20- 11 Residential Permits Parkin S ace and Freter ate ncreases Commercial Development - Parking Structures A slight decrease in traffic on Newport Boulevard can be anticipated from the employees/visitors using this system. This decrease will be more than off -set by the increased availability of parking. It is not presently anticipated that the Residential Permit Program will create increased traffic within the study area. It can be assumed though that there will be an increase in VMT as individual parkers look for new parking locations. It can be assumed that increased parking rates may create traffic impacts in the McFadden Square area. These impacts would be due to the increased parking spaces turn- over 'rates. The increased rates will encourage all -day (employee/ visitor) parkers to find alternative less expensive parking spaces. It can be anticipated that the commercial development projected for each mixed -use parking facility will have an impact on traffic within the study area. C. Staff Analysis The preceeding section attempted to generally outline traffic impacts of the recommended parking progarm. While several of the traffic impacts are directly attributable to the recommended parking program, the majority of the traffic impacts that can be anticipated are more - directly related to the future development and redevelopment of property within the study area. It is the opinion of staff as previously indicated (Staff Report - April 20, 1978) that prior to the funding or implementation of any specific activity contained in the report (not specifically exempted by State law from the requirements of CEQA), further environmental analysis will be necessary along with the preparation of appropriate environmental documents. -21- 17 -11- V. CORRESPONDENCE A. Wilbur Smith and Associates (May 23, 1978): This letter reviews the residential permit program presently in use in the City of Beverly Hills. The letter additionally addresses the shuttle bus system presently in use in the "Westwood Village" area of the City of Los Angeles. B. Wilbur Smith and Associates (May 23, 1978): This letter responds to the questions rasied by the O.C.T.D. ?3 q��p/ / U!/iAur SmilA and A3aociate3 CABLE WILSMITH TELEX 57d05 May 23, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: 11 5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUIT[ E00 Z,j C'ai!` 90036 PHONE 4131 9aE•E2119 At the April 20, 1978, Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the draft findings of the Central Newport Beach Parking Study: 1. What are some examples of operating peripheral parking shuttle bus services? 2. Where has the residential parking permit program been tested in Southern California? Per your request, we have prepared responses to both ques- tions as related below. F.A Peripheral Parking, Shuttle Bus Programs area: Four such programs worthy of note exist in the Los Angeles 1. Westwood Village - On Friday and Saturdays, a continuous mini -bus shuttle service links the Federal Building parking lot (1,600 spaces) with the Westwood Village commercial district: Parking is free, and mini -bus one-way fares of 10 cents are collected. Transit services are operated by the SCRTD under contract by the City of Los Angeles and the West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. On a typical weekend day, ALLIANCE.ON- BRISBANE- CAMDEN. NJ - COLUMBIA. SC - OENVER •FALLS CHURCH. VA •HONG KONG -HOUSTON - KNOXVILLE• LONOON -LOS ANGELES MELSOURNE - MIAMI - NEW HAVEN • NEW TORK • PERTH • PITTSBURGH - RICHMOND SAN FRANCISCO - •INGAPORE-TORONTO - WASHINGTON. OC 0 '0 -14 Mr. R. V. Hogan May 23, 1978 Page 2 over 1,400 parkers use the service. A subsidy is required to cover the full costs of transit service operation, 50 per cent of which is paid by private interests, and the remainder is paid from Village parking meter revenues. After two years of operation, the service is considered successful and continues to receive funds. 2. Downtown Los Angeles - The Downtown Community Redevelopment Agency is currently developing a major peripheral parking -people mover program for the L.A. CBD. At present, the Convention Centex parking stuucture allows all day employee parking at $0.75 per day with SCRTD mini -bus service to the Bunker Hill and Civic Center. This program has successfully operated for several years. 3. Los Angeles International Airport - Approximately 4,000 peripheral parking spaces are operated Tor air travelers and for all airport employees, with free shuttle bus services. This ambitious program has operated successfully for over five years. The airport is now planning an automated people mover system to replace crowded bus services. 4. Ventura, California - To reduce employee parking in the downtown, Ventura City and County employees were asked to park in a peripheral parking structure and use a special bus shuttle service. Lack of parking controls in the downtown and poor bus service has hampered the success of this program. Residential Permit Programs The City of Beverly Hills, California, has operated a resi- dential parking permit program in the residential areas adjacent to the CBD. The program was originally challenged by local bus- iness interests, and the City dropped the permit program in order to avoid the expense Of a legal confrontation. With the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arlington County, Virginia, a homeowners group persuaded the City Council to re-establish the permit program. Mr. R. V. Hogan May 23, 1978 Page 3 The program is operated at no -charge to residents, with enforcement revenues covering all costs. While the permit program has recently been proposed in several other areas; an adequate test of the concept in Southern California is not available. The general concensus in areas outside of Cali- fornia where this concept has been tested is that the permit program does accomplish its intended goals without unfunded cost to the City. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES;/ fit/ < e William E. Hurrell Transportation Engineer WEH:ed J 0 itgur SmX and Ae30ciatei, Jnc. CARS WILSMITH TSLCX 07,313e May 23, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Califprnia 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: 11 eese WILSHIRK NOUL9VAR0 SUITE lose eLoj . 4, f lee, 6,41. 90036 0-HONK IBLSI tie -also C. b 31 �'M E Dek MAY2419781.. NOF ' WPoRi BEACH / CALIF. The Orange County Transit District has reviewed our _ Draft Report, Parking Program ,Feasibility Study - Central Newport Beach. Their letter of April 180 1978 raises several questions relative to the peripheral parking shuttle bus service proposal presented in our report. 1. Parking and Ridership Demand Forecast The letter requests more detail relative to the rider- ship demand estimates. The basis for the ridership demand estimates is presented in our draft report, Parking Studvt Central Newport Beach of November, 19770 which should be transmitted to OCTD. We have always assumed that employees would be the primary market for peripheral parking, and that beachgoers would provide a secondary (highly seasonal) market. Daily employee parking demands currently total 4,100 parkers. The employees choice to use peripheral parking would be based on several factors: Cost and availability of parking in Central Newport, The quality of shuttle service to Central Newport, Cost of peripheral parking plus transit fares, Comparative travel times for peripheral parking vs. conventional parking in Central Newport. A simple model which measures the influence of these factors on the magnitude of peripheral parking demand was utilized. ALLIANCE. ON- ATLANTA•BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA,SC- DALLAS•FALLS CHURCH,VA•HONGKONG.HOUSTON•KNOXVILLE•LONDON-LOSANGELES MELBOURNE•MIAMI-NEW HAVEN -NEW YOAK-PHILADELPHIA•RICHMOND-BAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE•TORONTO-WASHINGTON. OC•WINSTOHSALEM 1 Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director May 23, 1978 Page 2 This model has been used quite successfully in Westwood Village and Downtown Los Angeles to estimate demands, which were later validated by actual experience. Estimated employee demands were 800 peripheral parkers per day based on the service conditions defined in our Feasibility Report (Page 19) and the parking.disin- centives proposed in Central Newport, (Fee Increases and Permit Program); 800 employee parkers at a 1.25 auto occupancy (persons per vehicle) converts to 2,000 daily one-way transit trips. During the summer months beachgoer activity would increase this figure to 2,600 passengers per day. During the winter months peak hour ridership would be approximately 300 riders one-way. The 10 minute frequency service proposed will be adequate to serve this demand. 2. Parking Fee in the Peninsula OCTD suggests that parking disincentives throughout the Peninsula are necessary to make the program work. As the program keys on employee parking, however, disincentives are only necessary where employees currently park, namely Central Newport. Other areas of the Peninsula where employees might park are well beyond a reasonable walking distance from the Central Newport business district. 3. Remote Parking Lot OCTD concerns about use of the Caltrans property and access requirements are valid considerations which must be negotiated with Caltrans, OCTD, and other involved interests. None of these concerns, however is significant enough to discount the feasibility of of this program at this early stage. 4. Shuttle System Our report did not intend to indicate the full impact of shuttle system operation on total transit ridership. The convenient shuttle system on the Peninsula should 0 Mr. R. V, Hogan, Director May 23, 1578 Page 3 attract new local ridership. Access by transit to the Peninsula would be complicated by the need to transfer. The high frequency of the shuttle service, however, should reduce any adverse impacts generated by a forced transfer. 5. Fares The proposed 10 cent shuttle fare is in conflict with the District's $.25 base fare policy. Our intent was to provide parkers with low cost transit service, and any fare collection technique which accomplishes this goal is acceptable. Traditionally, however, transit fares for shuttle services are lower than for line haul transit travel, and charging a low fare for all local shuttle traffic is a desirable consideration, In summary, we continue to recommend that shuttle service peripheral parking be tested in Central Newport. We trust that this service could be provided in a manner which benefits both the city and OCTD, as well as area parkers and transit users. very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIA S 4�v William E, Hurrell Transportation Engineer WEH:dk 1N'�'11A" Q �- Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1978 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider approval of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area", prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. At the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" dated February 9, 1978 prepared for the City Council by Wilbur Smith and Associates. The Planning Commission directed that: (1) the consultant and staff revise certain portions of the draft report; (2) the draft report, as revised, be submitted to the Central Newport Parking Committee for its review and recommendations; and (3) a public hearing to consider the adoption of the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report be scheduled in April 1978. Since the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1978, Wilbur Smith and Associates has submitted a revised draft report (dated March 10, 1978, attached), and the Central Newport Parking Committee has met to review this revised report and has made recommendations (letter attached). Central Newport Parking Committee The Central Newport Parking Committee, at its general membership meeting on March 23, 1978, met with a representative of Wilbur Smith and Associates to discuss and review the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. As indicated in its attached letter, the C.N.P.C. has recommended that the Planning Commission approve the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. The letter indicates that, in the opinion of the C.N.P.C., the program offers the City a wide range of opportunities to solve the parking problems in the Central Newport Beach area. The letter further indicates that the program allows for a logical progression of parking development without overextension of financial commitment. Additionally, at the March 23, 1978 meeting, the C.N.P.C. indicated a concern for sale of the Caltran's property between Superior Boulevard and Newport Boulevard on Coast Highway currently scheduled for June 1, 1978. The C.N.P.C. directed its chairman to request that the City Council declare an interest in the property without prejudice and ask Caltrans to delay the sale of the property for a reasonable period of time. It was its opinion that this action was necessary to allow for an adequate review of the Wilbur Smith and Associates report and the testing of the peripheral parking concept (letter attached). The draft report recommends a six- month test program of the peripheral parking concept using a portion of this site. At the March 24, 1978 meeting the City Council authorized sending a letter requesting Caltrans to delay sale of the property. Background - Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study - Central Newport Area. The study area includes all commercial and some residential properties between the Arches' Bridge and 19th Street in the Central Newport Beach area. The exact boundaries of the study rea are indicated on Exhibit 1 attached to this report. C( y DO PLOT I?C IWE 0 0 a e _ .4. 14) TO: Planning Commission - 2 The key elements of the study to date have been: (1) An assessment of existing and future parking needs; (2) The preparation and evaluation of alternative parking development concepts; and (3) The selection of the preferred parking alternative. Attached to this report is the consultant's revised draft report "Parking Program Feasibility". Subsequent reports will deal with the implementation of the parking finance program and the design and construction of specific parking facilities. Since the inception of the "Central Newport Parking Study", the Planning Commission has held the following meetings on the study: February 16, 1978: The purpose of the meeting was to review the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" dated February 90 1978, The Planning Commission: (1) requested changes to the report; (2) asked for the review and recommendations of the C.N.P.C.; and (3) indicated a need for a public hearing in April to consider the approval of the revised report. Januady rl9 1978 The purpose of the meeting was to review the StuSession: recommendations of the C.N.P.C. on the selection of a preferred parking program. The Planning Commission concurred with the recommendations of the C.N.P.C. (The C.N.P.C. recommended that the program as set forth by Wilbur Smith and Associates should be tested for economic feasibility.) January 5, 1978 The purpose of the meeting was to review the Study Session: Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking plan. The Planning Commission deferred action to allow the C.N.P.C. an opportunity to review the Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking plan. December 15, 1977 The purpose of this meeting was to review a letter Stu y Session: report from Wilbur Smith and Associates which outlined in summary form existing parking needs for each sub -area within the Central Newport area. The report further outlined alternative parking strategies. December 1, 1977: The purpose of this public hearing was to review the statistical background report prepared by the consultant, "Draft -- Central Newport Beach Parking Study" dated November 1977. Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility" The revised "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report indicates the recommended parking program, specifies the mechanics of the program and demonstrates the methods necessary for the program's economic feasibility. Recommended Parking Program The recommended parking program involves a change from individual property owner responsibility for providing off-street parking to City responsi- " bility. The program includes the following: (1) An 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttle bus service; (2) Alterations to existing public parking operations and increased parking rates; (3) A residential parking permit program; (4) By 1985, the construction of 200 additional parking spaces in the study area, and 400 additional peripheral parking spaces; and (5) By 1990 the construction of 700 additional parking spaces in the study area. Management Program The consulting firm has recommended that the City establish a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority. The purpose of this action is to develop the parking program in terms of planning, financing, and implementation. The Authority would consist of a Parking Commission assisted by a coordinator and administrative staff responsible for the day -to -date operation of the parking program. The TO: Planning Commission - 3 consultant in the draft report outlines Authority and the management plan (Page indicated that such a program has been jurisdictions and would not necessarily the City of Newport Beach. Economic Feasibility the responsibilities of the s 16 and 17). The consultant used successfully in other require additional personnel Parking has at In terms of the project's economic feasibility the consultant has reviewed parking program development costs and compared these costs with potential parking program revenues. Table 16 (Page 45) of the draft report indicates Cost -Income Summaries for each proposed parking project. This chart indicates that, the individual project's "Coverage Average" ratio ranges from 1.19 to 1.64. A "Coverage Average" is determined by dividing the average annual net income by the annual level of debt service. The consultant has indicated that the projected "Coverage Average" for each project is acceptable for a successful revenue bond financing program.. Compliance with C.E.Q.A. The Central Newport Beach Parking Study is considered to be a feasibility and planning study as described in Section 15072 of the State EIR Guide- lines. This section clarifies that feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board or commission has not approved, adopted or funded do not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, but do require consideration of environmental factors. Since the acceptance or adoption of the parking study is not accompanied by specific proposals (legislation) for funding of the adopted program, the study may still be considered a feasibility and planning document. It should be noted, however, that prior to the funding or implementation of any specific activity contained in the report (not specifically exempted by state law from the requirements of CEQA), further environmental analysis will be necessary along with the preparation of appropriate environmental documents. Staff Analysis In order to facilitate Planning Commission discussion of the "Parking Program Feasibiltiy" draft report, staff has attempted to list below the major issues that have been raised at previous Planning Commission and Central Newport Parking Committee meetings. ISSUES - Recommended Parking Program The change from individual property -owner responsibility for providing off-street parking to City responsibility. The viability of the peripheral parking/shuttle bus strategy; and past opposition to such a system from some residents on the Balboa Peninsula. The location of the north and south Cannery Village parking projects and possible opposition from merchants and/or property owners at these locations. 4. The viability and legality of the recommended residential permit program. - Management Program 1. The willingness of the City to establish a Municipal Parking Authority/ Parking Commission. 2. The responsibilities and liabilities of the City under the revenue bonding financing approach and the sale of revenue bonds allowed under this approach without voter approval. C� J TO: Planning Commission - 4 - Economic Feasibility 1. The consultant's recommendation that the current off-street parking funds ($200,000) be applied to the peripheral parking project development costs and annualized level of debt service. 2. The overall total development costs ($15,716,000) and debt level of service ($1,330,700) of the recommended parking program. General Issues 1. The impact of the elimination of off-street parking requirements and the introduction of the parking program on land use and redevelopment within the study area. 2, The appropriateness of the development intensities permitted by existing zoning without the control inherent in existing code requirements for providing off-street parking. 3. The impact on adjacent areas of the overall recommended parking program. 4. Any latent desire of other residential neighborhoods within the community for a residential parking permit system. 5. The relationship between peripheral parking lots and the shuttle -bus system with commercial areas outside of the study area (Mariner's Mile and Central Balboa). 6. The ability of the City and courts to develop a system for separating fines collected from violations within one specific area of the City. 7. The authority and responsibility of the City to phase development/ redevelopment within the study area inherent in its role of providing off-street parking facilities. B. The loss of general fund revenues from blue meters and parking fines that will occur if the recommended parking program is implemented. 9. The impact of a potential increase in visitor or tourist use of the area as a result of parking programs. If adopted by the City Council, the implementation of the recommended parking program would involve the following: 1. The preparation of a final report from the consultant which would include all previous "draft" and "letter" reports. 2. The establishment of a Municipal Parking Authority by City Ordinance. 3. Contracting with appropriate firms for revenue bond sales and legal counsel. 4. The adoption of changes to the zoning code to permit the integration of the recommended parking program and any desired changes to land use and development intensities. 5. The implementation of the first phase of the recommended parking program, including- - Coordination, design and development of the peripheral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTO. - Alteration of existing parking operations including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fine disposition. Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City - owned facilities. (v i'. 0 163 TO: Planning Commission - 5 - The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. - The design and construction of the south Cannery Village parking project. The implementation of the second phase of the recommended parking program projects based on the effectiveness of phase one projects., Suggested Action Conduct the public hearing, and on the basis of public testimony and Planning Commission. discussion, direct that whatever changes and refinements as the Planning Commission desires be made to the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. Staff suggests further that, if desired, the Planning Commission approve the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report with such changes and refinements as desired and recommend that same be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments: 1) Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study", dated March 10, 1978. 2) Letter from the Central Newport Parking Committee dated March 29, 1978. 3) Letter from the Central Newport Parking Committee to the City Council dated March 27, 1978. 4) Exhibit 1 - Boundaries of the study area. 4 *M $A March 29, 1978 Newport Beach Planning Commission 1300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Commissioners: Tne CNPC conducted a general meeting March 23, 1978 to review the economic feasibility report dated March 10, 1978 prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates on their recommended parking program. The program appears to offer sufficient latitude to cover the myriad of complexities our situation encompasses. it also allows us to attack individual area problems in a systematic fashion with enough flexibility to evaluate and redesign, if necessary, the next step of progression without over -extending our commitment. We believe this type of conservative approach will best serve the community at large. w,: recognize the apprehensions of those who feel the addition of new 1,.rkiny facilities may cor.rributu to the very problem we are attc:n1lat,- �:t1; to solve. The first phase of this program allows us an opportun- ity to test a relatively low cost concept in peripheral parking to be p. omoted primarily for the use of long-term parkers, such as employees. Ti,,s program can only be successful if implemented by the use of r4sidential parking permits and the alteration of existing local park- -!A.g facilities and rates to satisfy the requirement for shortterm pa.,rkers. Since Caltrans intends to sell the land recommended for peripheral parking, we have obtained the permission of the City Council to declare our interest in the property on the basis that the sale be dviayuu until we have the opportunity to initiate and test the program on leased land. Since shuttle bus service will be required, we are hopeful that Caltrans may see a mutual advantage in cooperating with our endeavors. The City Manager's office is currently formulating this approach to be presented formally in the near future. Gl,�iz,atcly it will be necessary to arrange for property. Peripheral parking is not a popular of evils that can be successful and has proven other congested areas. We support a positive this goal. 347U Vw Oporto, Suiw� 205 Nuwport Baach, Cahtorniv 92663 telephone 714/075.8662 the purchase of the concept, but a lesser to be successful in approach in attaining FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE er. i Newport Beach Planning Commission March 29, 1978 Page 2 We also recognize that the additional parking facilities will have to be planned within the Central Newport area. The possibilities suggested by Wilbur Smith & Associates are well worth consideration. These concepts should be analyzed in greater depth as the program develops. The establishment of a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority appears to be the most feasible solution for the implementation of the pro- gram at large. It is our recommendation that this step be taken as soon as possible to insure proper coordination and allow us to pro- ceed expeditiously pending the outcome of the Caltrans property sale. Very truly yours, Milbeth Brey, Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 cP March 27, 1978 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: At the March 23, 1978 general membership meeting of the Central Newport Parking Committee, the Committee met with representatives of Wilbur Smith and Associates to review their draft report, "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study", as requested by the Planning Commission. The draft report recommends a 6-month test of a peripheral parking program utilizing a portion of property currently owned by the California Department of Transportation on West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The C.N.P.C. recognizes that the City Council has previously indicated that the City is not interested in the acquisition of this property. Yet, the Committee feels that until the Planning Commission, City Council, and general public has had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the Wilbur Smith and Associates study and test the peripheral parking program as one part of an overall parking program for the Central Newport Beach area, it would be in the best interest of the community to request Caltrans to postpone its sale of this property, now scheduled for June 1, 1978. Therefore, the Central Newport Parking Committee is asking the City Council to declare an interest in the property without prejudice and ask Caltrans to delay the sale of the property for a reasonable period of time to allow for an adequate review of the Wilbur Smith and Associates report and, if approved, the testing of the peripheral parking concept. We thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Sincerely, Mi et-76 thUrey,Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee MB: FT:jmb 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 FILE COPY Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/67"662 DO NOT REMOVE LEGEND v In summary, the elements of the Recommended Parking Proqram include the following: . 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttle bus service; . Alteration of existing parking operations and increased parking rates; . Residential parking permit program; . By 1985, build 200 additional parking spaces in study area, plus 400 additional peripheral parking; R VI n OW By 1990, build 700 additional spaces in area. SLID p; WIj _;�t STUDY AREA - CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH _ i' EXHIBIT I ` • • will ur Smid and ..Etmodalej CABLE WILSMITH 5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD TELEX 57-3439 nn n/ SUITE 800 OIL Jt,A7 a9.1,j, Call. 90036 PHONE (213) 938.2180 May 23, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan �ulRco �)� eD Director 6 vB°oDv+ Department of Community Development Py `� DL A13 City Hall M o� 3300 Newport Boulevard N� CPG Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: At the April 20, 1978, Planning Commission public hearing, the following questions were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the draft findings of the Central Newport Beach Parking Study: 1. What are some examples of operating peripheral parking shuttle bus services? 2. Where has the residential parking permit program been tested in Southern California? Per your request, we have prepared responses to both ques- tions as related below. E9 Peripheral Parking, Shuttle Bus Programs area: Four such programs worthy of note exist in the Los Angeles 1. Westwood Village - On Friday and Saturdays, a continuous mini -bus shuttle service links the Federal Building parking lot (1,600 spaces) with the Westwood Village commercial district. Parking is free, and mini -bus one-way fares of 10 cents are collected. Transit services are operated by the SCRTD under contract by the City of Los Angeles and the West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. On a typical weekend day, FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE ALLIANCC. OH - BRISBANE - CAMDEN, NJ - COLUMBIA. SC- DENVER -FALLS CHURCH. VA - HONG KONG - HOUSTON - KNOXVILLE - LONDON - LOS ANGELES MCLBOURNE - MIAMI - NEW HAVEN - NEW VORK - PERTH - PITTSBURGH - RICHMOND - SAN FRANCISCO - SINGAPORE-TORONTO - WASHINGTON. OC Mr. R. V. Hogan May 23, 1978• Page 2 over 1,400 parkers use the service. A subsidy is required to cover the full costs of transit service operation, 50 per cent of which is paid by private interests., and .the remainder is paid from Village parking meter revenues. After two years of operation, the service is considered successful and continues to receive funds. 2. Downtown Los Angeles The Downtown,Community Redevelopment Agency is currently developing a major peripheral parking -people mover program for the L.A. CBD. At present.,•the Convention Center parking sturcture: allows all day employee parking at $0.75 per day with SCRTD mini -bus service to the Bunker Hill and Civic Center. This program has successfully operated for several years. 3. Los Angeles International Airport - Approximately 4,000 peripheral parking spaces are operated Tor aili;travelers and for all airport employees, with free shuttle bus services. This ambitious program has operated successfully for over five years. The airport is now planning an automated people mover system to replace crowded bus•,services. 4. Ventura, California - To reduce employee parking in the downtown, Ventura City and County employees were asked to park in a.peripheiral parking structure and use a special'bus shuttle service. Lack of parking controls in the downtown and poor bus service has hampered the success of this program. Residential Permit Programs• The City of Beverly Hills, California, has operated a resi- dential parkinq permit program in the residential areas adjacent to the CBD. The program was originally challenged by local bus- iness interests, and the City dropped the permit program•in order to avoid the expense of a legal confrontation. With the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arlington County, Virginia, a homeowners group persuaded the City Council to re-establish'the permit program. Mr. R. V. Hogan " May 23, 1978 Page 3 The program is operated at no -charge to residents, with enforcement revenues covering all costs..' , While the permit program has recently been proposed in several other areas, an adequate test of the concept in Southern California is not available- The general consensus in areas outside of Cali- fornia where this concept has been tested is that the permit program does accomplish its intended goals without unfunded cost to the City. Very 'truly yours, WILB'tTR SMITH & ASSOCIATES 1go. William E. Hurrell Transportation Engineer WEH:ed illur Smith & Aeeocialej, Jnc. CALIFORNIA 59130 WILSHIRE SOULEVARO . SUITE 29SO LOB ANOELEOI CALIFORNIA 90036 Mr. R. V. Hogan Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Wilbur SmX and Ajiociate.4, Jnc. CABLE WILSMITH TELEX 57.3439 May 23, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr.. Hogan: ., • A vad� -1 �G 5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD QQSUITE 2950 oCoe-Nnyele9� C.C/ 90036 PHONE (213) 93812188 RCoe nlmunit vEp 1 Dept, t MAY24 19781h. CITY OF NEW"ORT BEACH CALIF. The Orange County Transit District has reviewed our Draft Report, Parking P-rogram Feasibility Study - Central Newport Beach. Their letter of April 18., 1978 raises several questions relative to the peripheral parking shuttle bus service proposal presented in our report. 1. Parking-arid'Rider6hip Demand Forecast The letter requests more detail relative to the rider- ship demand estimates. The basis for the ridership demand estimates is presented in our draft report, Parking Study, Central Newport Beach of November, 1977, which should be transmitted to OCTD. We have always assumed that employees would be the primary market for peripheral parking, and that beachgoers would provide a secondary (highly seasonal) market. Daily employee parking demands currently total 4,100 parkers. The employee's choice to use peripheral parking would be based on several factors: . Cost and availability of parking in Central Newport, . The quality of shuttle service to Central Newport, . Cost of peripheral parking plus transit fares, Comparative travel times for peripheral parking vs. conventional parking in Central Newport. A simple model which measures the influence of these factors on the magnitude�of peripheral :parking: demand, was. -utilized. FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE ALLIANCE,OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON- BRISBANE-COLUMBIA, SC-DALLAS -FALLS CHURCH, VA -HONG KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLE-LONDON-LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI-NEW HAVEN -NEW YORK-PHILADELPHIA-RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE-TORONTO-WASHINGTON, OC-WINSTON-SALEM Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director May 23, 1978 Page 2 This model has been used quite successfully in Westwood Village and Downtown Los Angeles to estimate demands, which were later validated by actual experience. Estimated employee demands were 800, peripheral packers per day based on the service conditions defined in our Feasibility Report (Page 19) and the parking disin- centives proposed in Central Newport, (Fee Increases and Permit Program); 800 employee packers at a 1.25 auto occupancy (persons per vehicle) converts to 2,000 daily one-way transit trips.. During the summer months beachgoer activity would increase this figure to 2,600 passengers per day. During the winter months peak hour ridership would be approximately 300 riders one=way. The 10 minute frequency service proposed will be adequate to serve this demand. 2. Parking Fee in the - Peninsula OCTD suggests that parking disincentives throughout the Peninsula are necessary to make the program work. As the program keys on employee parking,_ however, disincentives are only necessary where employees currently park, namely Central Newport. Other areas of the Peninsula where employees might park are well beyond a reasonable walking distance from the Central Newport business district. 3. Remote Parking Lot OCTD concerns about use of the Caltrans property and access requirements are valid considerations which must be negotiated with Caltrans, OCTD,, and other involved interests. None of these concerns-, however is significant enough to discount the feasibility of of this program at this early stage.- 4. Shuttle -System our -report did not intend to indicate the full impact of shuttle system operation on total transit ridership. The convenient shuttle system on the Peninsula should Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director May 23, 1978 Page 3 attract new local ridership. Access by transit to the Peninsula would be complicated by the need to transfer. The high frequency of the shuttle service, however, should reduce any adverse impacts generated by a forced transfer. 5. Fares The proposed 10 cent shuttle fare is in conflict wllth,� the District's $.25 base fare policy. Our intent was to provide parkers with low cost transit service, and any fare collection technique which accomplishes this goal is acceptable. Traditional,ly;LoheweverVrtivaasit fares for shuttle services are lower than for line haul transit travel, and charging a low fare for all local shuttle traffic is a desirable consideration. In summary, we continue to recommend that shuttle service peripheral parking be tested in Central Newport. We trust that this service could be provided in a manner which benefits both the City and OCTD, as well as area parkers and transit users. Very truly yours, WILBUR SS,MIITH & ASSOCIAT S William E. Hurrell Transportation Engineer WEH:dk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 May 12, 1978 Mr. Ron North c/o Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2950 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Ron: Pursuant to our discussion of May 11, 1978, I have enclosed a copy of my draft staff report and a Supplemental Information Report. Both will be presented to the Planning Commission at its June 1, 1978 meeting. I would appreciate it if you would do the following: 1 2. 3. Review the information presented in the draft Supplemental Information Report for accuracy. Prepare a letter responding to the questions dealing with: a) Beverly Hills - "Residential Permit Program" b) Westwood - "Shuttle Bus System" Prepare a response to the Orange County Transit District's letter of April 18, 1978, focusing on each major point (i.e., patronage). 4. Prepare a separate letter to addressing all issues raised April 10, 1978. the attention of myself and Bill.Darnell, by Bill Darnell at our meeting of I will appreciate your quick response to the above issues. I would appreciate receiving the above information no later than May 19, 1978. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By Fre Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • PAINE 0~ WEBBER JACKSON & CU.RTIS INCORPORATED Established 1879 Members New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and other Principal Exchanges 555 South Flower Street, P.O. Box 30190 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90030 May 12, 1978 Mr. Fred Talarico, Senior Planner Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: (213) 972-3511 I enjoyed meeting with you last Wednesday to discuss the City's parking program and possible financing alternatives. Upon returning to my office I discussed the situation with Mr. John C. Fitzgerald, Vice President of our West Coast Public Finance Department, and he concurred with our findings. That is, the most feasible alternative to finance the City's parking program would be to form a Parking Authority to issue lease revenue bonds. The revenues generated by the parking program would pay the debt service on the bonds and the lease with the City would act as added security. Of course, no vote by the people would be needed to issue these bonds. If we can be of any help to you, or answer any further questions before the Commission meeting on June 1, please give me a call. Also, con- gratulations again on your future family member. Sincer ly, -fin Ken Ough Associate, KO/bg Finance RECEIVED �1 Community Development oept. MAY ].b 1978► CITY of CH, HE`NPof t'f BEA F� C*Y OF NEWPORT BEOCH �'�'s/ COUNCILMEN yG y *� 1t y� 'ABC, 9 C�R �j�PROLL CALL J May 8, 1978 MINUTES INDEX (2) Proposed annexation to Costa Mesa Sanitary District designated Engineer's No. 176 Annexation located southerly of n ower Avenue and easterly of Fairview Road in' -the City of Costa Mesa. (g) Removed from the Consent Ca (h) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors meetings of April 25, 26, May 2 and 3, 1978. (20) (i.) A letter from the Orange County Transit' r or f ling District regarding possible purchase of the teferred t0 Cl Y ec r 5 property on Coast Highway between Superior and inclusion 1 wport Boulevard wi£h resp ect to Avenue and Ne ` issues t'haE s�oul8`6e invesEigated and stating that the Districe does not anticipate making any contribution to'wardthe acgnisition of-tlie property'at this time. (Attached) (2745) 5. The following claims were denied and the City Claims Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Claim of William Robert Mudge for property dge damage to his 1972 Audi on January 11, 1978 (2937) cle collided when a Newport Beach Poli/eing with his automobile on 16et and Irvin Avenue. (b) Claim of Darush Farshid frty da age Farshid to his motor vehicle on A1978 hen he (2938) collided with another autat he intersection of Neptune S51st Street allegedly due to teingobstructed by overhangings of a Citytree. (c) Claim of Mrs. Robert E. or property Hopper damage to the apartmen building which they (2939) manage at 328 Margue to Avenue when a window was broken b/aCi trash collector while he was throwingto the truck on April 13,1978. (d) Claim of RayGlad for false arrest, Glad d battery and improper detention (2940) rred when the Newport Beach Police arrested him for disorderly /Deparent d being intoxicated in a public pril 13, 1978. 6. The®s referral of the following Summons d Complaints to the insurance carrier was nfirmed: /(a) Summons and Complaint of Phillip Jasieniecke Jasieniecke for personal injuries, Case No. 28-81-38 in 2790) the Orange County Superior Court. The �p original claim was for damages to his Volume 32 - Page 107 rs r • ® � am. rv, a � INU U'U'PY, DO NOT REMOVE CRY OF NEWPORT BE*H COUNCILMEN MINUTES o y � ROLL CALL �9�u'N Nay 8, 1978 INDEX automobile when it was involved in a colli- sion allegedly due to a malfunctioning traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Avenue. (b) Summons and Complaint of Peter Angus Gordon Gordon for damages, Case No. 77-6649 RF in the (2692) United States District Court. The original claim alleged that the City of Newport Beach was a contributing factor in his arrests at Santa Barbara and San Diego. (c) Summons and Complaint of Richard Neal Eaton Eaton S and Ray Charles Randel for the return of Randal personal property, ancillary money recovery (2941) for wrongful disposition and dissipation of seized property, and for extraordinary, injunctive and declaratory relief, Case No. 28-6942 in the Orange County Superior Court. An original claim was never filed with the City. 7, he following request to fill personnel vacancies a approved: (A report from the City Manager) (1203F) (a) One Laborer position in the General Services epartment to fill a position to be vacant. (b) 0 Refuse Crewman in the General Services Dep rtment to fill a position to be vacant. (c) One S retary position in the Community Develo nt Department to fill a position to be vacs 8. The following s aff report was received and Orange Co ordered filed: Airport Growth (a) A report from he City Attorney regarding Control Airport Noise naultant (John Parnell). (2853) 9. There were no public h rings scheduled. 10. The public improvements natructed in conjunction Tract 8444 with Tract No. 8444, locat d on the southeasterly corner of Ford and Jamboree oads, were accepted; and the City Clerk was autho zed to release the surety for faithful perfotman , and to release the surety for labor and meter is in six months provided no claims have been fil d. (A report from the Public Works Department) 11. The public improvements constructed n conjunction Resub 531 with Parcel 2, Resubdivison No. 531, ocated on (2551) the southwesterly side of Quail Stree between Spruce Avenue and Dove Street in Newpor Place, were accepted; and the City Clerk was au orized to transfer the surety for Parcel 2 to th surety for Parcel 1 and to release the surety for steel 1 in six months, provided no claims have be filed. (A report from the Public Works Depar ment Volume 32 - Page 108 �:.---A . • JAMES P. REICHERT General Manager April 27, 197,8 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT The Honorable Paul Ryckoff City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Ryckoff: R - // (-U) vt%sI v 'X M�pY 3 m C�1y MaM� BeK� I am writing in response to former Mayor Dostal's letter of March 28, 1978, in which he inquired about any interest that the CCTD might have in a 22—acre parcel on Pacific Coast Highway, just westerly of Newport Boulevard. • District staff has reviewed the draft Parking Program Feasibility Study prepared by Wilbur Smith 6 Associates for Central Newport Beach. In that study report, it is proposed that a portion of the lot be utilized as a remote parking facility to help alleviate the problems of parking and traffic congestion that currently exist within the peninsula area. Our comments on the parking program report have been forwarded to Mr. R. V. Hogan (copy of letter attached). We have reviewed your request and have outlined several issues that should receive attention prior to making a commitment on the part of the District: • The parking demand and bus ridership projections at the remote parking lot. • The feasibility of rerouting and rescheduling of the District's existing services to serve the lot. • The feasibility and financing of a separate shuttle system. • The City's parking pricing policy and commitment to improving the lot for bus access. 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • PHONE 1714) 834.6190 r The Honorable Paul Ryckoff April 27, 1978 Page Two The District staff is currently working with your staff in exploring • alternative ways of serving this remote parking lot. We would support your pursuit of a long-term lease or donation with Caltrans, but we don't anticipate making a financial contribution toward the acquisition of the property at this time. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Robert C. Hartwig, Manager of Planning, at 834-6190. Sincerely, James P. Reichert General Manager JPR.GMY cc Robert Wynn, City Manager City of Newport Beach Qom`' 3 • JAMES P. REICHERT General Manager April 18, 1978 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT The Honorable Milan M. Dostal City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Dostal: I am writing in response to your letter of March 28, 1978, in which you inquired about any possible interest that the OCTD might have in a 22-acre parcel on Pacific Coast Highway, just westerly of Newport Boulevard. • Closely related to this matter, OCTD staff has reviewed the draft Parking Program Feasibility Study prepared by Wilbur Smith 6 Associates for Cen- tral Newport Beach. In that study report, it is proposed that a portion of the lot be utilized as a remote parking facility to help alleviate the problems of parking and traffic congestion that currently exist within the peninsula area. Although the District supports such a concept, it does not, at this time, anticipate making any financial contribution toward the acquisition of the subject property inasmuch as the lot is primarily to be .used by the City for remote parking purposes. The District, however, would support your pursuit for a long-term lease or donation arrangement with CALTRANS. The District staff is currently working with your staff in exploring alternative ways of serving this remote parking lot. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me or Mr. Robert C. Hartwig, Manager of Planning, at 834-6190. Sincerely, • James P. Reichert General Manager JPR:GMT cc Robert Wynn, City Manager City of Newport Beach 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET - P.O. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714) 834-6190 Newport Ensign Shopper April 27,1978 Page 3 Parking Mess To Get Another Airing June 1 Plans for expanding off-street parking in Central Newport will be ing three parking structures, changing some metered lots to, refined by city officials and studied on June 1 by the Planning attended lots, and raising parking meter fees. The consultant, Wilbur again Commission. Commissioners held hearing last Thursday on Smith and Associates, also rec- 'ommended that a parking authority a public the parking plan, but made no de- cisions, other than to instruct city or similar agency be created to issue revenue bonds, thus raising Community Development Director Richard Hogan to come back Iune money to finance the plan. Hogan's June 1 report is expect- 1 With several alternative plans. ad to include alternative financing Hogan's alternatives will be built around a consultant's recom- methods. A city parking committee, made mendations, which include build- up of business, church arid property have been owner representatives, meeting for several months to help resolve parking problems in Cen- tral Newport and Cannery Village. FILE C®PY DO NOT REMOVE COMMISSIONERS ti 0 • City of Newport Beach A ri 1 20 iI�" 41 1 � 1 DO NOT REMOVE MINUTES q L CALL INDEX Request to approve a Final Map to subdivide 13.648 acres into thirty-seven numbered lots for residen- tial development, one numbered lot for park pur- poses, and two lettered lots for streets. Item #3 FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 9860 Location: Portions of Blocks 91, 92, 97 and 98 of Irvine's Subdivision, in an area bounded by the existing "Spyglass Hill" development, the APPROVED CONDI- TIONALLY "Bren III" development, Broadmoor Seaview, San Miguel Drive, and the San Joaquin Reservoir site. This is a portion of Tentative Tract No. 8725 - Sector IV of Harbor View Hills, known as "Harbor Ridge." Zone: P-C Applicant: a Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same s Applicant Engineer: Simpson- eppat, Newport Beach Motion All Ayes X Motion was made that Planni Commission recommend to the City Council the appro al of Final Map of Tract No. 9860, subject to the ollowing condi-. tions: 1. That all applicable conditions approval for the Tentative map of Tract No. 8725 shall be fulfilled. 2. That the City of Newport Beach shall be party to the map. 3. That the City of Newport Beach shall accept a corporation grant deed from the Irvine Company for Lot 38 of the Final Map of Tract No. 9860 for park and landscaping purposes. Request to consider the approval of the draft Item #4 CENTRAL EFIWPORT report on "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area." PARKING Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach US�DT— CONT. TO Page 3. JUNE COMMISSIONERS tp�' (�'f`1j'Rj, �► r�i City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES M L OALL Community Development Director Hogan advised then were many things contained in the report which would take substantial consideration by the Plan- ning Commission and that a viable program would be prepared as a result of the public hearings ar following direction to the staff by the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Talarico appeared before the Commission to comment on meetings and correspond- ence between the City and the Orange County Trans District with respect to a shuttle bus service, William Hurrell with Wilbur Smith and Associates a`p eared before the Commission and reviewed the drift report of the Parking Program Feasibility for,�he Central Newport Beach Parking Study area. He brought the Commission up to date on previous events\and reviewed their findings and recommenda tions c 4 tained in the report which included an 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttl bus service; alterations to existing public parki operations and increased parking rates; a resider tial parking,,permit program; the construction of 200 additional\parking spaces in the study area a 400 additional peripheral parking spaces by 1985; the construction\of an additional 700 parking spaces in the study area by 1990; and establish- ment of a Central NFwport Beach Parking Authority for the purpose of planning, financing, implement ing and operating the`,parking program. Followinc review, Mr. Hurrell answered questions of the Commission which inciuAd feasibility and partici pation of a parking facility, method of financinc income and operating cost!S, involvement of privat industry in the development',of parking facilities feasibility/success of the st{uttle bus service, residential permit program, a d additional traffi generation created by the addi tonal parking. Public hearing was opened in confection with this matter. Nuri Nazar, resident of Beverly Hil� , appeared before the Commission and advised of kris interest to purchase the property on the north Ode of West Coast Highway at Newport Boulevar presently owned by Cal Trans and his willingness t coopera with the City with respect to its develop ent. Page 4. ,e El e ,nd f ;e c to IMAax 0 0 COMMISSIONERS t\_ S v City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES MOLL CALL Community Development Director Hogan advised ther were many things contained in the report which would take substantial consideration by the Plan- ning Commission and that a viable program would be prepared as a result of the public hearings ar following direction to the staff by the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Talarico appeared before the Commission to comment on meetings and correspond- ence between the City and the Orange County Trans District with respect to a shuttle bus service. William Hurrell with Wilbur Smith and Associates appeared before the Commission and reviewed the draft report of the Parking Program Feasibility for the Central Newport Beach Parking Study area. He brought the Commission up to date on previous events and reviewed their findings and recommenda tions contained in the report which included an 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttl bus service; alterations to existing public parki operations and increased parking rates; a residen tial parking permit program; the construction of 200 additional parking spaces in the study area 400 additional peripheral parking spaces by 1985; the construction of an additional 700 parking spaces in the study area by 1990; and establish- ment of a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority for the purpose of planning, financing, implement ing and operating the parking program. Following review, Mr. Hurrell answered questions of the Commission which included feasibility and partici pation of a parking facility, method of financing income and operating costs, involvement of privat industry in the development of parking facilities feasibility/success of the shuttle bus service, residential permit program, and additional traffi generation created by the additional parking. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Nuri Nazar, resident of Beverly Hills, appeared before the Commission and advised of his interest to purchase the property on the north side of West Coast Highway at Newport Boulevard presently owned by Cal Trans and his willingness to coopera with the City with respect to its development. Page 4. e and INCKX Ll 67 COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach \ en,.41 9n 1a7Q Motion All Ayes MINUTES Request to approve a Final Map to subdivide 13.64 acres into thirty-seven numbered lots for residen tial development, one numbered lot for park pur- poses, and two lettered lots for streets. Location: portions of Blocks 91, 92, 97 and 98 of Irvine's Subdivision, in an area bounded by the existing "Spyglass Hill" development, the "Bren III" development, Broadmoor Seaview, San Miguel Drive, and the San Joaquin Reservoir site. This is a portion of Tentative Tract No 8725 - Sector IV of Harbor View Hills, known as "Harbor Ridge." Zone: P-C Irvine Company, Newport Beach Applican\made Owner:e as Applicant Engineerpson-Steppat, Newport Beach X Motion wat Planning Commission recommen to the City CounciN the approval of Final Map of Tract No. 98609 Sub 'ect to the following condi- tions: 1. That all applicabl' conditions of approval for the Tentative m of Tract No. 8725 shall be fulfilled. 2. That the City of Newpo Beach shall be a party to the map. 3. That the City of Newport 8 ch shall accept a corporation grant deed fr the Irvine Company for Lot 38 of the Fi 1 Map of Tract No. 9860 for park and 1 ndscap ng purposes. Request to consider the approval of the draft report on "Parking Program Feasibility" f the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area," Initiated by! The City of Newport Beach Page 3. INDWX 81 Item #3 FINATRACT L MAP 9860r APPROVED COMMISSIONERS vcO,00�,�4 9 ti 0 City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES ROLL CALL Margot Skilling, West Newport, appeared before the Commission to comment on the draft report and voiced concern and opposition to any development at Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard which woul further impact traffic along Coast Highway, voice concern with the size of a structure which would hold 800 cars and its incompatibility with the village atmosphere of Newport Beach, and voiced concern with the number of people which use the beaches in excess of the mandated beach capacity levels. John Shea, 2214 West Oceanfront appeared before the Commission and voiced concern with the impact on parking and circulation created by any promoti of increased activities in the area and questione the impact of the proposed parking program on the Specific Area Plans which are being developed for McFadden Square and Cannery Village areas. Pat Strang, 351 Catalina Drive, appeared before the Commissionaand voiced concern with the propos parking structure because of the impact of additi al traffic, increased pollution, and additional on -street parking in the area when the structure is full. Milbeth Brey, 3355 Via Lido, appeared before the Commission both as a representative of the Centra Newport Parking Committee and as an individual, t comment on the study and felt that any action tak on the recommendation was a positive step in the direction to a solution and that no action would only assure failure to solving the problems. She recommended the establishment of a parking author in order to implement each of the steps in a progressive manner without over -committing ourselves. Bob Inch, Manager of the Via Lido Village, appear before the Commission and advised of their cooper tion with respect to use of the peripheral parkin by their tenants and employees which would free u some of the parking in the area. A. Gadarian of Blacky's Boatyard, appeared before the Commission to comment on the parking study. Dick Kent with Sham -Kent Architects, 501 31st Street, appeared before the Commission in support Page 5. INCax 0 COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES A L CALL of the parking program and felt it was a step in the right direction and doing nothing would only perpetuate existing problems. Planning Commission pointed out the following issues which they felt should be considered: 1. Greater reliance on private development in order to reduce the bond liability which could face the city; 2. What direction the focal point of the area would take, i.e. commercial over residential should the proposed program be implemented; and 3. Use of the beach facilities by people outsid he city. Motion X Followin4 discussion, motion was made to continue All Ayes this matter to the meeting of June 1, 1978. r Planning Commi Sion recessed at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9 9n P.M. Request to consider j amendment to Title 20 of Newport Beach Municipal, Code establishing regula- tions for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edg of bluffs, and other deve'Tent standards. Initiated by: The City of "W10 rt Beach Advance Planning AdministratorrDmohowski reviewed the proposed ordinance with the\Planning Commissi as well as suggested revisions tb the wording as result of general input from the �ublic and dis- cussion with the staff and City At% rney pertain- ing to the safety aspects and refer to the P.R.D. Commissioner Balalis felt that the ord i)ance as written was too open and that specific directives or design criteria should be incorporated into th ordinance such as minimum setbacks. Page 6. '4 Imaux theIItem #5 AMENDMENT e I RO507 on a e COMMISSIONERS p 9 z City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES INO XX NOLL CALL of the parking program and felt it was a step in the right direction and doing nothing would only perpetuate existing problems. Planning Commission pointed out the following issues which they felt should be considered: 1. Greater reliance on private development in order to reduce the bond liability which could face the city; 2. What direction the focal point of the area would take, i.e. commercial over residential, should the proposed program be implemented; and 3. Use of the beach facilities by people outside the city. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made to continue All Ayes this matter to the meeting of June 1, 1978. Planning Commission recessed at 9:10 P.M. and reconvened at 9:20 P.M. Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Item #5 Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regula- ions for developments located on or adjacent to AMENDMENT NU. 577 b fs, to include building setbacks from the edge of b ffs, and other development standards. CONT. TO Initiated The City of Newport Beach Advance Planni Administrator Dmohowski reviewed the proposed ordi nce with the Planning Commission as well as suggeste evisions to the wording as a result of general inpu from the public and dis- cussion with the staff an City Attorney pertain- ing to the safety aspects a reference to the P.R.D. Commissioner Balalis felt that the dinance as written was -too open and that specific irectives or design criteria should be incorporate into the ordinance such as minimum setbacks. Page 6. COMMISSIONERS p� 7 0 City of Newport Beach April 20, 1978 MINUTES N LL GALL Margot Skilling, West Newport, appeared before the Commission to comment on the draft report and voiced concern and opposition to any development at Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard which woul further impact traffic along Coast Highway, voice concern with the size of a structure which would hold 800 cars and its incompatibility with the village atmosphere of Newport Beach, and voiced concern with the number of people which use the beaches in excess of the mandated beach capacity levels. John Shea, 2214 West Oceanfront appeared before he Commission and voiced concern with the impact o parking and circulation created by any promoti of ncreased activities in the area and questione the mpact of the proposed parking program on the Speci is Area Plans which are being developed for McFadd Square and Cannery Village areas. Pat Stran 351 Catalina Drive, appeared before the Commis ona and voiced concern with the propos parking stru ture because of the impact of additi al traffic, i reased pollution, and additional on -street parks g in the area when the structure is full. Milbeth Brey, 3355 is Lido, appeared before the Commission both as a representative of the Centra Newport Parking Commi tee and as an individual, t comment on the study a felt that any action tak on the recommendation wa a positive step in the direction to a solution a d that no action would only assure failure to sol ing the problems. She recommended the establishme of a parking author in order to implement each o the steps in a progressive manner without ove -committing ourselves. Bob Inch, Manager of the Via Lido illage, appear before the Commission and advised oXtheir cooper tion with respect to use of the peri eral parkin by their tenants and employees which uld free u some of the parking in the area. A. Gadarian of Blacky's Boatyard, appeare before the Commission to comment on the parking s udy. Dick Kent with Sham -Kent Architects, 501 31s Street, appeared before the Commission in sup ort Page 5. en a- INbtX 6 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PARKING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE CENTRAL NEWPORT AREA - DRAFT REPORT ON PARKING PROGRAM FEASIBILITY. Date: April 20, 1978 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: City Hall - City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California This notice is to inform you that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport area - Draft Report "Parking Program Feasibility", dated March 10, 1978, which was prepared by Wilbur Smi.th and Associates, consultants for the City of NewportBeach,at its April 20, 1978 meeting. This study has been prepared for includes all commercial and some the Arches Bridge and 19th Street area included in this project is notice. the Newport Beach City Council and residential properties between in the Central Newport area. The shown on the reverse side of this The key elements of the study have been: 1) An assessment of existing and future parking needs; 2) The preparation and evaluation of alternative parking development concepts; and 3) The selection of a preferred parking development concept. The draft report "Parking Program Feasibiltiy" evaluates the economic feasibility of the selected parking concept. For further information, feel free to contact Fred Talarico at (714) 640-2261. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT V R V. Hog iy6ctor R V H : F T----jm b 000 d FlU OUPT DO NOT REMOVE City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 t-, 0 {; �__ e STUDY AREA CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH n LEGEND In summary, the elements of the Recommended Parking Proqram include the following: • 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttle bus service; . Alteration of existing parking operations and increased parking rates; • Residential parking permit program; . By 1985, build 200 additional parking spaces in study area, plus 400 additional peripheral parking; ' By 1990, build 700 additional spaces in area. .> t �LtD Et1CINSU ._. 7 / r� ':�r BAYFONT '' -� n 0 THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - 4120178 Off -Street Parking Plan Will Be Aired Tonight An ambitious plan to build three will include a report by the Wilbur public parking structures in Cen- Smith and Associates firm, hired tral Newport and another near the by the city to do a study of the Arches to relieve Old Newport's parking mess. parking problems will be publicly Included in the Smith report is a reviewed tonight, Thursday, by proposal that a formal parking the Newport Beach Planning authority be created. The, Commission. authority would be empowered to The 7 p.m. meeting at City Hall (Continued on page 2) Newport Beach Parking Plans (Continued from page 1) leased as a recreational vehicle I issue revenue bonds to raise parking lot. A shuttle bus would money for building the off-street carry beachgoers and Central parking facilities. Newport employees to their There is also a suggestion that destinations. some metered parking lots be Other parking structures would converted to attendant lots, and be built at 31st and Lafayette in that residents be issued "residen- Cannery Village, at Balboa and tial parking permits" that would Newport (now a metered lot) and' allow them to park on city streets in an area bordered by Newport, around the clock. Other motorists 28th, Villa Way and 26th streets. would be restricted to a one -hour Revenue bonds do not require parking limit on Central Newport the approval of voters. If the City, streets. Council okays the bonding A parking structure would be proposal, the parking authority built on Coast Hwy. just west of would sell the bonds and would the Arches, on state-owned land pay them off with parking now leased to the city and sub- revenues. k- • Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1978 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider approval of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area", prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. At the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" dated February 9, 1978 prepared for the City Council by Wilbur Smith and Associates. The Planning Commission directed that: (1) the consultant and staff revise certain portions of the draft report; (2) the draft report, as revised, be submitted to the Central Newport Parking Committee for its review and recommendations; and (3) a public hearing to consider the adoption of the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report be scheduled in April 1978. Since the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1978, Wilbur Smith and Associates has submitted a revised draft report (dated March 10, 1978, attached), and the Central Newport Parking Committee has met to review this revised report and has made recommendations (letter attached). Central Newport Parking Committee The Central Newport Parking Committee, at its general membership meeting on March 23, 1978, met with a representative of Wilbur Smith and Associates to discuss and review the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. As indicated in its attached letter, the C.N.P.C. has recommended that the Planning Commission approve the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. The letter indicates that, in the opinion of the C.N.P.C., the program offers the City a wide range of opportunities to solve the parking problems in the Central Newport Beach area. The letter further indicates that the program allows for a logical progression of parking development without overextension of financial commitment. Additionally, at the March 23, 1978 meeting, the C.N.P.C. indicated a concern for sale of the Caltran's property between Superior Boulevard and Newport Boulevard on Coast Highway currently scheduled for June 1, 1978. The C.N.P.C. directed its chairman to request that the City Council declare an interest in the property without prejudice and ask Caltrans to delay the sale of the property for a reasonable period of time. It was tts opinion that this action was necessary to allow for an adequate review of the Wilbur Smith and Associates report and the testing of the peripheral parking concept (letter attached). The draft report recommends a six- month test program of the peripheral parking concept using a portion of this site. At the March 24, 1978 meeting the City Council authorized sending a letter requesting Caltrans to delay sale of the property. Background - Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study - Central Newport Area. The study area includes all commercial and some residential properties between the Arches' Bridge and 19th Street in the Central Newport Beach area. The exact boundaries of the study area are indicated on Exhibit attached to this report. TO: Planning Commission - 2 The key elements of the study to date have been: (1) An assessment of existing and future parking needs; (2) The preparation and evaluation of alternative parking development concepts; and (3) The selection of the preferred parking alternative. Attached to this report is the consultant's revised draft report "Parking Program Feasibility". Subsequent reports will deal with the implementation of the parking finance program and the design and construction of specific parking facilities. Since the inception of the "Central Newport Parking Study", the Planning Commission has held the following meetings on the study: February 16, 1978: The purpose of the meeting was to review the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" dated February 9, 1978, The Planning Commission: (1) requested changes to the report; (2) asked for the review and recommendations of the C.N.P.C.; and (3) indicated a need for a public hearing in April to consider the approval of the revised report. January 19 1978 The purpose of the meeting was to review the Study SesS105. — recommendations of the C.N.P.C. on the selection of a preferred parking program. The Planning Commission concurred with the recommendations of the C.N.P.C. (The C.N.P.C. recommended that the program as set forth by Wilbur Smith and Associates should be tested for economic feasibility.) January 5, 1978 The purpose of the meeting was to review the Study Session: Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking plan. The Planning Commission deferred action to allow the C.N.P.C. an opportunity to review the Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking plan. December 15, 1977 The purpose of this meeting was to review a letter Stu y ession: report from Wilbur Smith and Associates which outlined in summary form existing parking needs for each sub -area within the Central Newport area. The report further outlined alternative parking strategies. December 1, 1977: The purpose of this public hearing was to review the statistical background report prepared by the consultant, "Draft -- Central Newport Beach Parking Study" dated November 1977. Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility" The revised "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report indicates the recommended parking program, specifies the mechanics of the program and demonstrates the methods necessary for the program's economic feasibility. Recommended Parking Program The recommended parking program involves a change from individual property owner responsibility for providing off-street parking to City responsi- bility. The program includes the following: (1) An 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttle bus service; (2) Alterations to existing public parking operations and increased parking rates; (3) A residential parking permit program; (4) By 1985, the construction of 200 additional parking spaces in the study area, and 400 additional peripheral parking spaces; and (5) By 1990 the construction of 700 additional parking spaces in the study area. Management Program The consulting firm has recommended that the City establish a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority. The purpose of this action is to develop the parking program in terms of planning, financing, and implementation. The Authority would consist of a Parking Commission assisted by a coordinator and administrative staff responsible for the day -to -date operation of the parking program. The TO: Planning Commission - 3 consultant in the draft report outlines Authority and the management plan (Page indicated that such a program has been jurisdictions and would not necessarily the City of Newport Beach. Economic Feasibility the responsibilities of the s 16 and 17). The consultant used successfully in other require additional personnel Parking has at In terms of the project's economic feasibility the consultant has reviewed parking program development costs and compared these costs with potential parking program revenues. Table 16 (Page 45) of the draft report indicates Cost -Income Summaries for each proposed parking project. This chart indicates that' the individual project's "Coverage Average" ratio ranges from 1.19 to 1.64. A "Coverage Average" is determined by dividing the average annual net income by the annual level of debt service. The consultant has indicated that the projected "Coverage Average" for each project is acceptable for a successful revenue bond financing program.. Compliance with C.E.Q.A. The Central Newport Beach Parking Study is considered to be a feasibility and planning study as described in Section 15072 of the State EIR Guide- lines. This section clarifies that feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board or commission has not approved, adopted or funded do not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, but do require consideration of environmental factors. Since the acceptance or adoption of the parking study is not accompanied by specific proposals (legislation) for funding of the adopted program, the study may still be considered a feasibility and planning document. It should be noted, however, that prior to the funding or implementation of any specific activity contained in the report (not specifically exempted by state law from the requirements of CEQA), further environmental analysis will be necessary along with the preparation of appropriate environmental documents. Staff Analysis In order to facilitate Planning Commission discussion of the "Parking Program Feasibiltiy" draft report, staff has attempted to list below the major issues that have been raised at previous Planning Commission and Central Newport Parking Committee meetings. ISSUES - Recommended Parking Program The change from individual property -owner responsibility for providing off-street parking to City responsibility. The viability of the peripheral parking/shuttle bus strategy; and past opposition to such a system from some residents on the Balboa Peninsula. The location of the north and south Cannery Village parking projects and possible opposition from merchants and/or property owners at these locations. The viability and legality of the recommended residential permit program. - Management Program The willingness of the City to establish a Municipal Parking Authority/ Parking Commission. The responsibilities and liabilities of the City under the revenue bonding financing approach and the s-ale of revenue bonds allowed under this approach without voter approval. TO: planning Commission - 4 - Economic Feasibility 1. The consultant's recommendation that the current off-street parking funds ($200,000) be applied to the peripheral parking project development costs and annualized level of debt service. 2. The overall total development costs ($15,716,000) and debt level of service ($1,330,700) of the recommended parking program. General Issues 1. The impact of the elimination of off-street parking requirements and the introduction of the parking program on land use and redevelopment within the study area. 2. The appropriateness of the development intensities permitted by existing zoning without the control inherent in existing code requirements for providing off-street parking. 3. The impact on adjacent areas of the overact recommended parking program. 4. Any latent desire of other residential neighborhoods within the community for a residential parking permit system. 5. The relationship between peripheral parking lots and the shuttle -bus system with commercial areas outside of the study area (Mariner's Mite and Central Balboa). 6. The ability of the City and courts to develop a system for separating fines collected from violations within one specific area of the City. 7. The authority and responsibility of the City to phase development/ redevelopment within the study area inherent in its role of providing off-street parking facilities. 8. The loss of general fund revenues from blue meters and parking fines that will occur if the recommended parking program is implemented. 9. The impact of a potential increase in visitor or tourist use of the area as a result of parking programs. If adopted by the City Council, the implementation of the recommended parking program would involve the following: 1. The preparation of a final report from the consultant which would Include all previous "draft" and "letter" reports. 2. The establishment of a Municipal Parking Authority by City Ordinance. 3. Contracting with appropriate firms for revenue bond sales and legal counsel. 4. The adoption of changes to the zoning code to permit the integration of the recommended parking program and any desired changes to land use and development intensities. 5. The implementation of the first phase of the recommended parking program, including: - Coordination, design and development of the peripheral parking facility and shuttle bus system with OCTD. - Alteration of existing parking operations including parking rate increases, meter installation and removal, off-street parking operations, meter collection procedures, and parking fi-ne disposition. - Establishing administrative procedures for the parking validation program in commercial areas for existing and future City - owned facilities. . Yam+ • • TO: Planning Commission - 5 - The implementation of the Residential Parking Permit Program. - The design and construction of the south Cannery Village parking project. The implementation of the second phase of the recommended parking program projects based on the effectiveness of phase one projects. Suggested Action Conduct the public hearing, and on the basis of public testimony and Planning Commission. discussion, direct that whatever changes and refinements as the Planning Commission desires be made to the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report. Staff suggests further that, if desired, the Planning Commission approve the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report with such changes and refinements as desired and recommend that same be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V.. Hogan, Director Byi�/VQ��i/1� Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments: 1) Draft Report - "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study", dated March 10, 1978. 2) Letter from the Central Newport Parking Committee dated March 29, 1978. 3) Letter from the Central Newport Parking Committee to the City Council dated March 27,, 1978. 4) Exhibit 1 - Boundaries of the study area. i� March 29, 1978 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Commissioners: The CNPC conducted a general meeting March 23, 1978 to review the economic feasibility report dated March 10, 1978 prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates on their recommended parking program. The program appears to offer sufficient latitude to cover the myriad of complexities our situation encompasses. it also allows us to uttack individual area problems in a systematic fashion with enough flexibility to evaluate and redesign, if necessary, the next step of progression without over -extending our commitment. We believe this type of conservative approach will best serve the community at large. wu r(•cognize the apprehensions of those who feel the addition of now 1,..rk;nq r-acilitics may convribuLc; 'to the very problom we are atte:utptr- ..nc; to solve. The first phase of this program allows us an opportun- :ty to test a relatively low cost concept in peripheral parking to be p omotod primarily for the use of long-term parkers, such as employees. Tj.;o program can only be successful if implemented by the use of residential parking permits and the alteration of existing local park- !;,g facilities and rates to satisfy the requirement for short-term parkers. Since Caltrans intends to sell the land recommended for peripheral parking, we have obtained the permission of the City Council La declare our interest in the property on the basis that the sale be dvlayud until we have the opportunity to initiate and test the program on leased land. Since shuttle bus service will be required, we are hopeful that Caltrans may see a mutual advantage in cooperating with our endeavors. The City Manager's office is currently formulating 'his approach to be presented formally in the near future. uj ,i.:.utely it will be necessary to arrange for property. Peripheral parking is not a popular of evils that can be successful and has proven other congested areas. We support a positive this goal. 3471, Vs, Opurto, umtr. 20b Nuwuort belch, Califomij 92663 talophonu 714/675•BW2 the purchase of the concept, but a lesser to be successful in approach in attaining FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE I I P Newport Beach Planning Commission March 29, 1978 Page 2 We also recognize that the additional parking facilities will have to be planned within the Central Newport area. The possibilities suggested by Wilbur Smith & Associates are well worth consideration. These concepts should be analyzed in greater depth as the program develops. The establishment of a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority appears t:o be the most feasible solution for the implementation of the pro- gram at large. it is our recommendation that this step be taken as soon as possible to insure proper coordination and allow us to pro- ceed expeditiously pending the outcome of the Caltrans property sale. very truly yours, / Milbeth Brey, Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 CP March 27, 1978 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: At the March 23, 1978 general membership meeting of the Central Newport Parking Committee, the Committee met with representatives of Wilbur Smith and Associates to review their draft report, Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study", as requested by the Planning Commission. The draft report recommends a 6-month test of a peripheral parking program utilizing a portion of property currently owned by the California Department of Transportation on West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The C.N.P.C. recognizes that the City Council has previously indicated that the City is not interested in the acquisition of this property. Yet, the Committee feels that until the Planning Commission, City Council, and general public has had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the Wilbur Smith and Associates study and test the peripheral parking program as one part of an overall parking program for the Central Newport Beach area, it would be in the best interest of the community to request Caltrans to postpone its sale of this property, now scheduled for June 1, 1978. Therefore, the Central Newport Parking Committee is asking the City Council to declare an interest in the property without prejudice and ask Caltrans to delay the sale of the property for a reasonable period of time to allow for an adequate review of the Wilbur Smith and Associates report and, if approved, the testing of the peripheral parking concept. We thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Cnairman Central Newport Parking Committee MB:FT:jmb 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 FILE COPY Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 7141676-8682 Do NOT REMOVE LEGEND „ In summary, the elements of the Recommended Parking Program + include the following: . 800-space peripheral parking facility with shuttle bus service; . Alteration of existing parking operations and increased } parking rates; . Residential parking permit program; r J �J . By 1985, build 200 additional parking spaces in study area, plus 400 additional peripheral parking; Lj °•\ t/j �\ n By 1990, build 700 additional spaces in area. a srw 0 'SU( La _ OMB AYE PON Ix STUDY AREA CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH EXHIBIT 1 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT `VE D 9 R tom poem Oayepapt• April 18, 1978 C,R819 OgEPO� ti NgVJp �p�\F• Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director < Department of Community Development N 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: District staff has reviewed the draft Parking Program Feasibility Study for central Newport Beach, and would like to offer the following comments. Parking & Ridership Demand Forecast The report is noticeably lacking in details regarding preparation of the estimated demand for the peripheral parking lot. The consultant provides estimated demand figures of 7,500 and 4,500 cars per week for the summer and non -summer periods, respectively. But, there is no back-up material to indicate the assumptions made or the methodology employed. One is forced to either fully accept or reject these crucially important demand estimates without any knowledge about their derivation. The same problem exists with the conversion of this parking demand into a shuttle demand of 2,600 and 2,000 passengers per day for summer and non -summer periods, respectively. Documentation of such assumptions as the number of days per week of shuttle operation, peak -hour demand, and average auto occupancy (passengers per car) are not contained in the report. This information is essential for determining the feasibility of a shuttle system. Parking Fee in the Peninsula Another concern is that there is no indication of whether or not parking disincentives (primarily higher fees) are planned for areas elsewhere on the peninsula. We believe that, in order to induce significant numbers of people to use the remote parking lot and shuttle system, as the consultant suggested, parking disincentives should be applied throughout the entire peninsula. 1200 N. MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • TELEPHONE: (714) 834-6190 Y Mr. R. V. Hogan April 18, 1978 Page Two Remote Parking Lot The study calls for the acquisition of the CALTRANS lot with all funds coming from the City and private developer(s). We also understand that the City is, pursuing a plan to have CALTRANS donate the land or provide a long-term lease. We would like to know the City's decision on this matter before the District can finalize its rerouting plan. It appears at this time that the District will not make any financial contribution,toward the acquisition of the lot inasmuch as the lot will primarily for the benefit of the. City for remote parking purposes. It should be further noted that the viability of the peripheral lot is contingent upon the provision of a traffic signal on Pacific Coast Highway by the City or CALTRANS. Also, the rear access to the lot, through Hoag Memorial Hospital, would increase considerably the ability to route some OCTD lines to serve the lot. Shuttle System The study proposes a shuttle bus service that would link the remote lot with the peninsula. The consultant calls for combining three of the District's current routes to serve as a shuttle linking the lot and the Balboa Pier via Newport Boulevard at a ten-minute head- way. The consultant analysis is a very broad -brush approach and many of the important details are omitted. For example, the re- routing of current lines as proposed lacks consideration of such factors as extra travel time, "vehicle requirements, and safety. Another drawback of the proposal is the removal of current service to the most westerly portion (along Balboa Boulevard) of the penin- sula. This would have a negative impact on existing ridership. Fare As you are probably aware, the District's regular fare is 25 cents. With a 10-cent shuttle fare, proposed by the consultant, it might be difficult to differentiate between the lot -user and the regular patron (who would merely be passsing through), unless a separate shuttle system is instituted. Another comment pertains to the possibility of including the bus fare as part of the parking fee. It appears that charging a higher parking tariff and passing the incremental revenue on to the District would be a more convenient and, perhaps, more efficient alternative than a cash fare. District staff is exploring these ideas. Mr. R. V. Hogan April 18, 1978 Page Three District Study The District staff is currently studying the feasibility of rerouting some of the lines to serve the remote parking lot. It appears that regardless of what service changes can be made to the regular routes, a separate shuttle system would be necessary to carry the additional passenger loads during_ the summer months. However, both the changes to regular fixed routes (on a year-round basis) and the proposed summer shuttle -system would be contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The city's commitment to increasing parking cost throughout the peninsula so that there, will be an incentive to the public for using the remote parking lot. 2. Verification of ridership forecasts and parking demand at the remote parking lot. 3. The installation of a traffic signal at the parking lot entrance on Pacific Coast Highway. 4. The provision of rear access to the lot through the Hoag Memorial Hospital. 5. The resolution of parking and bus fare arrangement. Before the District can finalize its rerouting plan, the City's position or commitment on these matters must be known. Furthermore, the financing of a shuttle system is another matter that should be resolved. The aforementioned comments provide written documentation of the conversation between Bill Darnell of your agency and Gene Moir of OCTD on April 10, 1978. If you have any comments or questions, please call me at (714) 834-6190. Vetruly yours, Robert C. Hartwig. Manager of Planning RCH:GMT cc Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach a 0 DAILY PILOT - April 13, 1978 Parking Projected Newport to Study Feasibility Report A peripheral parking lot with shuttle bus service, a residential parking permit plan and the con- struetion of 1,000 additional spaces by 1990 are among the re. commendations in a parking program feasibility study for rill be the topic of alle hearing before ning Commission, P.M. in City Coun- IRE STUDY, PREPARED by the firm of Wilbur Smith and As. sociates, evaluates current and future parking needs and sug- gests a variety of solutions and nleans of financing them. - The area under consideration I;, on the Balboa Peninsula, bounded on the west 'by 37th Street and extending several blocks east of the Newport Pier. Ipcluded are the Via Lido area, the Lido Peninsula, Can- net+y Village, Ocean Front, Bdyfront, McFadden Square, 'Newport -Balboa and several re- sidential areas in which the traf- fic problem is caused by heavy beach and commercial use com- bined with limited parking. IFHE STUDY LOOKS at each individual area and makes specific recommendations. Strongly recommended is, the a$quisition of the undeveloped ,parcel on West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard for an 800- Department of Transportation. Under the shuttle bus system proposed, all Orange County Transit District buses serving the peninsula would converge at the peripheral lot with all but three lines ending there. IT IS ALSO recommended that all curb meter rates be in- creased to 25 cents per hour ex- cept on Balboa Boulevard between 19th and 21st Streets, where the 50 cent -per -hour sum- mer rate would be extended year-round. The installation of curbside meters where none exist is also suggested in the study, along, with a proposal to extend the hours of meter operation from 5 or 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. or midnight. The study advocates permit- ting parking validation in com- mercial areas at public lots and future parking structures to en- courage economic growth, with commercial enterprises purchasing validation stamps at a 60 percent discount rate. IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, where a one -hour time limit for i parking would be posted during the day, residents could buy an- nual curb parking stickers for $10 per vehicle and park beyond the one -hour limit. The study cites a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that re- sidential parking permits are " constitutional-, even though they um -be a nuisance to com- , bus service. The According to the study, -by 1990 to, the Califod" there will be i need for about "To additional parking spaces in central'Newport. IT IS RECOMMENDED that a 360-space parking facility be built in the Cannery Village area and that, by 1990, the junction of Newport and Balboa Boulevards be redesigne-d to a T- intersection. The McFadden Square area, it is suggested, would be developed to combine of public parking be funded by a by revenues from rking fees, the Additional information' is available by calling Fred -Talarico, senior planner, at � 640.2261. FILE C®PPV DO NOT pF.Ron"F *Y.OF NEWPORT BACH COUNW yG y \��(DROLL CALL\ April 9. 1979 MINUTES INDEX claim was for personal injuries sustained when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk at 1901 Westcliff Drive on October 11, 1978. The City Clerk's referral to the City Attorney was Nl confirmed: mons and First Amended Complaint of Yee dba Foy Yee and Siu Loong Yee, individual- Kam's d d.b.a. Kam's Restaurant in the Orange Restaurant nty Superior Court, Case No. 303842 for (3238) aratory relief; breach of covenant of faith and fair dealing; intentional 'on of emotional harm; quiet title; Xh cti • and breach of lease. ing reque to fill personnel vacancies Personnel ed: (A repor om the City Manager) Vacancies (1203F) Laborer in Gener Services to fill a vacant position. b One Refuse Crewman in Generals ervices to () fill a vacant position. (c) One Library Clerk 'I in the Library to fil vacant position. (d) One Emergency Equipment Dispatcher in the Police Department to fill a vacant position. (e) One Police Clerk I in the Police Department to fill a vacant position. 8. The following staff reports were received and ordered filed: (a) A report from the Marine Department re- ntral Nit garding converting metered_beach panting Parking lots in the "McFadden" area- -to _staffed (2745) parking lots.(Attached) (b) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 9. There were no public hearings scheduled. >for 10. The installation of temporary signs and ba NBCity Arts the 1979 Arts Festival was approve A report Festival from the City Manager) (1115) 11. Removed from the o ent Calendar. 12. Remove om the Consent Calendar. I. EMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALEN- DAR: 1. A report was presented from the Parks, Beaches Ensign Vw and Recreation Director regarding the recommend- Park ation of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation (1294) i i Volume 33 - Page 94 COY OF NEWPORT BEODN a V �t COUNCILMEN ��.a ��pT�ygGu,Zi ROLL CALL �s' T�9 � s MINUTES INDEX Commission that the building located in Ensign View Park be named the "Newport Theatre Arts Center." Motion x The item was postponed in order to review other All Ayes possible names. 2. A letter from the West Newport Improvement W Npt Association was presented regarding West New- Trash port trash collection. (273) Margot Skilling, President of the West Newport Improvement Association, addressed the Council and suggested twice weekly trash pickups in high - density areas between June 15 and September 15. Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to refer to the staff for report back at the next meeting. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a substitute motion to refer Ayes x x x x to staff for reply# which motion carried. Noes x Motion x 3. letter from Edward D. Garratt asking for the Parking All Ayes a ption of an ordinance limiting parking to one Prohibitions ho on Amethyst Avenue, Balboa Island, was (440F) ref red to staff for reply. Motion x 4. A rep rt from the License Supervisor concerning Street All Ayes closure of Via Oporto for public events was Closure receive and ordered filed with the understanding (300) that the affic problem in Lido Village area will be worked ou 5. A letter a ressed to Mayor Ryckoff from the OrCo Transit Orange Coun y Transit District was presented District regarding poss le changes in the scope and opera- (1509) tion of the Dist cts community transit services. Motion x The Mayor was a thorized to send a letter to the Ayes x x x Transit District s porting its change in level of Noes x x service. 'Notion x 6. Budget Amendment -0521 $730.00 transfer of NOISE All Ayes Budget Appropriations or membership in the Na- (18F) tional Organization to sure a Sound -Controlled Environment, from Una propriated Contingency Reserve to City Council, blications and Dues, was disallowed. J. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. The Environmental Quality Citi ns Advisory Com- Upper Npt All Ayes mittee was authorized to send letter regarding Bay/NIWA the 11208" Program to SCAG aft r review of the (355) 2. letter by the Mayor. Motion Ix The Mayor was authorized to send a tter stating Ayes x x x x the C;ity's position opposing SS 606 ma dating low - Abstain ! x cost housing. I Volume 33 - Page 95 A April 9, 1978 a MARINE DEPARTMENT TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Marine Department SUBJECT: ATTENDANT PARKING LOT IN THE "MC FADDEN" AREA Background ITEM NO.: H-8 (a) The City Council referred to staff for study and report back the recommendation of the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee which included a recom- mendation that attendant parking lots be implemented in the "McFadden" area. These lots are: 1. Between McFadden Place and 24th Street seaward of ocean front - 224 spaces (does not include those spaces -adjacent to business in ocean front right-of-way). 2. Between Newport and Balboa Boulevards and between 26th Street and 23rd Street - 61 spaces 3. Between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Pier in McFadden Place - 66 spaces. Following are brief descriptions of these existing metered parking lots: Ocean Front Lot: Number of spaces Current Revenue Meter Maintenance Collection & Enforcement 26th Street Lot: Number of spaces Current Revenue Meter Maintenance Collection & Enforcement McFadden Lot ' Number of spaces Current Revenue Meter Maintenance Collection & Enforcement 224 (not include those in Ocean Front R/W) $133,088 $4,250 annually 1k $18,500 annually, 61 $10,250 annually $1,160 annually $ 600 annually 66 $17,814 annually $1,250 annually $ 600 annually .. _W • • PAGE TWO ATTENDANT PARKING LOT IN THE "MCFADDEN" AREA Parking Attendant Concept Ocean Front Lot: This lot could be redesigned to accomodate attendant parking at an approximately cost of $35,000. Annual staffing costs, with extended hours during the summer, would be about $17,000. 26th Street Lot: This lot would be the easiest to convert to attendant parking because of the minimal construction required. Parking attendants salary costs for seasonally staffing this lot would be approximately $5,200. (10 hours/day for five days a week and 10 hours/day on -weekends for the 14 weeks of summer).. Estimated construction costs to secure the exits for this lot would be approxi- mately $5,000. McFadden Area: This lot would also require reconstruction to institute attendant parking. This cost would be approximately $15,000. Staffing costs would compare with the 26th Street lot for the 14 week summer period which is $5,200. . Summary Each of the three areas described above could be operated under the attendant concept after Capital Improvement modification of the lots. These costs quoted to convert the lots are Marine Department staff estimates based on concepts only. These costs require verification by Public Works Department based on actual design. The advantages to utilizing the attendant parking concept is the ability to vary r the parking fee based on length of time parked. This would enable the establish- \ went of a higher fee for short term parking and a lower fee for long term parking, thereby possibly discouraging a high turnover rate of parking lot users. The ability to control "cruising potential parkers"--in the lot only is another advantage of the attendant parking concept. The average length of stay in the two beach parking lots presently operated by the Marine Department is approximately three hours. The Corona del Mar lot is used by beach visitors only, the Balboa Lot is utilized by both beach visitors and shoppers in the Balboa area. Since the Wilbur Smith report indicates shopper parking duration is .7 hour it would appear that an attendant lot could decrease parking turnover in the McFadden area. The advantages to a metered lot concept would be the elimination of capital improve- ment costs to convert the lot to attendant parking, the minimal maintenance costs of the meters, the ability to enforce parking regulations over a greater geographical area with fewer personnel, the ability to charge different rates and different time limits within a geographical area, and the ability to place meters in any area where vehicles are parked. D. HARSHBARGER, DIRECTOR Marro D part7tt G(�e dingy%/� a Tidelands Administrator GEW:11 COMMISSIONERS CALL City of Newport Beach ril 6, 1978 MINUTES Zone: P-C Applicant: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. David Neish of Urban Assist appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Irvine Company and concurred with the staff report and recommenda- tions. He briefly commented on the proposed parking, and presented background information with respect to the requirements of the Coastal ommission as well as the City. Mr. Neish r quested that with respect to the drive -up to er units, that "a credit of the same number of p king spaces as the stacking spaces required" be gi Communit\wanot pment Director Hogan advised that this reqnot been examined by staff and thereforprepared to make a recommenda- tion at e. Healso commented on the problemsered with drive -up teller windows and lackepce that stacking lanes eliminate parking needs. Commissioner Balali\commented on the parking problems which exist rp other blocks within the Newport Center area and\felt that a reduction in parking for Corporate Plaza may be premature at this time and suggested t t no changes be made until some of the developme t was completed and the parking reviewed to see hether a reduction was actually warranted. Dave Neish appeared before the Commission in response and advised of their desire not to have any more parking than was necessar and to refine their present design standar for Corporate Plaza. He further commente onfe the parking problems in other blocks and t that the problem was one of distribution rath r than lack of spaces. There being no others desiring to appear an heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 23. INCKX COMMISSIONERS \ff } 0 i City of Newport Beach April 6, 1978 MINUTES MOLL OAL Motion Ayes Noes Absent X X X X X X X X Fol owing-4i scussion, motion was made to deny Amendment No-. -5-11 ` Note: This action was reconsid'er�d revised under Additional Business. Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1005, Item N13. Ayes X X X X X setting a public hearing for April 20, 1978, to Absent X consider the approval of the draft report by TRAFFIC Wilbur Smith and Associates on "parking Program t7up— Feasibility" of the "parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach SET Area." RURING ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion X Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1006, Ayes K X X X setting a public hearing for May 4, 1978 to Absent N11X consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to exempt single-family dwellings and duplexes from Site Plan Review requirements in areas designated for Specific Area Plans and zoned for residential use. Dave Ne sh appeared before the Commission in A-506 connectio with the action taken on Amendment 1FE _ No. 506, It No. 12 on the agenda, and questioned ?;'16E�>:b whether it wa the intent of the Commission to deny all of the equested amendments to the Corporate Plaza P ned Community or just those pertaining to parkin Staff reviewed all of th items included in the Motion X request, following which a tion was made to Ayes X X X X X reconsider the action taken i connection with Noes X Amendment No. 506. Absent X Following discussion relative to el nating the request for reduction in parking, addi onal compact car spaces, and credit for stack lane Motion X spaces, motion was made that Planning Comm ion Ayes X X X X X adopt Resolution No. 1007, recommending to th Abstain X City Council the approval of Amendment No. 506, Absent X subject to the following changes: Page 24. 1, �, s Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 29, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development April 6, 1978 1[c3 SUBJECT: Request to set a public hearing to consider the adoption of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area", prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates Background At the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft report on "Parking Program Feasibility", dated February 9, 1978, which was prepared for the City by Wilbur Smith and Associates as a portion of the overall "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area". The Planning Commission directed that: (1) the consultant make certain revisions to the draft report; (2) the Central Newport Parking Committee be requested to review the report and make recommendations thereon; and (3) a public hearing on the draft report be set subsequent to the revisions and C.N.P.C. review. On March 10, 1978, Wilbur Smith and Associates submitted a revised draft report to the City. The Central Newport Parking Committee reviewed the report on March 23, 1978 and made recommendations on the draft report - "Parking Program Feasibility". Suggested Action If desired, set a public hearing on April 20, 1978 to consider the adoption of the draft report on "Parking Program Feasibility", dated March 10, 1978. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By A � Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT: jmb FILE COPY DO NOT REP.,OVE PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. County of Orange, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- ange, and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil). has been published in each regular and en- tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: April 6, 197$ I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Newport Beach, California, this 6 day of Apr 19 7$ Signature 2721 E. Coast Hwy., Corona del Mar, California 92625. the County Clerk's Filing Stamp A Proof of Publication of PUBLIC NOTICE Parking Program Feasibility PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OYLIC REARINGI :a O Notice is hereby g(vad.IhkJ the Newport Beach Planning Crommission will hold a public hearing to comider the adoption of the Wilbur Smith anbd Associates - Parking needs and Ecoigmic Feastbllity Study Draf(•ll�pmt on "Perking 'Pi?o}.pm Feasibility". This 'di" I re ort was initiated by'th$" Of of NewportBeach. ' Parking N@p}d ' e}rd Economic Feaet0178tkdy - Draft Report ba Parking Program Feasibility". This ''study has been prepared for the City, of Newport Beach and includes all commercial and some residential properties between the Arches Bridge and 19th Street to the Central Newport area Previous Asments of the study !Vluded: (1) .&h assessment oI existing apd future parking needas; (2) Tj e preparation and evaluat oW of altetnative par tt 9 development concepts; ad (3) The selection of,p pref§rY-dd parking development concept. The "Patking Program Feasibility" draft report, subject of this public hearing, deals , with the evaluation of economic feasibility of the selected parking concept. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 20th day of April, 1978, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport i the County Clerk's Filing Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- ange, and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil). has been published in each regular and en- tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: .April..6s.... 19.78................... I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Newport Beach, California, this 6 day of Apr 19 78 e�cwr ........................ Signature �1, 2721 E. Coast Hwy., Corona del Mar, California 92625. Proof of Publication of PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC -C , HEARING Notice Is hereby given that till, Newport Beach Plannin Commission will -hold a publl hearing to consider the adoption of the Wilbur Smftb anbd Associates - Parki needs and Economic° Feasibility Study Draft Report on "Parking Program Feasibility". This draft report was initiated by the City of Newport Beach. Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study - Draft Report on "Parking Program Feasibility". This study has been prepared for the City of Newport Beach and includes .all commercial and ,acme xesidentialproperties between the Arches Bridge and 19th Street in the Central Newport atea. Previous elements of oe study Included: (1) An assessment of existing and future farking needss; (2) The preparation and evaluat n of alternative parr�igg development conceptspond (3) The selection of a preferred parking developragnt concept, The "ParOg Program Feasibility" draft report, subject of this publiq hearing, deals with twd+ evaluation of ear ofp+n feasibfhty of the parking concept. - Notice is."titti" tliei von that 4 of be held o 6 of 1 gt wl y April, 1978, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport PROOF OF PUBLICATION . �x 4 aEW Pogr t Department s oq<rronN�� i ' 3� of Community Development DATE: April 5, 1978 TO: Fred Talarico FROM: Bev Wood SUBJECT: Central Newport Beach Parking Study: Environmental Requirements The Central Newport Beach Parking Study is considered to be a feasi- bility and planning study as described in Section 15072 of the State EIR Guidelines. This section clarifies that feasibility o•r planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board or commission has not approved, adopted or funded do- not require the preparation of 'an Environmental Impact Report, but do require consideration of environmental factors. Since the acceptance or adoption of the parking study is not accompanied by specific pro- posals (legislation) for funding of the adopted program, the study may still be considered a feasibility and planning document. It should be noted, however, that prior to the funding or implementation of any specific activity contained in the report (not specif ically exempted by state law from the requirements of CEQA), further environ- mental analysis will be necessary along with the preparation of appro- priate environmental documents. ,Beverly W od /EnvironraVntal Coordinator BW/sh DO f4OT REMOVE ? j Id • Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Commissioners: • March 29, 1978 ' RECEIVED Community Development Dept. MAR 31 1978►- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. The CNPC conducted a general meeting March 23, 1978 to review the economic feasibility report dated March 10, 1978 prepared by Wilbur Smith & Associates on their recommended parking program. The program appears to offer sufficient latitude to cover the myriad of complexities our situation encompasses. It also allows us to attack individual area problems in a systematic fashion with enough flexibility to evaluate and redesign, if necessary, the next step of progression without over -extending our commitment. We believe this type of conservative approach will best serve the community at large. We recognize the apprehensions of those who feel the addition of new parking facilities may contribute to the very problem we are attempt- ing to solve. The first phase of this program allows us an opportun- ity to test a relatively low cost concept in peripheral parking to be promoted primarily for the use of long-term parkers, such as employees. This program can only be successful if implemented by the use of residential parking permits and the alteration of existing local park- ing facilities and rates to satisfy the requirement for short-term parkers. Since Caltrans intends to sell the land recommended for peripheral parking, we have obtained the permission of the City Council to declare our interest in the property on the basis that the sale be delayed until we have the opportunity to initiate and test the program on leased land. Since shuttle bus service will be required, we are hopeful that Caltrans may see a mutual advantage in cooperating with our endeavors. The City Manager's office is currently formulating this approach to be presented formally in the near future. Ultimately it will be necessary to arrange for the purchase of the property. Peripheral parking is not a popular concept, but a lesser of evils that can be successful and has proven to be successful in other congested areas. We support a positive approach in attaining this goal. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 1 4 L] l� Newport Beach Planning Commission March 29, 1978 Page 2 We also recognize that the additional parking facilities will have to be planned within the Central Newport area. The possibilities suggested by Wilbur Smith & Associates are well worth consideration. These concepts should be analyzed in greater depth as the program develops. The establishment of a Central Newport Beach Parking Authority appears to be the most feasible solution for the implementation of the pro- gram at large. It is our recommendation that this step be taken as soon as possible to insure proper coordination and allow us to pro- ceed expeditiously pending the outcome of the Caltrans property sale. Very truly yours, 9�zz�tl &U�t Milbeth Brey, Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/676-8662 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (714) 640-2110 March 28, 1978 S E1V 8D RSomtnmty � pevelonent bq. Dept H 19�ar Mr. Harry Kagan, Chief _ �A�' of DH, Division of Right -of -Nay �• NPDC �1F� Department of Transportation. State of California b 1120 H Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Kagan: The Newport Beach City Council, bn March 27, 1978, reviewed the attached letter from the City's Central Newport Parking Committee. Following this review, it was the unanimous posi- tion of the City Council that I be authorized to write to request a delay in the sale of the CALTRANS East Parcel (Cagney Tract). Additionally, the City Council requested me to write the Orange County Transit District to encourage them to investi- gate the possibility of acquiring the subject parcel and es; tablishing,.a "park -and -ride" facility. It is, therefore, being requested that you necessity of selling the subject property delay its sale to permit the OCTD and the parking facility. Thank you for'your consideration. Sincerely, MILAN M. DOSTAL Mayor CC: Orange County Transit District Attachment reevaluate the and, if possible, City to explore a City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CE\P March 27, 1978 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: At the March 23, 1978 general membership meeting of the Central Newport Parking Committee, the Committee met with representatives of. Wilbur Smith and Associates to review their draft report, "Parking Program Feasibility - Central Newport Beach Parking Study"; as requested by the Planning Commission. The draft report recommends a 6-month test of a peripheral parking program utilizing a portion of property currently owned by the California Department of Transportation on West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The C.N.P.C. recognizes that the City Council has previously indicated that the City -is not interested in the acquisition of this property. Yet, the Committee feels that until the Planning Commission,, City Council, and general public has had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the Wilbur Smith and Associates study and test the peripheral parking program as one part of an overall parking program for the Central Newport Beach area, it -would be in the best interest of the community to request Caltrans to postpone its sale of this property, now scheduled for June 1, 1978. Therefore, the Central Newport Parking Committee is -asking the City Council to declare an interest in the property without prejudice and ask Caltrans to delay the sale of the property for a reasonable period of time to allow for an adequate review of the Wilbur Smith and Associates report and, if approved, the testing of.the peripheral parking concept. We thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee MB:FT:jmb 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 . COY OF NEW PORT BE H COUNCILMEN Ap c �� Pp �\ FL '2 t�A y� � A O y �yiN oni I rn� istp March 27_ 1978 MINUTES INDEX 11VLL VMLL \ t.. Faithful Performance Surety (Time Certificate of Deposit No. 1223 issued by the Bank of Newport on February 18, 1977), and to release the Labor and Materials Surety (Time Certificate of Deposit No. 1224 issued by the Bank of Newport on February 18, 1977) in six months provided no claims have been filed. (A report from the Public Works Department) 12. Mayor Dostal's expense account in the amount of \ $103.90 for attending and presiding over the meeting of the Environmental Quality Committee of thCalifornia League of Cities in San Francisco on March 16, 1978 was approved. 13. he following budget amendment was approved: BA- $2,720.00 increase in Budget Appropriations , for p titioning of the Technical Services room in the lice facility, from Unappropriated Surplus, ederal Revenue Sharing Fund. ITEMS REMOVED FRO SENT CALENDAR: 1. A letter to Mtal from Gordon Harvin \pr Griswold Glass, AIA, wnted protesting the action Property of PlanningCer Hummel in speaking as a (2905) private citizen at the ebruary 27 Council meeting in opposition to the acquisition of the Griswold property adjacen to Begonia Park. Motion x Councilman Williams made a mo on to receive the letter and order it filed. Gordon Glass addressed the Council garding his letter. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a substitute mot to Ayes x x x x x x refer the letter to the Pending Legislation and Noes x Procedural Ethics Committee, -which -motion ca ied. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: 1. A proposed Council Policy regarding fund raising ouncil by'boards, commissions and committees was P icy presented. (43 ) Motion x Council Policy F-18, "Fund Raising" was adopted. Ayes x x x x x x x 2. A letter was presented from the_Central Newport Central Parking Committee regarding Wilbur Smith and Newport Associates' draft report, "Parking_Program Parking Feasibility=_Central.Newport Beach_Parking (2745) Study," suggesting that CALTRANS be asked to delay the sale of the portion of property on West Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and New Boulevard -to allow the City to investi- gate the feasibility of using the property in connection with a peripheral parking concept. Volume 32 - Page 73 FILE ®PY nn NnT RFMAVE *Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN �O �,� C��Fyy�yy� s ; r ROLL CALL \P��\ March 27, 1978 MINUTES 6. The following request to fill personnel vacancies was approved: (A report from the City Manager) (1203F) (a) One Library Assistant position in the Library to fill a position now vacant, (b) One City Librarian position in the Library to fill a position to be vacant. (c) One Legal Secretary position in the City Attorney's office to fill a position now vacant, (d) One Parking Control Officer I in the Police Department to fill a position now vacant. 7. The following staff report was received and ordered filed: (a) A memorandum from the Public Works Depart- Traffic ment in response to the letter from the Complaints Eastbluf£ Homeowners Community Association (1154F) asking that action be taken to reduce noise and speed levels as recommended by the Association. (Attached) t 8. Set for public hearing on April 10, 1978: (a) IPPnning Commission Amendment No. 504, a Newport rdlguest of Emkay Development and Realty Place Comkany to amend the Planned Community PC Stda Development Standards for Newport Place to (1275) allow"the Planning Commission to grant ex- ceptidAp to the minimum lot size requirement of 30,06p square feet in the Planned Com- munity, a�;d the acceptance of an environ- mental document on property known as Tract 7382, bounAA by Birch Street, MacArthur Boulevard, sil Bristol Street North in Newport Place;^,zoned P-C. (A report from the Community Development Department) 0. 9. The City Attorney was Authorized to retain Donald Airport E. Olson, Airport Consu ant, with fees to be Growth paid from the Airport Gr th Control Fund (maxi- Control mum $3,000). (A report fr m the City Attorney) Fund (2853) 10. The work on the Superior Ave a Improvements from Placentia Avenue to Industrial Way, Contract No. Superior 1665, was accepted; and the City Clerk was Av Impry authorized to file a Notice of CXmpletion and (2078) release the bonds 35 days after Notice of Completion has been filed. (A repoA from the Public Works Department) w 11. The public improvements constructed in�;,conjunction Resub 520 with Resubdivision No. 520, located at {fie (2615) northeast corner of West Coast Highway a Orange Street (Newport Shores) was accepted; and \ the City Clerk was authorized to release th� i Volume 32 - Page 72 CI0Y OF NEWPORT BEAR COUNCILMEN .oc�l.pm\F� 2 94 �-A March 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x The Ma or was authorized_to send a letter to CALTRAMS asking that the sale of the property on Pacific Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard now scheduled -for June 1, 1978 he -de�yed. The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m., March 28, 1978. i Volume 32 - Page 74 central nQwp2rt parki March 16, 1978 Dear Committee Member: At the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, the P.lanning Commission reviewed the "Draft Report': Parking Feasibility Program - Central Newport Beach Parking Study", prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates. The Planning Commission at this meeting asked that the report be referred to the Central Newport Beach Parking Committee for our review and recommendations. A copy of the report may be obtained from Fred Talarico at the Department of Community Development (640-2261) The Central Newport Parking Committee membe.rship is invited to regroup and review questions with Wilbur Smith and Associates on Thursday, March•23, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. in the Attorney's Conference Room at City Hall.- Please feel free to invite any interested parties to become involved. The Planning Commission will conduct a formal hearing at its regular evening meeting on Thursday, April 20, 1978, to review our recommendations on the report. We are anxious to represent those recommendations which best serve the needs of the community area. This can ,only be accomplished through careful consideration. I sincerely hope you will join me in solidifying our intent. Yours very truly, CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING'.COMM'ITTEE Milbeth Brey Chairman MB:FT:jmb FILE C®L"Y DO NOT REMOVE �# CITY OF, NEWPORT BEACH " .'DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY..DEVELOPMENT March 15, 1978' Mr. Thomas Jenkins '`"• . ' Orange County Transit District P.O. Box 688 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Jenkins: The City has been working with the firm of Wilbur Smith 'and Associates to develop a parking plan for'the Central Newport Beach'area. This area is bounded by the Arches bridge at the intersection of Coast' Highway and Newport Boulevard,:.19th Street, the Rhine Channel and the Pacific Ocean. In March of 1977, Bill Darnell of our Traffic Division ,contacted you in, regards to our initial planning within this area. A key element in the parking -program recommended by Wilbur Smith and Associates to the City is the development of a peripheral parking facility on the northerly side of Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard and the connection of this facility with the Central Newport Beach area via a shuttle bus service. (Pgs, . 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 31, 32, 40, 41, 44, 45, and 46.) The Newport Beach Planning Commission will be reviewing the overall program proposed by Wilbur Smith and Associates.at its April 20, 1978 meeting. We would appreciate your review of the enclosed report. It would be appreciated•if'your comments on the attached report could be received by our office.by April 7, 1978. If you have any questions regarding the report, please feel free to contact me at (714) 640-2261. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, yDiector • ' By Fred Ta I arico Senior 'Planner 4`�E�'�9 ��• ncl Eos ure DO NOT REMOVE Enclosure City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 i fC�5- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Demand of: Wilbur Smith and Associates P.O. Box 92. Address: 4,9on larkann Rnulevard Columbia, South Carolina 29202 In the amount of $12, 397.64 FILE COVEY DO NOT REMOVE Date February 23. 1978 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT For professional services relative to Newport Beach Parking Stud - September. 1977 and October, 1977. Invoice No. 28228 Project No. 141300-P 502 Contract No. 141300 - Date 8/12 77 (Budget Amendment 19 - September 12 1977) 022916000 - - .TOTAL _ $12,397.64 Audited ano pprove&' Finance Director INVOIca No, 28228 P.O. BOX 92 4500 JACKSON BOULEVARD COLUMBIA, S.C. 29202 01/03/78 F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INVOICE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD LNEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 .J .• y ►• ow-Allipi FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATIVE' TO NEWPORT' BEACH' RARKfNG- STUDY: CONTRACT NUMBER 141300 CONTRACT DATE 08/12/77 SEPTEMBER, 1977 (SEE ATTACHED) $6,491.28 OCTOBER, 1977 (SEE ATTACHED) $5,906.36 TOTAL * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 TOTAL AMOUNT INVOICED THROUGH OCTOBER, 1977 $12,397.64 $17,259.85 G o0o ALLIANCE. ON ANCHORAGE • ATLANTA BRISBANE - COLUMOM SC • DALLAS • -FALLS CHURCH, VA ¢ HONG KONG HOUSTON KNOXVILLE - LONDON LOS ANGELES MI"t _ 'MAYSVILLE, KY • NEW YORK • MELBOURNE • NEW HAVEN • LEXINGTON, KY - PHILAOECPNIA - RICHMOND ; SAWFRANCISCO SINGAPORE - TORONTO - WASHINGTON, DC . WINSTONSALEM - - ORIGINAL INVOiC'z- - 9 - O Go NO90 0 $ De4 l b c\A� °y�F%ON' 7l r NE"le ORP � l - ALLIANCE, OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA,SC• FALLS CHURCH,VA-HONG KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLELONDON-LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI -NEW HAVEN -NEW YORK-PHILADELPHIA-RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO. SINGAPORE-TORONTO-WASHINGTON, DC•WINSTON-SALEM ill ur Smid anti! A660cia%6 CABLE WILSMITH SANKERSTRUSTTOWER TELEX 97-3439- 141300-P 502 (.o�u,n�ia, S' C 29202 PHONE: (803I 771.0844 _ CITY OF NEV�PORT BEACH _ .._ DEPARTMENT OF -COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- JANUARY 3, 1977 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 -FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATIVE TO NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STUDY, CALIF, CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT DATE 08/12/77 PERIOD: OCTOBER, 1977 PRINCIPAL, ASSOCIATES 2.0 HRS-RATE $55.00 ENGINEERS, PLANNERS 102.0 HRS-RATE $27.00 SUPERVISORS 59.0 HRS-RATE $15.00 DRAFTING 19.2 HRS-RATE $11.00 TECHNICAL TYPIST 47.0 HRS-RATE $ 9.00 ENUMERATOR & JUNIOR ANALYSTS 167.0 HRS-RATE $ 8.00 TRAVEL-AUTO,RENTAL,TAXI,ETC. TRAVEL-AUTO,PERSONAL MILEAGE PRINTS AND REPRODUCTIONS STATISTICAL AND TABULATING DATA PROCESSING STATISTICAL AND TABULATING DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES POSTAGE AND EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TOTAL $ 110.00 2,754.00 885.00 211.20 423.00 1,336.00 .22 79.79 37.65 36.00 2.48 7.04 15.73 $ 8.25 $5,906.36 "CERTIFIED TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED."c _ H. K. CORLEY, CONTROLLER ALLIANCE, OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA,SC-FALLSCHURCH,VA-HONG KONG- HOUSTON- KNOXVILLE- LONDON- LOSANGELES MELBOURNE - MIAMI - NEW HAVEN - NEW YORK - PHILADELPHIA - R ICHMOND - SAN FRANCISCO - SINGAPORE - TORONTO - WASHINGTON. DC - WINSTON•SALEM iAur Smit4 and -AW33ociafe3 n CABLE WILSMITH TELEX S7.3439 141300-P 502 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD LNEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 BANKERS TRUST TOWER Ca�um6ia, J C. 29202 PHONE: 18031 77I-8844 JANUARY 3,-1977 .FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATIVE TO NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STUDY. CONTRACT NUMBER CONTRACT -DATE 08/12/77- PERIOD: •SEPTEMBER, 1977 ENGINEERS, PLANNERS SUPERVISORS DRAFTING TECHNICAL TYPIST ENUMERATOR & JUNIOR ANALYSTS TRAVEL-AUTO,RENTAL,TAXI,ETC. TRAVEL-AUTO,PERSONAL MILEAGE TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TOTAL 84.0 HRS-RATE $27.00 $2,268.00 80.0 HRS-RATE $15.00 1,200.00 24.5 HRS-RATE $11.00 269.50 52.0 HRS-RATE $ 9.00 468.00 257.5 HRS-RATE $ 8.00 2,060.00 58.21 128.27 $ 39.30 "CERTIFIED TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED." $6,491.28 OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND . J H.K. CORLEY, t6NTROLLER R �"od % o Ce�e\DP D De019�$� G\�_ 6� NE�Q GPo �`k ALLIANCE,OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON- BRISBANE-COLUMBIA,SC - FALLS CHURCH,VA -HONG KONG- HOUSTON- KNOXVILLE- LONDON -LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE -MIAMI - NEW HAVEN - NEW YORK- PHILADELPHIA- RICHMOND -SAN FRANCISCO- SINGAPORE-TORONTO•WASHINGTON. DC-WINSTON-SALEM COMMISSIONERS 7pF 9ty� y�� 9019y�'i, � A 0 • City of Newport Beach February 16, 1978 MINUTES MOLL CALL INOtX Item #10 "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study for STATUS the Central Newport Beach Area." REST C NNR L Senior Planner Talarico presented the draft report NEWPORT of the Parking Program Feasibility. for the Central PP RKI GG Newport Beach Parking Study prepared by Wilbur. STY- -Smith and Associates and briefly commented on the contents thereof. Staff recommended that the REFERRED report be forwarded to the Central Newport Parking Ta— Committee for review and report back to the Plan- C MMITTEE ning Commission. Milbeth Brey, Chairman of the Central Newport Parking Committee appeared before the Commission and advised of their willingness to participate in the review of the parking study and report back to the Commission as soon as possible. Carl Ackerman appeared before the Commission to comment on the report and felt that many of the recommendations were questionable. Motion X Following discussion, motion was made to refer the All Ayes Draft Report of the Parking Program Feasibility for the Central Newport Beach Parking Study to the Central Newport Parking Committee for review and report back to the Planning Commission. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion Motion was made that Planning Commission urge the All Ayes City Council to investigate the possibility of the acquisition of the Caltrans property on the bluff t of Superior Avenue. Motion X Planning Commi 'on approved the request of Robert Ayes X X X X X X E. Bennett, in con ction with previously approved Abstain X Use Permit No. 1745 o roperty located at 322 Buena Vista, to increase a height of the hatch cover over the elevator to n ore than 10 inches and to increase the height of t roof by 7 inches in order to provide a pitch to the of which would allow for better drainage of the struc e. Page 23. FILE C P i nn K1^V orhAn\lC UU IYV, I\L19{V tlY 0 0 C�OM4MISSIONERS City of Newport Beach February 16, 1978 MINUTES Plal.L CALL Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission urge the Ayes X X X X X X City Council to move forward on the annexation of Abstain X the County Island. There being no further business, Planning Commis- sion adjourned the meeting. Time: 11:40 P.M. PAUL L. BALALIS, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 24. INOWX Planning Commission Meeting 'February 16, 1978 Agenda Item No. TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 9, 1978 FILE COPY TO: Planning Commission DO NOT REMOVE FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Central Newport Beach Parking Study" The purpose of the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting on the "Central Newport Beach Parking Study" is to review the economic feasibility analysis of the Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking program. At the January 19, 1978 Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission indicated that it favored a detailed investigation of the consultant's recommended.parking program. The Central Newport Parking Committee (CNPC), at its general membership meeting on January 12, 1978, indicated that they favored the investigation of the consultant's recommended parking program. The Planning Commsision and the CNPC both indicated that the consultant's investigation should first look at increasing the existing parking supply in the Central Newport area by taking advantage of opportunities that are presently available. Background - Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study - Central Newport Area. The study area includes all commercial and some residential properties between the Arches' Bridge and 19th Street in the Central Newport Beach area. The exact boundaries of the study area are indicated in the attached report. The key elements of the study have been: 1) An assessment of existing and future parking needs; 2) The preparation and evaluation of alternative parking development concepts; and 3) The selection of the preferred parking alternative. Attached to this report is the consultant's economic feasibility analysis of the preferred parking concepts. Subsequent reports will deal with the development and implementation of a parking finance program and the design and construction of specific parking facilities. Wilbur Smith Recommended Parking Program In January the consultant prepared three alternative parking programs for the Planning Commission's consideration. All of the programs were designed to meet parking needs in the Central Newport Beach area. The three alternatives were reviewed by the Planning Commission and the CNPC. The alternative parking concepts differed in their cost and in the reliability of their solutions to the parking problems. The parking program recommended by the consultant combined several parking concepts from among the alternatives. The key elements of the parking program are as follows: 1. The establishment of a 800-space peripheral parking test program on West Coast Highway. 2. An increase in existing parking rates. 3. The establishment of parking validation in commercial areas. 4. The start of a residential parking permit program, N 5. The construction of 200 additional parking spaces in the study area, plus either 1,200 additional peripheral parking spaces on Newport Boulevard or the construction of 600 additional parking spaces in the study area by 1990. TO: Planning Commission - 2 6. The construction of 700 additional parking spaces in the study area by 1990. Economic Feasibility Analysis Attached to this report is the consultant's letter report dated February 9, 1978 on the Economic Feasibility Analysis of the above parking concept. This report contains detailed information regarding alternative methods of financing for parking facilities and presents a cost/revenue analysis of the overall recommended program. The consultant at this time is requesting the Planning Commission's concurrence with the findings, recommendations, and evaluation of program feasibility. Suggested Action If desired, ask the Central Newport Parking Committee to review this report and report back to the Planning Commission at the March 2, 1978 Planning Commission Study Session. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By Fre!'��i/S Talarico Senior Planner Attachment: 1) Consultant's Report Herman Consulting Services �+ ,�y • Engineering/Planning asmaC1yan Transportation Transit and Associates Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-5737 February 2, 1978 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Mr. Bill Darnell Dear Mr. Darnell: Enclosed is Progress Report No, 11 .for the month of January, 1978, for the project entitled "Development of Traffic Circulation Models". The Progress Report represents a summarization of the activities of this entire project team including City Staff, Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc., and Herman Basmaciyan and Associates. Please contact me if I can help provide further details pertaining to any phase of the project. Sincerely, HERMA`i BASMACIYAN AND ASSOCIATES Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. HB.b Enc. v CDVelopmentDeve epDept. � 3,1 1978 P- oORT , 014 NAP CAI -IF. l\ *. 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MODELS PROGRESS REPORT NO. 11, JANUARY, 1977 GENERAL Progress on the "Future Model" was very small during the month of January. The problems encountered with obtaining the regional travel pattern information, which were described in the December progress report, have persisted. Difficulties in processing have been encountered at the Regional Transportation Planning Agency and the data is not yet at hand. All possible courses of action are being investigated to expedite matters. PROGRESS BY TASK Progress during the month has been confined to those tasks pertain- ing to the evaluation of peak vs. off-peak relationships. Waiting for the regional travel pattern information has presented the oppor- tunity to review and fine-tune all the input information for the Future Model. MEETINGS Other than staff level discussions for data and information exchange, no meetings were held in January. On the related subject of the need for Origin and Destination studies, a presentation was made to the Council Study Session on January 23, 1978 and a meeting was held on January 16, between Councilman Ryckoff, Bill Darnell, and Herman Basmaciyan. On the related subject of the use of the model, for the general plan review process, a presentation was made to the Council Study Session on January 9, 1978. PROBLEMS The computer processing problems at the Regional Transportation Planning Agency persist and are delaying the completion of the"Future Conditions" model. Every effort is being made to overcome this problem. Respectfully submitted by: Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. // r • FILE COPY i DO NOT 'REMOVE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 January 26, 1978 Mr. Ron North c/o Wilbur Smith & Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2950 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Ron: Enclosed is the informati.on,you requested on parking meter revenues and revenue estimates of al.1 funds from our current budget. In addition to meter.revenues, there are four instances of special parking fees collected within the study area: R. Smith (112 McFadden Place) -- 20 spaces @ $150 = $3,000. Beachball Restaurant -- 11 spaces @ $150 = $1,650. .V & R Perry's Pizza Restaurant -- 3 spaces @ $150 = $450. Hassan's Restaurant--8 spaces @ $150 = $1,200. Further, I have enclosed a map indicating- those areas that I feel have the greatest potential for either improving existing supply or for providing parking spaces within the study area. If you have any questions regarding this information, please call me. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, ZDirctor By C L:�l.✓ Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Enclosure ,R City Hall e 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFF-STREET PARKING FUND. Newport Newport Balboa 31st Coast• Lido Newport : Blvd. Business Business Street Highway Shopping Balboa Blvd. Total .01 02 03 04 .05 06 07 1967-68 $ 16,346 $ 2,593 $(5,105)* $5,553 $1,899.''-$3,000 $7,489• $ 917 1968-69 32,001 2,439 6,742 6,147 2,480 3,552 8,885 1,756 1969-70 .35,924 3,972 8,124 6,171 -2,837 3,502 9,722 1,596 1970-71 36,740 4,240 8,641 6,117 3,251 3,411 9,517 1,563 1971-72 42,118 3,705 10,131 6,94.9. 3,646 -3,413. 12,189 2,085 1972-73 40,372 -4,547 9,975 6,530 3,173 2,971 10,883 2,293 1973-74 40,046 4,188 10,640 6,384 3,567 3,069 9,950 2,248 1974-75 .41,720 5,033 1.0,601 6,795 3,556' 2,415 11,385 1,935 TOTALS $285,267 $30,717 $59,749 $50,6.46 $24,409 $25,333 $80,020. $14,393 1974-75 Hoag Parking (21,430) Lot Improvements- 1975-76 Mariners' Mile (120,000) Area Parking Lot Purchase 1975-76 46,219 TOTALS $1905056 (212430) (120,000) 4,900 11,593 8,180 3,626 1,188 13,226 2,906 $35,617' $71•,342 $58,826 ,$28,035$(-929879) $71,816 $17,299 rivet Expenditures of $12,287 for 28th Street Parking. Lot. n `J i 706SIMLE .JoINT 4$v/ EXPhN510N EXISTIN(5 TNRU 4� FLOOR 9ELKIN6 JOIM' LASE LEAGUE Lar AND AD-IACEPirn PROPERTY IIIILL..JJII!I J CANNERY RESTAURANT AND DANK LOT P05519L£ J019T U5E POTENTIAL 1 1 LJ �L11L EXPAN510N OF EXIIMN& LOT'j ANC STREET 44-06IN6 M&H Y1515IL1T( AREA LOW M15TIN(s U5E CONCENTRATION P055115LE REDESVLN EXISTING PRIVATE. LOT AND PUBLIC ON•SmfFT TO ONE ATTENDS COKTROLLED FACILITY fln i151-E ANGLE PARKING p05510LE ,JOINT USE FACILITY OF 2e= SCKEET MARINA LOr p05510t-V- INCREASE. OF EXISTINb SUPPLY -rHRLI REDE51GN NEWPORrl 6AL130A BLVDS. INTERSEOTION, LOD71PAGT 5PALE5 AND 2n FLOOR DELKIR6 5TRul ruRE- 1NLREAS£6'NUM6ER 5PALE5 TEARU REDE514N AND L15E OF COMPACT 5PALE5, NOT A REFK0NA6LE 51TE FOR STRUCTURE PARKING • • Page NO, N REVENUE ESTIMATES '- ALL FUNDS Fund 1975-76 Account Actual Code Function and Activities- Revenues 02- GENERAL FUND , PROPERTY TAXES' 310 Secured Property Tax 3,756,792 312 Unsecured Property Tax 373,669 Total Property Taxes- 4,130,461 1976-77 Actual Revenues Increase (Decrease) 4,500,231 454,130 4,954,361 9.95 1977-78 Estimated Revenues 4,849,375 490,750 5,340,125 313 TAXES OTHER THAN PROPERTY Redemptions, Penalties,and Interest 214,087 91,867 65,000 315 Cigarette Tax 288,299 282,089 280,000 316 Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax' 598,027 721,202 % 737,000 318 Franchises 157,271 -171,902 207,000 319 City Sales and Use Tax. 3,210,417 3,967,923 3,762,500 320 Property Transfer Tax 110,492 206,002 152,500 Total Other Taxes 4,578,593 5,440,985 18.84 5,204,000 400 LICENSES AND PERMITS Business Licenses 442,032 472,848 460,000 403 Business'License Delinquencies 7,602 79166 7,300 404 Investigation Fees 6,210 7,867 7,500 405 Vending Machines 7,444 8,092 - 6,000 410 Bicycle Licenses 14,419 6,941 6,500 411 Dog Licenses 47,853 .. 50,496 50,000 412 Cat Licenses -0- PO 30 420 Building Permi.ts 161,989 "_ 236,516 155,000 421 Electrical Permits .28,870 55,071 36,000 422 Grading Permits and Plan Checks 10,957 10,068 11,000 423 .Lathing and Plastering Permits.. 6,765_ 11,649 9,000 424 Plumbing Permits 34,223 •' 44,357 35,000 425 Heating Permits (Mechanical) - 16,319 25,732 16,000 426 Trailer Park Permits 2,076 3,117 3,000 Total Licenses and Permits .. 786,759 939,940 19.47_ 802.330 475 FINES, - FORFEITS AND PENALTIES Court Fines Except Vehicle Code) .382,060 .. 551,282 44.29 500,000 REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY 500 American Legion 35,353 35,259 , 40,000 501 Balboa Bay Club 94,215 101,742 109,880 502 J. A. Beek - Beacon Bay -7,582 7,502 7,500 504'•' W. J. Carden - Telescopes 671 676 670 a Increase (Decrease)• 7.79 4.36 9.25 Page No. 9 _ REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL FUNDS Fund 1975-76 1976-77 % 1977-78 % Account_ Actua Actual Increase Estimated Increase Code Function and Activities. Revenues Revenues (Decrease) Revenues (Decrease) 02- GENERAL FUND REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY (Cont'd.) 506 Josie Fulton 225 150 150 507 Lido Isle Community Association 3,700 3,700 3,700 509 Pacific Telephone 560 1,034 600 511 512 Charles H. Straub Water'Department - Corporation Yard 175 10,800 225 6,300 150 -0- 513 Success Broadcasting, Inc. 2,261 2,260 2,265 514 Carden School Lease -0- 21,834 -0= 515 Rental of Property 16,182'- 1,630 720 532 Orange County Dock Lease 13,480 14,894 15,385 570 Interest Income 244,466 274,651 157,890 Total Revenue from Use of Money and Property �I $7 57 •9.82 338,910 REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES 620 State Highway Maintenance 14,348 14,534 15,000 623 Motor Vehicle License Fees 594,611 700,222 640,900 624 Trailer Coach Fees 8,798 11,442 7,500.' 625 State Liquor License Fees 65,797 40,516 60,000 627 Home Owners Exemption 175,874 171,115 219,755 628 Business Inventory Tax 57,397 63,153 46,460 629 Highway Carriers' Tax 6,062 7,179 . 6,000 630 Federal Grants 509,856 679,493 735,800 ' Total Revenue from Other Agencies 1,432,143 1,687,654 17.79 ,7-j 31,415 2.59 CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICE 700 Zoning and.Subdivision Fees 40,946 52,785 50 , 000 701 Plan Checking Fees 107,488 155,758 100,000 703 Community Development Service Fees 1,246 1,470 1,000 704 Environmental Fees 2,164 2,773 2,000 706 Sewer Connection Fees 3,412 13,047 5,000 707 Sewer Connection Fees - District #5 6,163 7,837 4,00.0 710 Engineering Service. Fees 37,912 69,096• 50,000 711 Curb Cut Fees 1,741 2,074 700 714 1911 Act Incidental Expense 26,399 •44,771 -0- 715 Special Lighting District 9,025 10,834 12,450 730 Police Service Fees 2,981 12,185 3,500 731 Fire Service Fees 1,922 998' 2,000 .732 Taxi Permits 451 984 '> 700 ' 733 Alarm Service Fees 4,184 33,044 57,000 • W REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL FUNDS Fund 1975-76 1976-77 % 1977-78 % Account Actua Actual Increase Estimated Increase Number Function and Activities Revenues Revenues (Decrease) Revenues (Decrease 02- GENERAL FUND CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICE (Cont'd.) . 737 Equipment Maintenance Reimbursement 256,284 300,214 321,495 738 Data'Processing Reimbursement . -0- 174,226 190,100 795 Weed Abatement Fees 8,774 10,089 10,000 ' Total Charges for Current 'Service' 511,092 892,779 74.56 . 809,945 g P2 OTHER REVENUES 800 Sale of Property 7,298' 11,203 9,000 801 Sale of Maps and Publications 25,983 ." 24,906 15,000, 802 Sale -of Vehicles. 7,595 21,004 10,000.- 803 Sale of Newspapers. 34,577 36,251 30,360 804 Administrative Services - Water 149,400 .157,200 172,370 806 Refunds and Rebates 84,166 102,970 80,000 807 Donations and Contributions 84,017 60,314 575300 .8.08 _Damage to City Property 20,028 17,598 .20,000 809 Revenues, N.O.C. 9,406 9,630 10,000 Total Other Revenues L ,4 0 11441,076 4.40 404,030 8.40 Total General Fund 12;673,848 15,379,334 21.35 .15,130,755 1.62 10- PARK AND RECREATION FUND 310 Secured Property Tax 539,389. •610,643 734,795 312 Unsecured Property Tax 52,956 65,217 66,590 313 Redemptions, Penalties and Interest 30,976 12,942 -0- 452 Corona del Mar Parking Lot 129,202 .123,,724 130,000 453 Corona del•Mar Passes 14,300 14,606. 15,000 556 Corona del Mar Concession •54,223 72,684 55,000 570 Interest Income 2,742 -1,722 "'" 1,685 620 State Highway Maintenance 5,666 5,666 5,675 ' 627 Home Owners Exemption 25,238. 23,219- 29,820_ 628 Business Inventory Tax 8013' 8,874 ' 6,305 630 Federal Grants 47,677 54,460 70,110. ' 740 Recreation Service.Fees -.Swimming 20,725 24,639 20,860 741 Recreation Service Fees - Miscellaneous 67,168' 86,919 92,550 ' 742 Recreation Service Fees -Tennis 40,690 :46,034 65,280 743 Recreation Service Fees - Pre -School 860 635 900 745 Recreation Service Fees - Surfing 1,628 2,260 2,250 746 Recreation Service Fees - Sailing •-21,368 291,158 35,105 REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL FUNDS Fund 1975-76 Actual 1976-77 Actual % Increase 1977-78 Estimated % Increase Account Function and Activities Revenues Revenues (Decrease) Revenues (Decrease) Cdde 10- 748 PARK AND RECREATION FUND (Copt"d.) Recreation Service Fees - Mariners Tennis 678 387 500 500 749 Recreation Service Fees.- Las Arenas. 384 8 519 519 -0- 794 Parkway Tree Inspection Fee 7 2 25 801 Sale of Maps and Publications 25 2,129 50 806 Refunds and Rebates . (942 ) 1, 85,718 272,500 807 Donations and Contributions 3,039 3,000 808 Damage to City Property -O- 12 25 809 Revenues, N.O.C. Total Park and Recreation Fund 1,065,120 7,272,663 19.49 1>608,525 26.39 11- LIBRARY FUND 521,815 559,756 673,270 310' Secured Property Tax 51,307 67,699 61,015 312 313 Unsecured Property Tax Redemptions, Penalties and Interest 30,923 12,526 -0- 1,685 570 Interest Income 2,782 24,416 4,416 1,603 21,2II4 27,320 627 Home Owners Exemption 8,284 5,775 628 Business Inventory Tax 37,852 36,363 39,614 38,414 51,525 630 Federal Grants 22,000 725 Library Fines 601 1,219 2,000 726 801 Library"Rental Fees Sale of Maps and Publications 6,601 5,217 9,600 1,200 806 Refunds and Rebates 1,298 612 1,955 383 2,564 6,000 807 Donations and Contributions -0- -0- 50 808 Damage to City Property -0- -0- 25 809 Revenues, N-O: ary Fund ,� Total Library 703942 , 748>036 5.27 861,465 . 13- " RETIREMENT FUND 675,882 853,335 1,026,875 310 Secured Property Tax 68,020 77,080 93,060 312 313 Unsecured Property Tax Redemptions, Interest and Penalties 39,477 16,777 -0- - 2,110 570 Interest Income 3,486 31,612 2,335 32,447 41;675 627 Home Owners Exemption, 10,455 11,600 8,810 628 Business Inventory Tax 37,737 49,047 63,920 'j8-59 630 Federal Grants Total •Retirement Fund 866,659 1,042>621 � 1,236,4 0 I?---- REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL.FUNDS "' Fund 1975-76. ctua 1976-77 Actual % Increase 1977-78 Estimated % Increase (Decrease ccount Revenues Revenues (Decrease Revenues Number FunWon and Activities 17- FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND 4,99p 6,645 4,410 570 631 Interest Income Entitlements 275,990 288;160 294,805. 5.18 290,000 294,410 13 Total Federal Revenue Sharing Fund 280,294 18- STATE GAS TAX FUND (Section 2107) 2,386 1,760 3,685 570 Interest Income 263,906 9-79,618 ' 292,000 7,500 621 622 Gas Tax Apportionment Gas Tax Engineering Aid 2107) 7,500 7,500 288,878 5.51 303,185 4.95 273,792 Total State Gas Tax Fund (Section 19- STATE GAS TAX FUND (Section 2106) 4,531 9,098 12,000 515 Rental of Property 16,927 20,146 13,150 316,000 570 626 Interest Income Transportation Act Apportionment 292,146 1,189 318,911 -p- -0- 806 Refunds and Rebates -p- 353 -0-, 807 Donations and Contributions Total State Gas Tax Fund (Section 2106) 314,793- 348,508 10.71 341,15 0 20- ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING FUND 3�788 314,587 -- 265,000 15.76 807 Donations and Contributions 21- TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND •. Fines (Vehicle Code)' 328,707 329,151 2.42 330,000 3.08. 476 Municipal .Court 22- PARKING METER FUND 228,396. 244,248 240,000 48,000 450 451 Parking Meters Off -Street Parking 46,218 7,579 8,609 48,609 9,296 10,250 457 26th Street Parking Lot' -Highway j,579 3,360 300 458 531 Coast Parking Southern California.Rapid Transit District. 300. -p-. 300•: 1,880 -0- 806 808 Refunds and Rebates Damage to City Property -p- ---3 5 511) 309,926 31; 50 •57. 301,960 Total Parking Meter Fund . a hkr i•r`- r• Page No. 13 -REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL FUNDS Fund 1975-76 1976-77 y 1977-78 % Account Actual Actual Increase Estimated Increase Code Function and Activities Revenues Revenues (Decrease) Revenues (Decrease) 23- TIDE_AND SUBMERGED LANDS FUND .414 Pier Permit Registration Fees 14,512 14,430 15,000 415 Mooring Fees 141,350 149,340 150,750- 440 Pier Permits 18,917 25,690 20,000 451 Balboa Parking Lot 84,199 92,937 85,000 453 Parking Lot Annual Pass 14,300 14,606 15,000 501 Balboa Bay Club 83,550 90,224 502 J. A. Beek - Beacon Bay 6,724 6,653 .97,435 6,655 503 J. A. Beek - Balboa Island Ferry 7,335 11,167 12,000" . 504 W. J. Carden - Telescopes 873 897 900 532 Orange County Dock Lease 13,480 14,894 16,385 550 Balboa Pier Concession 2,441 3,882 -0- 552 Newport Pier Concession 4,777 7,763 8,000 560 Royalty - Petroleum 55,713 96,984 100,000 600 County Lifeguard Service 135,688 124,175 148,600 Total Tide and Submerged Lands Fund 583,859 653,642 11.55 675,725 3.88 25- CONTRIBUTIONS FUND 807 Donations and Contributions 4,944 209,954 -- 15,400 (92.67) 27- BUILDING EXCISE TAX 317 Construction Excise Tax 310,816 469,113 310,000 515 Rental of Property 9,425 5,075 -0- 570 Interest Income 20,010 22,396 4,935 807 Donations and Contributions. 45,286 36,636 103,840 Total Building Excise Tax Fund 3 5,5 533,220 38.31 418,775 i21.46) I o, 14 HGcuuuo. Number Function and Activities 49- WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND 807 Donations and Contributions 50- WATER FUND 900 Sale of Water 901 Meter Turn -On Charges 902 Connection Charges 903 Interest Income 905 Rental of Property 906 Refunds and Rebates 907 Donations and Contributions 908 Damage to City Property 909 Revenues, N.O.C. 930 Federal Grants Total Water Fund 51- MARINAPARK FUND 990 Federal Grants 991 Space Rentals 992 Garage Rentals 997 Donations and Contributions 999 Revenues, N.O.C. Total Marinapark Fund TOTAE ALL' CITY REVENUES. REVENUE ESTIMATES - ALL FUNDS 1975-76 1976-77 ctual Actual Revenues Revenues 5,463 -0-_ 2,406,304 3,490 60,175 158,177 :4,006 67 147 3,555 3,271 -0- 2,639,192 11•, 225 143,753. • 1,326 10 . 3,982' 160;296 20,573,168 - 2,733,900 1,720 112,862 102,021 -0- • 153 636 5,490 (3) 473 2,957,252' 12,293 152,676 1,688 49 6,330 • 173,036 24,846,613 Increase (Decrease 72.05 •7.95 20.77 1977-78 Estimated Revenues -0- 3,000,000 2,000 115,000 126,300 -0- 200 200 5,000 1,500 -0- 3,250,200. 13,325 159,990 1,250 -0- . 6,960 181,525 25,214,525 Increase (Decrease s , 01 • FILE COPY VV!Aar SiYEid & .4ociat66,9 Jna DO N()T RrMOVE CAOLE, WILSMITH CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS CALIFORNIA TELEX 57.3489 Z900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 2930 . (213) 930.2280 . o,i /�n�e[aa, CaLil 90036 January 25, 1978.oe 1 9 F, f __ RECEIVED CaIS11"EUn ll Mr. Fred Talarico Dcr 009T;yt Senior Planner Dept Community Development Department Jf�I'lu� City of Newport Beach CITY OF 3300 Newport Boulevard NEWPORT CALIF.- J Newport Beach, California 92663 ti Dear Fred: As you know, we are in the final stages of completing our work on the Central Newport -Beach Parking. Study. Our accounting office recently provided) us with estimates of actual project costs to date, and estimated Costs of project completion. it is our responsibility to notify you that our actual costs to date are in excess of our prescribed budget.' Additionally, the estimated trend in cost expenditures indicates that there is an excellent chance that actual costs excluding any profit will exceed our fee before project completion. A review of past project work efforts and expenses suggests three areas where actual costs exceeded original budget estimates: 1. The fall survey, was not included in our original proposal or in the project contract. We assumed our contingency budget would cover this item, but this proved not to be the •;,case,:_ 2. Our original proposal did not envision the number of meetings and presentations which have been required. Originally, two Planning Commission meetings were planned plus a final City Council presentation - two to three Parking Committee meetings were also planned. Our current schedule requires a total of six appearances before the Planning Commission, and has so far involved three Parking Committee meetings. NEW HAVEN, CONN. COLUMBIA, S.C. - NEW YORK, N.V. PHILADELPHIA� PA. - MIAMI, FLA. ATLANTA, GA. WASHINGTON, D.C. - RICHMOND, VA. - SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF. - WINSTON•SALEM, N.C. KANSAS CITY, MO. BOSTON. MASS. - DALLAS. TEX. HOUSTON, TEX. - DENVER, COI.- TORONTO, ONT. - PITTSBURGH. PA. HONG KONG - LONDON - SINGAPORE - ATHENS MELBOURNE - BRISBANE Mr, Fred Talarico January 25, 1978 Page 2 3. The project schedule has been extended (both at our request and Planning Commission request) approximately 45 days beyond our original planned completion date. These factors have directly contributed to our present adverse cost situation. It is our understanding that our contract with the City provides a $1,890 contingency budget to handle costs generated in excess of the project fee in the performance of work items not fully included within the contract scope. At this time, we would eligibility for use of this we will gladly document our your review. We regret the and will gladly discuss this convenience. Very truly yours, WILBUR SMITH & AS ATES, William E. Hurrell Transportation Engineer WEH:dk #141300 appreciate a determination of our contingency fund. If you desire actual project cost information for need for a request ,of this nature, matter in.more detail at your 0 C� Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Fred Talarico Janaury RECMtun,tl pa�eloPmant Dept• �a� can BF.pcN,. NEY1p0 Gentlemen: \/7Zr The CNPC conducted a general meeting on January 12, 1977 for the purposes of reviewing the current study results pre- pared by Wilbur Smith & Associates. Their representative was present to answer questions from the membership. While there was a divergence of opinion among the members present, it was generally agreed to support a request for the pursuance of an in-depth feasibility study on the alternative program recommended by Wilbur Smith & Associates in their report dated December 22, 1977. This agreement was reached providing that the study would include the costs to increase the capacity of existing parking facilities as well as the development of new facilities. The consensus of opinion indicates that adoption of either of the lower intensity programs involves a considerable risk factor by virtue of their dependency upon peripheral parking. The success of this concept would require a well conceived public relations program and the cooperation of the community. In the absence of strong leadership in that direction, the ultimate decision may be to "go for broke" with extensive park- ing construction. We look forward to reviewing the results of the economic feasibility study and hope to offer more decisive recommenda- tions by the February 16th public hearing. MB:er Very truly yours, Central Newport Parking Committee (�z OMij,beth Brey Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 DO NOT REMOVE i� rentol nzv42cxt barking con-rde¢ 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 Re rrn—,,—USA U� 16 JGiJ /g7n f �. Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Attn: Mr. Fred Talarico Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 13, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study" At the January 5, 1978 Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission reviewed a report from Wilbur Smith and Associates which described three alternative parking programs designed to address the overall parking needs in the Central Newport area. Additionally, the consultant provided its recommended parking program. Based on the discussion at the Study Session, the Planning Commission continued the discussion to its meeting of January 19, 1978 in order to allow time for additional public input and the review of the recommended parking program by the Central Newport Parking Committee. Central Newport Parking Committee The Central Newport Parking Committee held a general membership meeting on January 12, 1978 to review the recommended parking program and to discuss strategies to build support for solutions to the parking problem in the Central Newport area. The Central Newport Parking Committee indicated to staff that it favors the investigation in detail of the parking program alternative recommended by Wilbur Smith and Associates (See alternative attached). It further indicated that the consultants in its detailed investigation should look first at increasing the existing parking supply by taking advantage of opportunities that are presently available. The CNPC specifically designated the City Hall employee parking lot and the Imperial Savings off -site parking lot as potential sites for additional parking to be investigated. The Chairman of the Central Newport Parking Committee indicated that the Committee will forward its formal recommendation to the Planning Commission by letter prior to the January 16, 1978 Study Session. Based on the Planning Commission's preferred parking program alternative, Wilbur Smith and Associates will be preparing its final report. Its final report is scheduled for review and public hearing at the February 16, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Suggested Action If desired, indicate preference for the Wilbur Smith and Associates recommended parking program or for one of.the options previously presented to the Planning Commission or any desirable variation of same so that the in-depth feasibility analysis and final report can be prepared. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By l\ Fred Talari o Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachment: 1) Consultant's recommended alternative PR OGRANIS LOW - NIINIi WA PARKING CONSTRUCTION 1 ' STRINGENT t AFU"I.ING M!WAGEMENT • PERIPHERAL PARKING fl E.pI U, • IiOD'- ' T E PARKING CONSTRUCT ION INTEi ISITY *STRINGENT PAR'l-fING MANAGEMENT *PERIPHERAL PARi"(114G HIGH INTENSITY - *EXTENSIVE PARKING CONSTRUCTION MINOR PARKING MANAGEMENT • NO PERIPHERAL PARKING 0! 1 `PERIPHERALf " LOW INTENSITY PARKING PROGRAM CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH sry w 1985 -400 ADDITIONAL SPACE` IS90 - 700 ADDITIONAL SPACE, O,� FIFTEEN MINUTE SHUTTLE BUS \\\, SERVICE, ,1200 SPACE.)�L; 'iPERIPHERAL:,'; PARKING tir:•, j pERM` T MEDIUM INTENSITY PARKING PROGRAIM CENTRAL R3E1 PORT BEACH 1985 - 200 ADDITIONAL SPACE` 1990 - 700 ADDITIONAL SPACE.; �7 / 1 4''a ► tN MINUTE + fir; SHUTTLE BUS ��.%iSERVICE rt�M S 1] r' u HIGH INTENSITY PARKING PROGRAM CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH M 1980 - 600 ADDITION `.L SPACE' 1985 - 800 ADDITION L SPACE. 1990- 700 ADDITIONAL SPACE: DMZ IlRM1 M - - ell; E -• PROGRAM LOW, INTENSITY MEDIUM INTENSITY HIGH WTENSI T Y COMPARISON OF PROGRAMS LEVEL OF SERVICE (-1- spaces) : 011, 1990 -1,100 1,900 1980-L200 U 1- 900 " 2,100 980-600 985 - 800 990- 700 2,100 ECONOMIC (annual deficit 1977 dollars) 1980- $ 1101000111 , 1985-$ 130,000 11, 1990-$3300000 1980-$360,000 1985-$420,000 1990-$ 620,000 •:• see •� •00 LAND USE (land devoted to parking) SOCIAL / ENVIRONMENTAL , 3+ 4.5 ACRES • 2Q00-2,600 AD T i reduction • Significant impact i on adjacent areas 2 — 3.5 ACRES • 2,000-4,000 ADT reduction ;•Significant impact on adjacent areas 4— 6.5 ACRES ?• Minor t REC®MMEENDPD PROGRAIA • 800 SPACE PERIPHERAL. PARKING ( TEST PROGRAM .ON WEST COAST. HIGHWAY) • PARKING RATE INCREASE • PARKING VALIDATION IN COMMERCIAL AREAS • RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PROGRAM • 1985 — CONSTRUCT 200 ADDITIONAL SPACES IN STUDY AREA PLUS 1200 SPACE PERIPHERAL PARKING (NEWPORT BLVD. ) • or. CONSTRUCT 600 ADDITIONAL SPACES IN STUDY AREA • 1990 — CONSTRUCT 700 ADDITIONAL SPACES-.: IN STUDY AREA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ''� 'A; " DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT" ' .-:'" 415015V/ (714) 640-2261 January 11, 1978 Mr. Bill Hurrel and Mr. Ron North c/o Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2950 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Bill and Ron: Pursuant to our discussion on Monday, January 9, 1978, I have reviewed the projected timing for the completion of our contract. The following milestones and meeting dates should correspond with those we�discussed yesterday. Thursday, January 12, 1978: . Central Newport Parking Committee . 2:00 p.m. - Attorney Conf. Room . Presentation of Alternative Programs Thursday, January 19, 1978: . Planning Commission Study Session . 2:00 p.m. Council Chambers . Selection of Alternative Program' *Thursday, January 19, 1978: . Planning Commission Meeting . 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers . Set Study for Public Hearing• Wednesday, February 1,'1978: . "Final Report Due" . By 5:00 P.M. . Advance Planning Division Thursday, February 16, 1978: . Planning Commission Meeting . 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers . Public Flearing/Presentation of Final Report A subsequent meeting with the City Council for -its approval of the Planning Commission's recommended parking program will be *'Wilbur Smith and Associates attendance not required. City Hall 0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 1 v ..-. Mr. Bill Hurrel and Mr. .Ron North Page Two January 11, 1978 required. Should you have any questions about the above dates, please contact me. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director dov/ 9�1 By F d T fl a r i c o Senior P FT:jmb Planning Commission Meeting January 5, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. ti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 29, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community.Development SUBJECT: "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study" At the December 15, 1977 Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission reviewed a letter report from Wilbur Smith & Associates dated December 6, 1977, which outlined in summary form existing parking needs for each subarea within Central Newport.. The letter reportied to af also indicated alternative parking strategies that might be ao r the individual subarea problems or as part of an overall program fo Central Newport area. It further indicated which parking strategy might best address the problems of each subarea. During the Study Session, staff reviewed the consensus direction for the remainder of the parking study given to the consultant by the Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee. Their suggestion was to meet the existing parking problem, to address employee parkers, to look toward the least costly solutions and to look for solutions which can be quickly implemented. The next stage i•n the preparation of the parking study is the Planning Commission's review of alternative parking programs and the initial screening of each alternative in terms of its economic feasibility. The consultants report on the alternative parking programs is attached. The consultant will be present at the January 5, 1978 Planning Commission Study.Session to review the attached report and answer questions. It will be necessary at the January 5, 1978 Study Session for the Planning Commission to give the consultant further direction as to which alterna- tive parking program the Planning Commission prefers. This direction will allow the consultant to continue with the preparation of his 'final report and recommendations. The presentation of the consultant's final report is scheduled as part of the continued public hearing ori..the adoption of a concept plan for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The public hearing was continued from the December 1, 1977 meeting to your evening meeting of February 2; 1978. The Central Newport Parking Committee has invited its general membership to the January 5, 1978 Study Session and has scheduled a general membership meeting for January 12, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. in the Attorney's Conference Room. The purpose of that meeting will be to review the Planning Commission's preferred Alternative Parking Program toidiscuss. strategies to build support for solutions to the parking problems the Central Newport Beach area. Alternative Parking Programs The attached report from Wilbur Smith & Associates, dated December 22, 1977, describes three alternative parking programs designed to address the overall parking need identified in the consultant's previous summary of existing conditions and parking demand ("Parking Study", November, 1.977}. The three programs, consisting of strategies applicable to both short-term and long-term need, have been categorized as "Low-", Medium-", and "High- Intensity" depending on the level of financial investment require to implement the programs. The attached report provides a description of each alternative program in terms of hots each parking strategy would be applied. In addition, the report evaluates the impact of each pro'gra� in terms of level of service, economics, -land- use, and social/env-ironmenal factors,=_ TO: Planning Commissi� - 2 . Existing Parking Problems The consultant's "Review of Alternative Parking Strategies", dated December 6, 1977, identified the disparity of activity that occurs during the summer versus non -summer seasons as a major contributor to congestion and parking deficiencies in the study area. Parking problems within individual sub -areas were summarized as follows (map attached); Via Lido - Employees parking in commercial spaces during .summer season. - Low utilization of Government employee spaces during weekends and evenings throughout the year. - Lack of convenient parking for churchgoers during weekend and weekday activity throughout the year. Cannery Village - Employees. -parking in commercial spaces during the summer season. Scattering of small off-street lots causing inefficient use of land and increased traffic circulation. Bayfront - Insufficient parking supply provided by some -of the individual land users causing disruption to landusers that do provide sufficient supply. Insufficient pedestrian circulation between Bayfront sub -area and public off-street parking supply located south of Newport Boulevard. .-.These problems are highly critical during evening, weekend, summer activities. McFadden Square - Heavy competition between beach and commercial parkers over limited parking supply during summer season especially during weekday activity. Limited parking supply in this area causes-parkers to overflow into residential areas. This problem is also most critical during weekend summer activity. Newport -Balboa Oceanfront Residential "A" Residential "B" 7 - Area north of Newport Boulevard suffers from scattering of relatively small surface lots which in turn presents several points of traffic conflict. Beachgoers parking in residential areas. - Employees parking in residential area- - Employees and beachgoers parking in residential area. Low Investment Program The "Low Intensity Parking Program" proposes to meet existing problems an•d- projected deficiencies--by,_p-rovidi-ri"g parking outside the -study area <<rrth=strut-tl- :lr� se v;ic b? �n e�assng ark,tnt�-_me.te_r;;rat-es;=b,-yc PT--( l - a validttion'=system=in==eo"mm--I-=l-:arms-;=_algid-i=y_ �imithg=;_p r_W—r mimes in residential areas. This alternative includes no major caplaT prdj -:. .-x-----_ =� _�_=--4•.m=--- �' - tip==--J�=,-:-=� -_ - -_ _. - - _ - _ --'�."-•==m=° TO: Planning Commission - 3 'in the study area prior to 1985. Additional parking facilities would be provided through 1990 in accordance with future needs. The principal benefits of this program are its lower costs in terms of physical improvements, and reduced traffic due to peripheral parking facilities. The feasibility of providing peripheral parking and shuttle service through the Orange County Transit District remains to be demonstrated.. Medium Investment Program The "Medium Intensity Parking Program" involves measures similar to those described above, plus a residential parking permit program and substantial capital improvements. This program calls for the construction of new parking facilities in the study area beginning in 1980 to correspond to parking demand from new•development. The.benefits of this program are more in the area of performance than in cost. Vehicle usage and peak hour traffic would be reduced in the study area. Substantial costs would be incurred beginning in 1980• as a result of construction of additional parking facilities. High Investment Program The "High Intensity Parking Program" consists of rate increases, residential permits, and the provision of substantial clustered parking beginning in 1980. No peripheral parking is provided. The major advantage of this program is that parking demand is.addressed entirely within the study area, thus maximizing parker convenience. However, the required capital improvements make this alternative the most costly to implement. This program requires greater additional acreage for parking in the study area, with no reduction in traffic impact. A more -detailed. evaluation of these programs is presented in Tables 1 through 4 in the report attached. Displays showing the possible locations of proposed facilities will be presented at the Study Session meeting. Suggested Action If desired, indicate preference for one of the options presented or any desirable variation of the three alternative programs so that a preferred alternative can be subjected to in-depth.feasibility analysis, as requested in the consultant's letter of transmittal. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By red Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments: 1) Map 2) Wilbur Smith & Associates Report 14 .. ,j i� r�! 1 •t ,9it 1 .ir4��•1� i '1 •1� 0 STUDY AREA 4.�•, CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH. ' 1 1 1f.I(4.=`N1114 M.1.�rI�,441Jlfl • i LEGEND: Figure 2 ` Wilbur JmX and ,./ mociate3, Jnc. CABLE WILSMITH TELEX 37-3439 September 1, 1978 D IV E COPY DO NOT REMOVE Mr. Richard V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall 330 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: 5900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 2950 . //�1 oa - 4.9. QQ ie, C.'" 90036 PHONE (213) 938.2188 RECEIVED Community Development Dept SEP6 1978:>- CITY OF NEWP014T BEACH, CALIF. •), The Newport Beach Parking Commission, at its August 17, 1978 meeting, voted unanimously to approve the implementation of four elements of the first phase of the Central Newport Beach Parking Program. The fifth element of the program we developed, the South Cannery Village Parking Project was not approved. Per your request we have examined the implications of the Commission's action in terms of the adequacy of parking in the study area over the next five years. With the assumption that the recommended test of the peripheral parking concept is successful, it is our opinion that the imple- mentation of the first four elements of Phase I of the parking would provide adequate parking in the Central Newport area through 1981. After that time a parking deficiency would develop in the Cannery Village area. To minimize that deficiency, the City should continue to actively enforce the pending parking zoning ordinances for all new development. The collection of in -lieu fees as a substitute for adequate on -site parking should also be continued. Since the three metered off-street public lots in the McFadden area would be converted to attendant parking under the Phase I program, we recommended that businesses paying in -lieu fees which apply to the existing metered parking in McFadden Square be issued parking validation tickets. The number of tickets issued should be equivalent to use of one space all day for each space that the in -lieu fee is collected. All businesses would be able to purchase additional validation tickets from the City, -under the Phase I recommendation. in -lieu parking fees should be directed to the funding of the existing and proposed future parking facilities. ALLIANCE,OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA, SC-DALLAS -FALLS CHURCH,VA- HONG'KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLE-LONDON -LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI-NEW HAVEN -NEW YORK-PHILADELPHIA-RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE-TORONTO-WASHINGTON, DC-WINSTON-SALEM 0 0 Mr. Richard V. Hogan September,.l, 1978 Page 2 We trust that this information is suitable to your immediate,, needs, please note, however, that actual implemenatation of the Phase I recommendations will require the detailed development of the above programs and policies. Sincerely, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES William E. Hurrell Associate Registered P.E. California #C29293 #141300 k.% ' 0 ® �^I �" D ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT September 1, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan Director of Community Development ® City of Newport Beach ;a' B Newpor each,lCA 92663 p 01 Ro of. Dear Mr. Hogan: �Cu��unity Dcv�lopment Dept SEP 6 1978P.- Of NRyypORT BEACH, CALIF. The OCTD staff has reviewed the Central Newport Beach Parking Study by Wilbur Smith and Associates, and has examined alternative ways of providing transit service to the peninsula area. Making every attempt to explore ways to utilize the Caltrans' excess land along Pacific Coast Highway, approximately ten unique routing alternatives were developed and evaluated. These alter- natives ranged from totally "pulling back" all lines to the remote parking lot to a partial rerouting of some lines. After intensive study and field testing, we concluded that it is infeasible to reroute or restructure the existing OCTD lines to serve the remote parking lot. Some of the determining factors in this decision are detailed below: o GEOMETRICS: Turning movements of buses and automobiles in and out of the lot onto PCH would require the instal- lation of a traffic signal, which in turn would disrupt the flow of the traffic on PCH. Also, the interchange at PCH and Newport Blvd. would present severe grade and turning problems for the buses. In addition, the time penalties for rerouting the existing lines would be considerable. SCHEDULING: Rerouting all lines to the remote lot would require several additional vehicles in order for service to be maintained at current headways. The District currently has no spare vehicles for this use. o INCREASED TRAVEL TIME: The additional miles added to existing lines to serve the remote lot) and the transfer 1200 NORTH MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 688 • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • PHONE (714) 834-6190 Mr. R, V. Hogan September 1, 1978 Page 2' factor would cause increased travel time and incon- venience to existing OCTD passengers. -o OPERATING COSTS: The additional vehicles and longer routes required would increase the District's operating costs. HOAG MEMORI•AL HOSPITAL: Linking the remote lot to the hospital access road was explored. Considerable grading and paving would be required for such a connection. Furthermore, using the service road at the south end of the hospital would result in, major conflicts between OCTD buses and the ambulances and automobiles. In addition, the noise generation of the buses would likely create objections by the hospital adminstration. Upon consideration of the above factors, it was concluded that a separate shuttle system superimposed on the existing OCTD services, would be necessary to provide the level of service recommended by your consultant. However, due to the recent cutback in the District's operating revenues, it is unlikely that the District can finance such a localized shuttle service in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, several issues must first be resolved as follows: o Is the shuttle for the use of employees only (as recom- mended by Wilbur Smith and Associates) or would it be for the use of all persons traveling to the peninsula? o What is the feasibility of increasing parking fees on the entire peninsula, as well as the feasibility of adopting the parking fee 'proposals for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area suggested by the consul- tant? o Who would finance the shuttle? Would the local merchants and employers provide'subsidy for the operation of the shuttle? o What is the status of the Caltrans owned lot on Pacific Coast Highway? Would the city acquire and improve the lot or would Caltrans donate the lot? r�� l A � J Mr. R. V. Hogan September 1, 1978 Page 3 If you have any questions, please call me or Dick Hsu at (714) 834- 6190. Very truly yours, ;5;-CegA.er Robert C. Hartwig Manager of Planning RCH:CHA cc: Bil Darnell UVilbur SmA and A6dociated, inc. CABLE WILSMITH TELEX 59-3439 August 8, 1978 Mr. R. V. Hogan Director Department of Community Development City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Hogan: 9900 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 2980 CIL-4.g.6d, C.164 90036 PHONE (213( 938.2188 RECEIVED YV Community Development Dept. AUG 111978 a - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, / CALIF. e At the continuation of the public hearing relative to the Central Newport Beach Parking Study at Newport Beach Planning Commission meeting on August 3, 1978, several commissioners expressed a need for clarification and further justification of our recommendation that the City form a Parking Authority. This letter should serve to better define the reasoning behind our recommendation and the actual nature of a Parking Authority. The Need For A Parking Authority The original intent of our work in Newport Beach was the identification of problems and needs related to parking in Central Newport. Our reports, however, do not emphasize strongly enough one aspect of the current parking problem. The administration and management of parking in central Newport is currently fragmented between several City departments in- cluding Community Development, Traffic Engineering, the Police, and Street Maintenance. The allocation of revenues generated by parking is also fragmented with much of the revenue going into General Fund accounts not related to parking. The result is that City policies relative to parking fees, enforcement, zoning requirements, and parking development are both unclear and often inconsistent. Specifically the following problems have resulted from the lack of an organized approach to parking ALLIANCE,OH-ATLANTA-BOSTON-BRISBANE-COLUMBIA, SC-DALLAS -FALLS CHURCH, VA -HONG KONG-HOUSTON-KNOXVILLE-LONDON-LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI-NEW HAVEN -NEW YORK-PHILADELPHIA-RICHMOND-SAN FRANCISCO-SINGAPORE-TORONTO-WASHINGTON, DC-WINSTON-SALEM Mr. R. V. Hogan i�gqust 8, 1978 Page 2 administration in the City: • Parking meter rates are well below those charged in other coastal communities. The city is loosing roughly 50 per cent of potential parking revenues which could be generated. • Parking rates for long term•parkers who' occupy prime on -street parking for the entire day are lower than those charged for short term high turnover parking. The city is again missing a potential source of increased revenue, and,is•encouraging inefficient use of public parking. • The current practice of using in -lieu parking fees as an alternative to meeting parking code requirements aggravates the existing parking deficiency. • There is no mechanism for cycling parking related revenues back into parking meter revenues, parking ticket revenues., and in - lieu fee revenues should be earmarked to cover the capital and operating expense of the parking program. Our study recommends various elements of a parking program which would solve the above problems. If, however, the recommendations of our study are implemented without the establishmdnt of some entity within ,the city to provide over- all direction .and control, the success of the program would be severely jeopardized. The initial phase of the program involves: (1) Development of .peripheral parking (2) Parking fee increases and restructuring (3) Parking validation (4) Residential permit program. Le , 4q lemented, and a train ,, I , Mr. R. V. Hogan August 8, 1978 Page 3 These elements must be implemented and administered as a fbhnkage as each element depends upon the others for its success. Peripheral parking will not work without the fee increases and without controls in the residential areas. Additionally, the program will require significant promotion and solicitation of 'support from employers in Central Newport. The'Residential Permit Program will require provision of an administrative staff. Similarly, the parking validation•pro- gram will require.admini:strative efforts. All four elements will depend upon mbter revenues-, parking fines, and validation and permit fees for direct funding support. Given the current structure of City government, each one of these program elements would most likely be administered separately. Our opinion is that all elements of the parking over allocation of all parking related revenues. We have designated the formation of a Parking Authority to serve this purpose. Ultimately, a Parking Authority ivoularbe ahi.expelsent, vehicle for arranging the financing of new'parking facilities; but most importantly,, the Authority would provide immea&htely the administrative and'management capability required to imple- ment and operate the elements of the parking program. The Nature Of The Parking Authori.tV Any proposal to expand City 4overnment should be viewed, cautiously, particularly in light of the apparent public ink= _ ferest in reduoingnexpenses related to government. We intend, -- however, that the Central Newport Parking Authority be established as a reorganization rather than expansion of City staff activities. The Authority would be staffed by existing personnel from various City departments who currently devote a portion of their time to parking related work efforts. We would suggest that a member of each, the Community Development,, Public Works and Police Department be assigned on a partial time basis to the Parking Authority. The director of the Authority could also be a designated City staff member, although a major commitment of time would be required. Some permanent clerical and secretarial staff would be required to handle the paperwork requirements of the Residential Permit Program and the validation program. These personnel ' Mr. R. V. Hogan August 8, 1978 Page 4 would be paid, however, directly from program revenues. The Parking Authority would be subject to the control of a Parking Commission. The members of the Commission would be appointed by,City Council. A high degree of flexi- bility is allowed in the makeup of the Commission. The Commission could be a sub -committee of City Council, the Planning Commission or a sub -committee of the Commission, or an appointed group of concerned citizens. The Commission would consider all parking related manners at regularly scheduled meetings open to the public. We trust that this serves to clarify our conviction that the formation of a Pa'bking Authority is fundamental to the success of any parking program in Central Newport. Very truly yours, ,f WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES / William E. Hurrell Project Manager WEH:ed 0 August 7, 1978 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 FlU COPY DO t40T RrD'IOVI1 Re: Central Newport Beach Parking Study Gentlemen: At the August 3, 1978 Planning Commission public hearing on the "Parking Program Feasibility" draft report, the Planning Com- mission directed staff to expand the existing meeting notifi- cation process to include all homeowners' associations within and adjacent to the study area. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to notify you of the next public meeting on this subject. The meeting will be Thursday, August 17, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Newport Beach City Council Chambers, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663. The "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study of the Central Newport Beach Area" includes all commercial and some residential property between the Arches Bridge and 19th Street in the Central Newport Beach area. Attached to this letter are: 1) The staff report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 3, 1978. 2) A summary of the overall study and the parking program recommended by the Central Newport Parking Committee and approved by the Planning Commission at its January 19, 1978 meeting. 3) A copy of the draft report "Parking Program Feasibility" prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, dated March 10, 1978. 4) The staff report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of June 15, 1978. 0 Page 2 August 7., 1978 5) A "Supplemental Information Report" which addresses the issues raised by the Planning Commission and general public at the April 20, 1978 meeting. 6) The staff report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of April 20, 1978. If you or any members of your association have any questions regarding the above material or wish to meet with staff to discuss the program prior to the August 17th Planning Commission meeting, please contact me at 640-2261. Respectfully, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Dir ctor 8Y FRED TALARIGU Senior Planner FT/kk Enclosures 0 August 3; 1978 TO: Commissioner Helen McLaughlin FROM: Fred Talarico SUBJECT: Meeting Notification ' "Central Newport Parking Study" I have reviewed our files as they pertain to homeowners' associations notification of past Planning Commission meetings on the "Central Newport Parking Study" and have found the following: Associations on Regular Mailing List West Newport Improvement Association Park Lido Association, Inc. John Shea, PresidentHarry Holly, President Central Newport Beach Association Newport Island Association Bobby.Lovell, President Walter Hart, President Notifications Chronology Date Meeting Date Individuals) Notification Method Continued 8/3/78 John Shea 7/31/78 Telephone Planning Comm- Bobby Lovell ission Public Hearin Planning Comm= 14/20/78 John Shea 4/7/78 Mail ission Public Bobby Lovell " " " Hearing 1 Harry Holly Walter Hart Planning n2q ission Comm - 2/16/78 John Shea 2/9/78 Mail Bobby Lovell " Harry Holly " Walter Hart " Plannin Comm- 1/5/.78 John Shea 12/13/77 Mail ission ?Study Session) Plannin Comm- 12/15/77 John Shea 12/13/77 Mail ission ?Study Session). Planniu Comm- 10/20/77 ission (Study Session). 1. Notice ofpublic hearing was published in the Ensigry 4/6/78. Press release was sent to Daily Pilot, Los Angeles'Times, Ensign, and Register 4/7/78. 2. Press release was sent to Daily Pilot,' Newporter, Los Angeles Times, Ensign and Register. 3. Press release was sent to Daily Pilot, Register, Newporter and Los Angeles Times. Should you have any questions to contact me at (640-2261). Respectf lly Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT/dt regarding this notification, please feel free , ' i ! •f/errvraryoa Gsi' ^ Peifa:� �irt�utT 8I1�7B h/zI -- d�iN.tJ '7 SI 74 --- tAw &f—W _- isrc� �Cew ,QGt,�t �iL ---- ! 4PlL ------ - - (4vt� ,�/J.� 8 • __ COS Idli7vc — July 28, 1978 Dear Committee Member: u The Planning Commission is meeting August 3rd at 7:00 P.M. with two new members to consider the proposed parking plan recommended by Wilbur Smith & Associates. While there have been.numerous postponements on this issue over the last several months, we believe a final decision is likely to evolve from this meeting. That decision will represent the official recommendation to the City Council for any subsequent action to be taken. I urge your attendance and participation in this open hearing. Very truly yours, Milbeth Brey, Chairman MB:js CO? J-X t , B lox 'Do 1VD R GEnu �o Gn0-10 n UL3P�19�a� J ot��°acN� 140p CPI:. li r A i 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 C•Y OF NEWPORT • AC _ rE MEMORANDUM: FrOM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FRED TALARICO may, 22 140? yt TO...---. ............... .: ......................... senior �anner Re: Development Control Strategy - Wilbur Smith Study Copy 00 NOT nc.,,,ioVE You have asked our review of your proposed "development phasing" control strategy outlined in your memo of May 1. I would make the following comemnts in regard to the strategy: 1. I maintain serious reservations regarding the ability of the City to lawfully deny a property owner the right to park vehicles on his own property to provide the required off-street automobile parking to allow development of his property. I am aware of no case law authorization for such a strategy. 2. If all on -site off-street parking and off-street parking agreements are prohibited, all development would be prohibited unless and until the municipally owned and maintained parking spaces were made available. This would constitute, during the interim period from prohibition to provision of parking spaces, an absolute moratorium on any use or redevelopment of property. One can argue that this would constitute taking of property without due process of law (inverse condemnation) unless there were an absolute and clear commitment by the City to pro- vide parking and to provide parking within a very short time frame. To cause a long-term prohibition of any change or alteration of use of property would seem to be of questionable validity when the only mechanism for change would be the provision of public facilities. 3. If the publicly owned and maintained parking spaces did not provide adquate parking to have a reasonable amount of development and/or redevelopment of existing properties, a long- term moratorium on the use and redevelopment of property would be imposed with no viable or fasible alternative within the control of the property owner. This also could be arguably a taking or damaging of property without compensation, or it could constitute an unequal application of zoning regulation on one property and not upon another. , 4. If such which presently have through an existing be considered. The significant in these Market, the Cannery Reply wanted ❑ Reply not neceeeary p a prohibition the effect on properties adequate or nearly adequate parking, either off -site parking agreement or on -site, must issue of equal protection of law becomes circumstnaces, when one looks at Delaney's Restaurant and other developments where N1•t0. Memo to Fred Talarico May 22, 1978 Page Two parking is in fact provided, either directly or indirectly through an off -site parking agreement. 5. It would seem that development intestity controls could be established in methods other than a prohibition of off-street parking on private parking. HRC:kb Planning Commission Meeting January.5, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 29, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study" At the December 15, 1977 Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission reviewed a letter report from Wilbur Smith & Associates dated December 6, 1977, which outlined in summary form existing parking needs for each subarea within Central Newport. The letter report also indicated alternative parking strategies that might be applied to individual subarea problems or as part of an overall program for the Central Newport area. It further indicated which parking strategy might best address the problems of each subarea. During the Study Session, staff reviewed the consensus direction for the remainder of the parking study given to the consultant by the Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee. Their suggestion was to meet the existing parking problem, to address employee parkers, to look toward the least costly solutions and to look for solutions which can be quickly implemented. The next stage in the preparation of the parking study is the Planning Commission's review of alternative parking programs and the initial screening of each alternative in terms of its economic feasibility. The consultants report on the alternative parking programs is attached. The consultant will be present at the January 5, 1978 Planning Commission Study Session to review the attached report and answer questions. It will be necessary at the January 5, 1978 Study Session for the Planning Commission to give the consultant further direction as to which alterna- tive parking program the Planning Commission prefers. This direction will allow the consultant to continue with the preparation of his final report and recommendations. The presentation of the consultant's final report is scheduled as part of the continued public hearing on the adoption of a concept plan for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. The public hearing was continued from the December 1, 1977 meeting to your evening meeting of February 2, 1978. The Central Newport Parking Committee has invited its general membership to the January 5, 1978 Study Session and has scheduled a general membership meeting for January 12, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. in the Attorney's Conference Room. The purpose of that meeting will be to review the Planning Commission's preferred Alternative Parking Program and to discuss strategies to build support for solutions to the parking problems in the Central Newport Beach area. Alternative Parking Programs The attached report from Wilbur Smith & Associates, dated December 22, 1977, describes three alternative parking programs designed to address the overall parking need identified in the consultant's previous summary of existing conditions and parking demand ("Parking Study", November, 1977). The three programs, consisting of strategies applicable to both short-term and long-term need, have been categorized as "Low-", Medium-", and "High -Intensity" depending on the level of financial investment required to implement the programs. The attached report provides a description of each alternative program in terms of how each parking strategy would be applied. In addition, the report evaluates the impact of each program in terms of level of service, economics, land use, and social/environmental factors. TO: Planning Commission - 2 Existing Parking Problems The consultant's "Review of Alternative Parking Strategies", dated December 6, 1977, identified the disparity of activity that occurs during the summer versus non -summer seasons as a major contributor to congestion and parking deficiencies in the study area. Parking problems within individual sub -areas were summarized as follows (map attached); Via Lido - Employees parking in commercial spaces during summer season. - Low utilization of Government employee spaces during weekends and evenings throughout the year. - Lack of convenient parking for churchgoers during weekend and weekday activity throughout the year. Cannery Village - Employees parking in commercial spaces during the summer season. - Scattering of small off-street lots causing inefficient use of land and increased traffic circulation. Bayfront - Insufficient parking supply provided by some of the individual land users causing disruption to landusers that do provide sufficient supply. - Insufficient pedestrian circulation between Bayfront sub -area and public off-street parking supply located south of Newport Boulevard. - These problems are highly critical during evening, weekend, summer activities. McFadden Square - Heavy competition between beach and commercial parkers over limited parking supply during summer season especially during weekday activity. - Limited parking supply in this area causes parkers to overflow into residential areas. This problem is also most critical during weekend summer activity. Newport -Balboa - Area north of Newport Boulevard suffers from scattering of relatively small surface lots which in turn presents several points of traffic conflict. Oceanfront - Beachgoers parking in residential areas. Residential "A" - Employees parking in residential area. Residential "B" - Employees and Beachgoers parking in residential area. Low Investment Program The "Low Intensity Parking Program" proposes to meet existing problems and projected deficiencies by providing parking outside the study area with shuttle bus service, by increasing parking meter rates, by providing a validation system in commercial areas, and by limiting parking times in residential areas. This alternative includes no major capital projects f TO: Planning Commission - 3 in the study area prior to 1985. Additional parking facilities would be provided through 1990 in accordance with future needs. The principal benefits of this program are its lower costs in terms of physical improvements, and,reduced traffic due to peripheral parking facilities. The feasibility of providing peripheral parking and shuttle service through the Orange County Transit District remains to be demonstrated. Medium Investment Program The "Medium Intensity Parking Program" involves measures similar to those described above, plus a residential parking permit program and substantial capital improvements. This program calls for the construction of new parking facilities in the study area beginning in 1980 to correspond to parking demand from new development. The benefits of this program are more in the area of performance than in cost. Vehicle usage and peak hour traffic would be reduced in the study area. Substantial costs would be incurred beginning in 1980 as a result of construction of additional parking facilities. High Investment Program The "High Intensity Parking Program" consists of rate increases, residential permits, and the provision of substantial clustered parking beginning in 1980. No peripheral parking is provided. The major advantage of this program is that parking demand is addressed entirely within the study area, thus maximizing parker convenience. However, the required capital improvements make this alternative the most costly to implement. This program requires greater additional acreage for parking in the study area, with no reduction in traffic impact. A more -detailed evaluation of these programs is presented in Tables 1 through 4 in the report attached. Displays showing the possible locations of proposed facilities will be presented at the Study Session meeting. Suggested Action_ If desired, indicate preference for one of the options presented or any desirable variation of the three alternative programs so that a preferred alternative can be subjected to in-depth feasibility analysis, as requested in the consultant's letter of transmittal. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By red Talarico Senior Planner FT: jmb Attachments: 1) Map 2) Wilbur Smith & Associates Report LEGEND* V 11 M A : r• �Q; � , �"} ram, `••`.„;:,`'{ � ,,, c.., w ; r•... �r7•_. �, `�r ; /�.'`-ice ��'�\";+`� —,Ly1� 91, ]_ 64 • •,,, C�-]� � = "'iiN+A A r a'- �/ ,_�.�/ 11 t7 Nam. -~�'' STUDY AREA � CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH io \\ LA �; BAYI=pONT tppF�� S�up,RE t i Figure 2 j n ! '� a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date Demand of: Wilbur Smith and Associates Address: 4500 Jackson Boulevard P.O. Box 92 - Columbia, South Carolina 29202 In the amount of $4,862:21 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT For professional services relative to New ort Beach Parking Stud - August 1977 Project No. 141300P - Invoice No. 27703 Contract date 8/12/77 (BA-19 September 12, 1977) 022916000 Annrmiorl Pnr Pa\/m TOTAL $4,862.21 Audited and Approved: Finance Director 6 le- )9 t fl��" SM L•�, ul n n"oC 1NNOO. 27703 Nt/ Nt/ 4500 Jac kson Boulevard P. 0. BOX 92 PROJECT NO, Columbia, S. C. 29202 11/01/77 14130, g, 02 F City of Newport Beach- �.y �.^�!•lR.'•L�� INVOICE Department of Community Development 19TT 3300 Newport Boulevard �, 5 TO Newport Beach, California 92663 L For professional services relative to Newport Beach Parking Study, Calif. Contract Number Contract Date 08/12/77 Period: August, 1977 Principal Associates 18.0 HRS-RATE $55.00 $ 990.00 Engineers, Planners 46.0 HRS-RATE $27.00 1,242.00 Supervisors 70.0 HRS-RATE $15.00 1,050.00 Drafting 17.5 HRS-RATE $11.00 192.50 Enumerator & Junior Analysts 133.0 HRS-RATE $ 8.00 1,064.00 Travel - Auto, Rental, Taxi, Etc. 2.86 Travel - Auto, Personal Mileage 198.78 Subsistence 31.17 Telephone and Telegraph 13.90 Taxes and Licenses 77.00 TOTAL $4,862.21 "Certified true and correct to the best of my knowledge and payment has not been received." _ H. K. Corley, Controller SUMMARY Total Amount Invoiced Through August, 1977 $4,862.221 na -q ALLIANCE. ON ANCHORAGE • ATLANTA BRISBANE • COLUMBIA, SC • OALLAS • FALLS CHURCH. VA • HONG KONG HOUSTON • KNOXVILLE MAYSVILLE, KY • NEW YORK • MELBOURNE • NEW HAVEN . LEXINGTON. KY - PHILADELPHIA • RICHMOND " SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE - TORONTO • 4 ORIGINAL INVOICE • 13.s December 21, 1977 Dear Committee Member: A summation of potential strategies for the solutions to our parking problems is provided in the attached report from Wilbur Smith & Associates. An informal presentation of the feasibility of these strategies will be made to the Planning Commission on Thursday, January 5, 1978 at their 2:00 p.m. study session. I strongly urge you to attend. The Central Newport Parking Committee membership is invited to regroup and review questions with Wilbur Smith & Associates on Thursday January 12th at 2:00 p.m. irr the Attorney's Conference Room at City Hall. Please feel free to invite any interested parties to become involved as the Planning Commission will conduct a'formal hearing at their regular evening meeting Thursday, February 2, 1978. We are anxious to represent those recommendations which best serve the needs of each community area. This can only be accom- plished through careful consideration and intelligent dialog. We have the tools at our disposal and the opportunity to use them productively. I sincerely hope you will join me in solidifying our intent. Very truly yours, CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE ?"/ t- Milbeth Brey Chairman MB:so Attachment (None) * See report to Planning Commission dated 12/9/77 re "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study" FILE C®PY DO NOT REMOVE 3475Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 7141675-8662 Y IV Eo `C µECcovl�onUy C Deg � Bement oBEPON/ N CITY OF. NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 December 20, 1977 Mr. Bill Hurrel and Mr. Ron North c/o Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Bill and Ron: Pursuant to our discussion on Monday, December 19, 1977, I have reviewed our existing data as it relates to the timing of development within your planning project area. 'The enclosed chart is a statistical analysis of anticipated Tand use in 1985 and 1995. The figures include all projected growth within your study area. We are projecting no change to the existing land use pattern for the oceanfront, Via Lido or Lido Peninsula sub -areas. Projected and existing statistics on residential development have not been included. The statistics are based on existing zoning and trend conditions. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Di ector By� Fre Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Enclosure FILCH C D3 k1 City IIall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 EXISTING PROJECTED PROJECTED TYPE LAND USE 1985 1995 CANNERY VILLAGE AREA Retail Sales 74,793 11,983 69,400 Office 52,248 74,871 83,345 Industrial 63,776 55,426 20,000 Restaurant 15098 '15,398 8,950 BAYFRONT AREA Retail Sales 40,528 32,258 31,540 Office 22,960 22,000 32,000 Industrial 11,670 5,000 5,000 Restaurant 17,172 29,276 37,276 MCFADDEN SQUARE AREA Retail Sales 25,529 70,984 90,645 Office 4,429 3,532 19,000 Restaurant 21,965 26,640 29,565 Art Museum 13,582 -0- -0- NEWPORT./BALBOA BLVD. AREA Retail Sales 71,436 70,408 73,425 Office 10,281 7,114 12,114 Restaurant 4,240 3,598 4,598 Hotel/Motel 13 Rooms 13 Rooms 13 Rooms RESIDENTIAL AREA "A" Retail Sales 21,136 21,136 21,136 Office 6,175 16,175 16,175 NOTES l 1. All figures indicate sq. ft noted. of structure space unless otherwise 2. Mid -range breakdowns (i.e., 1977-80/1980-85 = 1977 to 1985) are based fifty percent of anticipated growth being allocated to each timeframe. • Planning C.ommission •eting December 15, 1977 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Vk1j.E COPY December 9, 1977 OO NOT REMOVE TO: Planning C.ommissio•n FROM: De.pa.rtment of Community Development ,SUBJECT: "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study" Attached is a report from Wilbur Smith and Associates which completes Phase I of the "Central Newport Beach - Parking Study." The attached report indicates the existing parking needs in summary form for each subarea within Central Newport. The report further outlines alternative parking strategies that may be applied to individual subareas or as part of an overall program for the Central Newport area,.and indicates which strategy might best be applied to each subarea. The consultants letter of transmittal indicates their needs in terms of policy direction from the Planning Commission at this time. They have indicated in the letter of transmittal !that certain policy decisions are necessary at this time to allow the consultant to proceed with the next stage of their study. The next stage deals with the development of alternative parking program and an ini.tial screening of each alternativetjn terms of its economic feasibility. The report on Initial Economic Feasibility has been scheduled for the'January 5, 1978, Planning Commission Study Session. The consultant will be present at the December 15, 1977 Study Session to review the attached report and answer your questions on same. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By _ Fr*Ta ico Senior Planner FT/dlt Att: Wilbur Smith report dated December 6, 1977. FILE COPY DO NOT P.EIVMOVE DRAFT REPORT REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE PARKING STRATEGIES CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH PARKING STUDY December• 6, 1977 By Wilbur Smith and Associates 0 0 _L 'a UVAur Smith and -Aejocialei, ,ync. CABLE W11.1MIt" TXICA 11q.19 December B, 1977 City of Newport Beach c/o R. V. Hogan Director Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Fred: $BOB WILBNtNt BOULEVARD / t %VITt IEBQ d'os 1fa111. 90036 PHONC 11111 93..111E We are pleased to submit our draft report "Review of Alternative Parking Strategies", as part of the Central Newport Beach Parking study. The purpose of this report is to provide the City of Newport Beach with an overview of the types of parking and transportation -related measures that are being considered for further evaluation and inclusion in the Recommended Parking Program. It is highly desirable at this time for the City of Newport Beach, specifically the Planning Commission, to express the concur- rence with our proposed strategies especially in terms of overall goals of the study area, as well as the goals in each individual sub -area. This submittal will be followed by an initial feasibility screening of the alternatives. This initial screening will be on a sketch plan basis and will consider the land use, social, economic, environmental, and level of service impacts each alternative strategy presents. ALLIANCE, OH.ATLANTA-BOSTON.BRISBANE•COLUMBIA,SC•DALLAS-FALLS CHURCH, VA �HONGKONG•HOUSTON•KNOXVILLE.LONDON.LOS ANGELES MELBOURNE-MIAMI.NEW HAVEN -NEW YORK - PHILADELPHIA• RICHMOND. SAN FRANCISCO.SINOAPORE•TORONTO•WASHINGTON, DC•WINSTON.SALEM 13 city of Newport Beach December 8, 1977 Page 2 Subsequently, three alternative programs will be developed from a combination of strategies. These programs will be tested for feasibility and will provide the basis for determining a recommended parking program. Respectfully submitted, WILBUR SMITH & ASSOCIATES w. E. Hurrell project Engineer Byi Uytti4G �aTJ Ronald A. Nort1i Transportation Engineer E Existing, Problem identification A clear and concise statement of each parking problem is . y. xaquirod beforo parking strategics and solutions can be identified. These problems, as discussed in the following, have been identified from discussions with City officials, analysis of parking surveys, as well as public input. In the context of alternative strategies and potential solutions, the most striking problem in Central Newport Beach is disparity of activity that occurs during the summer and non -summer seasons. During the summer season, the high degree of beach and tourist related activities compound the commercial and residential activities that occur during the non -summer seasons. Thus, during the summer season, the study area can be generally described as having severe traffic congestion and significant parking deficiencies. These problems have arisen because of the high degree of commitment to improved land uses which disallowed expansion of automobile oriented transportation activities and have fostered the additional problem of incomputability between transportation facility user and land user. This latter problem is best exemplified by beachgoers and employees parking in residential and commercial areas. During the non -summer seasons, overall weekend peak parking demand is approximately 23 per cent less than peak demand during the summer season. on a sub -area basis peak demands are within a range of 0 to 50 per cent lower during non -summer activity. Thus, during non -summer seasons most of the parking facilities are under- utilized and traffic congestion is localized and occurs only during peak hours. Existing Sub Area Parking Problems - T3ecthuse each of the sub -areas have different land use mixtures, their person trip characteristics and parking requirements differ, and, as such, their individual parking problems differ. A summary of parking problems within each of the sub -areas is discussed in the following: • Via Lido employees parking in commercial spaces during summer season, low utilization of Government employee spaces during weekends and evenings throughout the year, - lack of convenient parking for churchgoers during weekend and weekday activity throughout the year. • cannery Village - employees parking in commercial spaces during the summer season, - scattering of small off-street lots causing inefficient use of land and increased traffic circulation. Bayfront - insufficient parking supply provided by some of the individual land users causing disruption to landusers that do provide sufficient supply, - insufficient pedestrian circulation between Bayfront sub -area and public off-street parking supply located south of Newport Boulevard. C n - These problems are highly critical during evening, weekend, summer activities. + McFadden Square - ieavy competition between beach and commercial parkers over limited parking supply during summer season especially during weekday activity. Limited parking supply in this area causes packers to overflow into residential areas. This problem is also most critical during weekend summer activity. • Newport -Balboa - Area north of Newport Boulevard suffers from scattering of relatively small surface lots which in turn presents several points of traffic conflict. + oceanfront - beachgoers parking in residential areas. a Residential "A" - employees parking in residential area.. • Residential "B" - employees and beachgoers parking in residential area. Alternative Strategies Alternative parking strategies will be individually and/or collectively tested for feasibility as potential solutions to the previously stated parking problems. Their current presentation is of a general basis and derive from other parking programs through- E out the country. Their specific application to the Central Newport Beach area will be defined during the subsequent study task. A brief listing and discussion of the principle measures which will be considered in the Central. Newport Beach parking program is contained in the following. Increase Parking supply • Clustered Parking - it is unnecessary that each commercial development provide separate, on -site parking. in each high -activity area, centralized or clustered parking facilities may be provided to serve the establishments -in that area.. In order to -provide conveni- ent walking distances to parking, a sub -area could have several centralized facilities. Advantages: . Increase efficiency of parking space use. • Enhance the development opportunities of small property owners by not requiring individual parking facilities. Reduces traffic circulation. . Simplified control of area's parking program.. Disadvantages: May increase the City's administrative and financial responsibility depending on the particular program chosen. i Peripheral Parking with Shuttle Bus - Peripheral parking facilities would be located prior to access to the Newport Beach peninsula. Such a facility would intercept long-term parkers, Specifically boach goers and employees, and permit transfer to a shuttle bus systom for the final portion of tho trip into the pen- insula. This program would shift a need of constructing new parking facilities to outlying peripheral facilities. Advantages - Reduces the amount of land needed in the study area for the construction of parking facilities. Reduces traffic volumes in the study area. Disadvantages; • Requires implementation of complementary strategies in terms of parking restriction and pricing. • Beachgoer use highly seasonal. • Public Use. of Government Employee Off -Street Lots - The Government employee off-street lots located in the Via Lido sub- area are under-utilized during weekends and evenings. surveys indicate utilization levels to be approximately 11 per cent of capacity during these periods. Under this strategies these facili- ties would be open to the public during the weekend and evening hours.and could be operated as either free or public pay lots. I N n Advantages- • Increases efficiency of parking space use. • Reduces amount of land needed in study area for construction of new parking facilities. Disadvantages: . May increase City's administrative and financial responsibilities for parking facilities. • Encourage Valet Parking - Establishments which attract shoppers and diners should be encouraged to utilize valet parking within their facilities. Currently, valet parking is mostly in restaurant parking facilities. This operational technique can be easily employed in shopping areas. The City of Beverly Hills, for example, has a great deal of success in extending valet parking service to some of its shoppers. Employing this operational technique enables stacking and tandem parking, thus increasing the effective capacity of a parking facility. Advantages- . Reduces the amount of land needed for the construction of new parking facilities. . Increased service to customers. Disadvantages: increases operational cost in terms of manpower. may cause minor delays to the parker. 0 Restrictions 0 Residential curb Parking Permit Program Residential areas in the study area experience extensive long-term on -street parking by employees and boachgoers during the summer season. Associated with this long-term parking is extensive traffic and related noise and air pollution. Where severe resident parking problems are evident, the long- term parkers may be reduced by posting parking time.limit for all curb spaces during the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. period. Residents not having sufficient off-street parking would be allowed to pur- chase annual curb parking stickers that would permit them to park in their area beyond the posted time limitation. Proof of residence and car registration would be required. Stickers would identify the license number of the authorized vehicle and the neighborhood for which the permit is applicable. A permit fee would be charged to offset administration costs. Similar residential permit programs have been adopted in the San Francisco, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, and Washington, D.C. areas. Such a program has been implemented and legally tested in Arlington, Virginia, with its legality being upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Advantages, Reduces low-cost parking supply available to long-term parkers, thus encouraging transit and carpool use. . Should result in a decrease of traffic in residential area. I it 0 • 0 Disadvantages• . Requires additional parking enforcement and administrative personnel. Requires complementary strategies in terms of pricing, access restriction, and additional parking. . May shift the problem to areas outside of the study area. • Restructure Parking Rates - Automobile drivers perceive hourly or monthly parking fees as a direct cost attributable to the opera- tion of an automobile. Increased parking fees translate into in- creased costs associated with use of an automobile to make a particu- lar trip, such parking rate increases may be expected to result in a shift of some present drivers to public transit. But more import- antly, increased rates can be utilized as a manipulative tool in organizing the location of long-term parking supply. Parking rates may be increased either by adjusting the rate structure or by imple- menting a tax upon parking spaces. The use of a parking tax is desirable in that it may be applied to private parking facilities. A parking tax on private facilities can be expected to result in increased fees for pay lots and to encourage initiation of fees in private lots not presently charging for parking use. At present, parking fees are stratified by parking duration. The longer one parks, the less the parking charge is on an hourly basis, especially for employees paying monthly rates. The existing rate structures may be adjusted to more closely approximate a "strAight time" basis where an all -day parker for eight hours would pay eight times the hourly rate. A similar rate would be instituted for monthly parkers. 0 . Advantages - increase cost can, be a disincentive to auto- mobile commuters, thus encouraging transit and carpool use. Should result in decrease of automobile usage without restricting physical access- ibility of the central city. Disadvantages• Parking tax on private lots is difficult to administer and enforce. Potential negative economic impact can occur if short term pxIvate and public parking facility rates are increased. May require a complementary strategy in terms of validation program, and residential area restrictions. • validation Program - in conjunction with pricing strategies, a parking validation program would enable the continuance and growth of economic activity of commercial land uses. Eliminating commercial spaces from employee and/or beach goer usage through pricing strategy allows additional free or inexpensive validated customer parking. Advantages• • can provide increased supply of short-term parking spaces. • Reduces the need to construct additional parking facilities in the study area, I 13 ' Disadvantages: Requires additional cost for administration and operation of a parking facility. • Increase Enforcement of Parking Restrictions - This strategy applies to the current parking policy, as well as any future parking strategy concerning parking restrictions. in conjunction with a stronger enforcement effort would be the increase in fines assessed to violators. Advantages- Fortifies other strategies aimed at parking restriction. Disadvantages: Requires additional administrative and en- forcement personnel. • Access Control of Private Parking - An adjunct or alternative to pricing and validation strategies would be the utilization of temporary barriers barring access prior to commercial business hours. With most employees initiating the workday prior to 9:00 a.m. and most commercial businesses initiating activity after 9:00 a.m. this strategy would reduce employee long-term parking in short- term customer parking spaces. . Advantages• Increase availability of short-term parking supply. n Disadvantages: . increased investment and operation costs of a parking facility, Promote Usago of High Occupancy Vehicles and Bicycles • improve Suburban Transit service to Study Area .. improved service would include (1) extension of existing routes or develop- ment of new routes to serve additional market areas; (2) provision of more direct service (express) between market area and study area; and (3) increased frequency of service. These measures would in- crease the number of commuters with convenient access to a route, reduce transit trip times, and reduce wait time for service. Advantages: Encourage commuter diversion from automobiles to public transit for travel to the Central Newport Beach area, thus, reducing traffic, air and noise pollution, and reducing the land area needs for parking, Disadvantages: Any meaningful improvement in public transit service would require additional private or public funding sources. Zoning incentives - parking code requirements can be modified to encourage the use of carpools and public transit by employees of private businesses. Provisions would permit a reduction in the number of parking spaces necessary to satisfy the parking code requirements through various support efforts made by the developer to encourage use of transit and car- pools.. Such employer measures may include purchase and free dis- tribution of monthly bus passes to employees; reduced rate or free carpool parking; and preferred location or priority allocation of spaces to carpoolers. Advantages: . Encourages diversion of commuter travel to public transit and carpools. Disadvantages: Difficult to administer and enforce. A particular problem is enforcing the program continuation when a building is sold or leased to a new occupying business or agency. Carpool Matching Program and Carpool Incentives - Formation of carpools may be assisted by a matching program that identifies commuters who have similar travel needs: origin, destination, and time of trip. initial programs could accomplish such matches through voluntary applications.by individuals. Further improvements could be achieved through requiring application as a condition for employees. Primary carpool inducements include the priority allocation and pre- ferential location of a parking space, and reduced rates for parking. Advantages: Should increase use of carpools for work trips, thus reducing commuter vehicle trips. e . !4 Disadvantagest ' Enforcement of program to ensure legitimate use by carpools. Vanpool Program - Vanpool programs genornily involve an employer who purchases or leases vans and provides the vans to its commuter employees. The vanpool employees share use and operating expenses of the vehicle. such a program normally includes 8 to 10 employees who commmute to the company from one neighborhood.' The most successful example is 3M Company in Minneapolis where 800 employees share 75 company purchased vans. Advantages• . Reduces number of commuter vehicle trips. . Reduces parking requirements. Disadvantages• Funding of vehicle acquisition. . Enforcement of legitimate use of vehicle. Difficult to apply to small businesses. • Provide Bikeways - Bikeways are most effective where inter- sections with roadways are minimal. The cost and disruption of the roadway system involved in construction of a bikeway largely limits such facilities to corridors which are likely to experience major bicycle volumes. in Central Newport Beach, most such corridors are expected to be recreation and beach oriented rather than commuter or school oriented. Advantages- Improveh bicycle safety by physically separting bicycles from automobile traffic except at intersections With cross -streets. \1 . Provide a more comfortable and relaxing cycling environment. Disadvantages: Reduces alertness of cyclist even though limited automobile conflicts continue to exist. . Enforcement of bikeway to ensure its proper use and exclusion of motor vehicles. • Develop Bicycle Lane System - [there proper safety measures may be implemented, bicycle lanes could be marked on existing street cross sections. Most such facilities would be located on selected secondary streets serving corridors where commuter, beach and school bicycle travel are expected to occur. Bicycle lanes would be limited to streets where automobile traffic volumes are minimal. Advantages- . Identifies a right-of-way assigned for bicycle use, thus alerting the motorist to the possible presence of cyclists. Assists in reducing bicycle travel in non - marked arterial streets. Disadvantages• May create within the cyclist a false sense of security. . May reduce on -street parking supply. il Bicycle Storage Requirements - Modification of code require- ments may be made to increase the amount of bicycle storage areas (racks and lockers) available at major employment and commercial centers. Potential Application of Strateuio. In solving the parking problems in Central Newport Beach, a combination of complementary strategies is required. Table 1 summarizes the parking problems in each sub -area and indicate the potential strategies that can be applied. Generally, the entire study area could benefit from the pro. vision of peripheral parking and shuttle bus service, improvement of regional transit service, inducement of carpooling and van pool- ing and the promotion of bicycle usage, Such programs are aimed at reducing the number of vehicles, but not persons, entering the Peninsula. Other strategies concern the provision of additional parking and restrictions directed toward organizing parking usage according to trip purpose. In the residential areas of ocean front, Residential "A", and Residential "B", the primary strategy that can be applied, is a residential permit parking programll in the commercial area there are Common strategies that are applicable. These include encourag- ing valet parking, restructured parking rates, validation programs, access control of private parking, and zoning incentives. I O� , Additionally, in the via Lido sub -area, the government employee lots can be openend to the public during weekends and evenings. In the sub -areas of cannery village, Lido Peninsula, Bayfront, McFadden Square, and Newport -Balboa, clustered parking is an additional strategy. Table 1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF PARKING STRATEGIES Newport Beach Parking Study SUB AREA PROBLEMS STRATEGIES Via Lido - Employee parking in commercial - Peripheral parking with shuttle bus spaces. - Public use of Government employee - Low utilization of Government lots. employee lots, - Encourage valet parking - Lack of conventional parking - Restructure parking rates for churchgoers. - Validation program - Access control of private parking - Imorove suburban transit system - Zoning incentives - Carpooling - Vanpooling - Promote bicycle usage Cannery Village - Employee parking in commercial - clustered parking spaces. - Same strategies as Via Lido - Scattering of small off-street lots.causing inefficient use of land and increased traffic circulation. .-�"e Table 1 (Cont'd) SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF PARKING STRATEGIES Newport Beach Parking Study SUB AREA PROBLEMS STRATEGIES Lido Peninsula - Insufficient parking supply. - Same as Cannery Village Bayfront - Insufficient parking supply - Same as Cannery Village provided by some of the commercial -land users Pedestrian circulation McFadden Sguare - Competition between beach and - Same as Cannery Village commercial parkers over limited parking supply. - Heavy demand causing overflow parking in residential.areas. Newport -Balboa - Scattering of small surface lots, - Same as Cannery Village north of Newport Boulevard caus- ing inefficient use of land. Oceanfront - Beachgoers parking in residential - Same as Cannery Village areas. •1 t SUB AREA Residential "A" Residential "B" Table 1 (Cont'd) SIIMMARY OF POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF PARKING STRATEGIES Newport Beach Parking Study PROBLEMS - Employees parking in resi- dential areas. - Employees and beachgoers parking in residential area. STRATEGIES - Residential Permit Parking Program - Clustered parking in commercial 40 area - Residential Permit Parking Program • a 0 % 3S December 7, 1977 Dear Executive Committee Member: FILE COPS( 1)q T"rT nr•{1vp We have scheduled a meeting with Wilbur Smith & Associates Wednesday, December 14th at 10:00 a.m. in the Lido Village Conference Room to discuss our attitudes and recommendations on the next presentation to be made to the Planning Commission at their study session'December 15th. At this time the alternative means of solutions to the parking problems will be discussed. MB:so Please plan to attend both sessions, if at all possible. Very truly yours, 1p CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE C-/� Milbeth Brey vo) Chairman cE- oc Ooi OeQt \C,k G 9 0 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA December 6, 1977 Mr. Bryant T. Brothers Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2950 Los Angeles, California 90036 Dear Mr. Brothers: szsso city Hall 3300 Newport IiIrd, (714)Q30W 640-2137 This letter is intended to express my great dissatisfaction with the presentation by Wilbur Smith and Associates of the draft report of the Parking Study on Central Newport Beach at the Planning Commission meeting of December 1, 1977. In my estimation, the presentation was disorganized, unprepared and inept. Consequently the value of the report, which con- tains much vital and well -presented information, was completely destroyed by the poor presentation. To begin with, the slides used in the presentation had not been properly positioned in the slide tray and.had not been reviewed to assure that they would be shown correctly. This small and easily corrected error caused a delay in the pre- sentation of nearly one-half hour and caused considerable embarrassment to the Planning Commission before a group of concerned citizens. After the slides were presented it became quite clear that the balance of the presentation had not in any way been rehearsed and that neither Mr. Hurrell nor Mr. North were prepared to answer questions or to draw con- clusions from the statistical information in the report. The report itself does not clearly draw conclusions as to the problems which have been identified in the parking study. It is much better not to present a report than to do it so poorly It is my expectation that we will get together before any future presentations to assure that nothing of this kind will happen again. You may call me at your convenience to review the problem. Very truly yours, DEPARTME_"F COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DO NOT REMOVE 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( 714 ) 640-2261 December 6, 1977 Mr. Bill Hurrel and Mr. Ron North c/o Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite'800 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Bill and Ron: Pursuant to our discussion on Tuesday, November 29, 1977, I have reviewed our existing data as it relates to the timing of development within your planning project area. I believe we are in complete agreement that your work will be• more valuable to the City if it is broken into shorter timeframes. The enclosed chart is a statistical analysis of anticipated development and an estimate of build -out conditions. The figures include all projected growth within your study area. We are projecting no change to, the existing land use pattern for the oceanfront, Via Lido or Lido Peninsula sub -areas. Projected and existing statistics on residential development have not been included. The statistics are based on existing zoning and trend conditions. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Direc r By � Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT: jmb Enclosure AL COPY 66 WRZILO 1E City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 • Type Existing Uses Projected Cont. to Build -Out ANTICIPATED GROWTH Build -Out 1977-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990+ CANNERY VILLAGE AREA Retail Sales 74,793 4,140 17,830 19,170 79,130 19,130 69,400 Office 52,248 '29,255 11,925 29,195 6,485 6,485 83,345 Indus- trial 63,776 20,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 20,000 Restaurantl 8,950 7,950 290 710 -0- -0- 8,950 BAYFRONT AREA Retail Sales 40,528 19,940 2,320 5,680 1,800 1,800 31,540 Office 22,960 22,000 2,900 7,100 -0- -0- 32,000 Indus- trial 11,670 5,000 -0= -0- -0- -0- 5,000 Restaurant 17,172 17,172 5,830 14,274 -O- ' -0- 37,276 MCFADDEN SQUARE AREA Retail Sales 25,529 -0- 8,021 19,639 31,492 31,493 90,645 Office 4,429 -0- -0- -0- 9,500 9,500 19,000 Restaurant 21,965 6,000 2,846 6,969• 6,875 6,875 29,565 Art Museum 13,582 -0- -O- -0- -0- -0- -0- NEWPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD AREA Retail Sales 71,436 62,205 2,500 6,122 -0- -0- 70,827 Office 10,281 2,114 2,030 4,970 584 583 70,281 Restaurant 4,240 2,598 580 1,420 -0- -0- 4,598 Hotel/ Motel 113 Rooms 13 Rooms -0- -0- -0- -0- 13 Rooms RESIDENTIAL AREA "A" Retail Sales 21,136 21,136 -0- -0- -0- -0- 21,136 Office 6,175 6,175 -O- -0- 55000 5,000 16,175 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE... NOTES 1.- All figures indicate sq. ft. of structure space unless otherwise noted. 2. Mid -range breakdowns (i.e., 1977-80/1980-85 = 1977 to 1985) are based fifty percent of anticipated growth being allocated to each timeframe. PART eT Department of Community Development M /a ` DATE: December 5, 1977 TO: Councilmen Barret, Kuehn and Rogers FROM: Fred•TaYarico,.Senior Planner SUBJECT:* Draft - Parking Study for the Central Newport Area Attached to this memorandum is the Phase I "Draft Parking Study .of the Central Newport Area" -prepared for the City by Wilbur Smith and Associates'. The Planning Commission conducted a review of this report at its December 1, 1977 meeting. The Phase I Report deals with the assessment of existing and future parking needs ' in the Central Newport area: Subsequent reports by Wilbur Smith and Associates will deal. with Alternative Parking Strategies to meet parking needs; an initial screening as to the economic feasibility of alternatives, and a final _Economic Feasibility Report with recommendations by Wilbur Smith and Associates. The target .dates for the Planning Commission's review of these reports is as follows: December 15, 1977 - Planning Commission'Study Session "Review of Alternative Parking Strategies" January 5, 1978 - Planning Commission Study Session "Initial Feasibility Screening of Alternatives" February 2, 1978' - Planning Commission Public Hearing "Final Report"including Wilbur Smith and Associates r^recommendations. S.teff has identified a number of discrepancies in the draft report which will be corrected in the final draft of this study. -Please contact me regarding any questions you may have.. FT:jmb fGolewwan 0 Consulting Services p N ,��tt�� Engineering/Planning (m5 mac9ymal Transportation Transit and Associates Traffic 1821 Port Renwick, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 640-5737 December 1, 1977 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Mr. Bill Darnell Dear Mr. Darnell: R ace YD � ,p.nengrt� Dy uept DZ R Enclosed is Progress Report No. 9 for the month of November, 1977, for the project entitled "Development of Traffic Circulation Models'.'. The Progress Report represents a summarization of the activities of this entire project team including City Staff, Herman Kimmel and Associates, Inc., and Herman Basmaciyan and Associates. Please contact me if I can help provide further details pertaining to any phase of the project. Sincerely, HERMAN BASMACIYAN AND ASSOCIATES A, Herman Basmaci/y_an, P. EV I•IB ..b Encs. CITY OF N57PORT BEACH DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MODELS PROGRESS REPORT NO. 9, NOVEMBER 1977 JQENERAL Progress on the "Future Model" has been slower than expected during the month of November. The delay is attributable primarily to a problem encountered in processing a data file received from the Region- al Planning Agency. Therefore, the completion of the "Future Model" is now scheduled for mid -December, rather than late in November. .PROGRESS BY TASK The attached chart presents the percentage completion of each task as of November 30, 1977 with reference to the scheduled time of perform- ance for the task. The computerization of the future network (Task F-3) and the estimates of future trip ends (Task F-4) were completed during the month. Subsequent tasks associated with the "Future Model" are behind schedule.. Peak/off-peak relationships and documentation tasks are also behind schedule. MEETINGS On November 14, 1977 a presentation was made to the City Council during the Study Session. The presentation consisted of a status re- port, a discussion of model validation, and a discussion of origin/ destination surveys. On November 17, 1977, Mr. Bill Darnell made a brief presentation to the Planning Commission during the study session. On November 21, 1977, Mr. George Cokas of the Planning Commission met with the consultants and Mr. Darnell to discuss details of model methodology and procedures. Several staff level meetings were held for exchange of data and information and to prepare for the Council presentation. PROBLEMS With the expected resolution of the difficulty in processing the Regional data file, the remaining work is expected to proceed to completion without any further problems. Respectfully submitted by: Herman Basmaciyan, P. E� ,fl C1VX' ul Hj,.•%PURT Bi-'A CH " GENERAL'I7]OdORK PLOW AND SCHEDULE F'�EVELOPMENT OF COMPLJTERTZED TRAl'i 1C CST [MA I I10DELS Percentar.:e Comuletion by Task 1_977 :.;ajor Responsibility Nap Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineering 5 65,�L 90# 100 G-1 Collect Peak t Off -Peak Winter Traffic County 5o 9",.'1 i.��J o 0Ir G-2 Make Peek C Off -Pack Speed Studies tiL1 w y G-3 Conduct Vehicle License Plate Survey in 1 / Cooperation with Orange County rMA 1 G-4 Perform Additional Trip Generation Studies �C L V� ✓< 'U�✓' 90' ZOO G-10 Request 6 Obtain Regional Data 1 00 G-12 Collect Summer Peak 6 Off-peak Traffic Count. 100 G-13 Maka Summer Speed Studies • G-14 Conduct "Summer Vehicle License flats Survey (CMA Participation) 1 00 G-15 Compile Summer Trip Generation Data for Selected Land Use. City of Newport Beach Community Development E-1 Compile Existing Land Use and/or Socto 5 50 {1 100 Economic Data In Format Suitable for model input 70 160 � I 100 r-1 Compile Future Land Use t Scale Economic Data in Format Suitable for Model input Consultants G-5 Deflnc Study Area Boundary lao 80 QO 100 G-6 Define Trip Generation 6 Trip Distribution Procedure. in 6pecifis Terms ��+t 1 00 80 0-1 Define Analysis Zones (; Se 70% 100 G-0 Dcfinc Land Use 6 Regional Date Rcquircnrnts a 1 .1 5OlL J /ir 801, 100 G-9 Analyze Traffic Data from G-lt G-2, G-3, G-Y 0% �/ 1OO G-11 Evaluate Pegicnal Data 7 0// i 10 OT L 90�• 1 00 E-7 Dclinentr Existing tirt 8o# 1oO E•3 Analyrr Zones 6 B•t for Compatibility / 2�/7 1 Soar 85 -1 100 E-4 Computerize Existing. flat Including Generalized CaPneitier, O 2071 50./,-, 80 q 00 E-5 Estimate Existing. Trip Cnda in Study Area 0'# 1ll ZOO ('jl #{!�, E -6 Analyze Paths, Review/Modify L 011(- ,/ �' CL% y OO 1 4 CRem ... fir with Regional site 10 30,k' 90 1001, E-g Develop Existing Trip Table r 01J ,f 8O1 90 �� E-9 Lead let 6 Evaluate AP,eimat Ground Counts - Use Capacity Restraint O /! 0'1 7011 90rk E-10 Adjust/Modify so Ilccescary 5 5 0�# 70J4 E-11 Aoaess/Evaluate Winter -Sumner 6 Peak -Off Peak Rclationahipa �1 L 2O 6 Develop Comparative Factors 101) F E-12 Complete Documentation of Existing Model 2 , {i 201d10O F-2 Delineate Future Network - City Circe- fi Element Plus Fac Appropriate Assumptions Aasumptiona For Facilities Outside City Q of, 10 L OJ V(� 7J1 1OO F-3 Computerize Future IletWDrk with Capacity U J1f, ZO "O7J 100 F-4 Estimate Future Trip Ends O O7 1071 O"f[ F-S Evaluate Paths 6 Modify O OJ 7 0# F-S Develop Future Trip Table Using Regional Information to Beat Advantage OY, (, 0# F-y Wad Network 6 Evaluate - Use Capacity Re atraint OT,/ ,f( 0# F-B Adjust/Hodify an Ilece.anry O F-9 Asscss/Evaluate Winter/Sumner 6 Peak/ •J Off Peak Relationship. and Develop Comparative Factors F-10 Complete Documentation of Future Model Milestones 1 Working "Existing".Hodcl Available for Average Day 2 Working "Future" Model Available for Average pay 3 Psak/Off peak f Sc _per/Winter Relation- ships for '-Existing'- Padel 4 Peak/Off Peak 6 Summer/Winter Relation. chips for "Fut."" Model Note : Numbt.rs in each month for each tusk indicate percent Ge of the tasi: completed as of the and of that month. Arrows point•in; to the left indicate that the t3.sk was initiated prior to anticipated start time. 11, lt!1`_ca Les t3�i: ;.as eh ;j schedule a,' end of :iiofitri. d COMMISSIONERS -4 City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers soy Time: 7:00 P.M. natac nPrPmhPr 1. 1977 MINUTES INOKX Present X X X X X -0FFICIO MEMBERS R. V. F n, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, ssistant City Attorney Benjamin B. No City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - lanning David Dmohowski, Advance Planning Administ or Fred Talarico, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary Item #1 Request to adopt a Concept Plan for the area gen- CONCEPT erally bounded by 32nd Street and 24th Street on PLAN the north, Balboa Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean EERY on the west, 19th Street on the south, and Lower VILLAGE/ Newport Bay and the Rhine Channel on the east. McFADDEN E Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach CONT. TO Bill Hurrill and Ron North appeared before the JAN.5TH Commission on behalf of Wilbur Smith and Associates and reviewed the data contained in the draft park- ing study for Central Newport Beach. They present- ed slides reflecting the findings of the survey taken within the past months and answered questions of the Commission relative to the parking study. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. The following persons appeared before the Commis- sion to comment on the parking study and problems in the area: Milton Brennan Dan Wiseman Leroy Sutherland FILE 0(36 Ernest George DO NOT RE =E Page 1. COMMISSIONERS ity of December 1, NOLL CALL Mot n All es X Following continued was also I held at tl Study Ses: Request ti basketbal' Club of tl to the Bo; L .cation: ti Zone Applicant Owner: Motion X Planning All Ayes meeting o Request ti 61611 to 7 allows a Location: Zone: Applicant Owner: Appellant Newport Beach MINUTES 1977 discussion, the public hearing was to the meeting of January 5, 1978. It minted out that further study would be le December 15, 1977 Planning Commission ;ion. a permit the installation of lights on a I court to be constructed by the Boy's ie Harbor Area on City property adjacent is Club, in Eastbluff Park. Portion of Block 52 of Irvine's Subdivision, located adjacent to the Boy's Club, 2555 Vista del Oro, in Eastbluff Park. \ R-4-B-2 P.R.D. \ City of Newport Beach -qame as Applicant ;ommiss�gn continued this matter to the F Decembe`r, 15, 1977. * N* * permit the consre�rltyard ion of a fence ' in height in a where the Code Fence 6 feet in ht. Portion of Lot 28 %Newport Heights Tract, located at 2100 Margaret Dri in Newport Heights. R-1 Patrick W. and Marci\Aanifin Same as Applicant Same as Applicant Page 2. INpax Item #2 USE VMIT 1846 CONT. TO =77— Item #3 MODIFI- CATION 2159 iAMAL) GRANTED .. COMMISSIONERS i4oy City of Newport Beach December 1, 1977 MINUTES MOLL GALL INO<X Motion All Ayes X Following discussion, the public hearing was continued to the meeting of January 5, 1978. It was also pointed out that further study would be held at the December 15, 1977 Planning Commission Study Session. Item #2 Request to permit the installation of lights on a basketball court to be constructed by the Boy's Club of the Harbor Area on City property adjacent to the Boy's Club, in Eastbluff Park. Location: Portion of Block 52 of Irvine's Subdivision, located adjacent to the Boy's Club, 2555 Vista del Oro, in Eastbluff Park. USE PERMIT 1846 V CONT. TO DEC. 5 Motion X e: R-4-B-2 P.R.D. A 1 ant: City of Newport Beach Owner: Same as -Applicant Planning Co ission continued this matter to the All Ayes meeting of De mber 15, 1977. Request to permit the co struction of a fence 616" to 7' in height in a ar yard where the Code allows a fence 6 feet in hei ht. Location: Portion of Lot 28, Newport Heights Tract, located at 2 0 Margaret Drive in Newport Heights. Zone: R-1 Applicant: Patrick W. and Marcia A. Han'fin Owner: Same as Applicant Appellant: Same as Applicant Page 2. Item #3 MODIFI- CAiI15F!— 2159 TAPTEAL) GRANTED COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach Regular Planning Commission Meeting Place: City Council Chambers Time: 7:00 P.M. ❑ataf naramhar 1. 1977 MINU'rE6 N LL CALL Preset XXXXXX EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer STAFF MEMBERS � tames D. Hewicker, Assistant Director - Planning avid Dmohowski, Advance Planning Administrator Fre`�� Talarico, Senior Planner Shirley Harbeck, Secretary L Request to %adt a Concept Plan for the area gen- erally bounded by 32nd Street and 24th Street on the north, Balbo ,Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean on the west, 19th'Street on the south, and Lower Newport Bay and the,l�ine Channel on the east, Initiated by: The City\.Af Newport Beach Bill Hurrill and Ron Norik appeared before the Commission on behalf of Wil ur Smith and Associat and reviewed the data contained in the draft park ing study for Central Newport`,.Beach. They presen ed slides reflecting the findings of the survey taken within the past months an .answered questio of the Commission relative to th6\ arking study. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. The following persons appeared before the Commis- sion to comment on the parking study and problems in the area: Milton Brennan Dan Wiseman ` Leroy Sutherland Ernest George Page 1. INOKX 6 /. 3� November 29, 1977 Dear Committee Member: The initial phase of the parking study conducted by Wilbur Smith & Associates has been completed and the results will be -presented to the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting Thursday, December 1st, beginning at 7:00 p.m. These results complete the analysis of the requirements and deficiencies in parking needs of the central -Newport area. There will be a subsequent presentation by Wilbur Smith F'.Associates of their recommendations for solutions to these problems based upon economic feasibility. The Planning Commission will then hold a public hearing before recommendations for action can be made to the City Council. ,P: Initially, we invite your attendance at the December 1st presentation and will keep you informed of subsequent meetings. We intend to have a general meeting of the Central Newport Parking Committee after the conclusion of the studies to develop our own posture of support. IN Very truly'yours, CENTRAL NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE Milbeth Brey Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 RECEIVED 0 ' Co•,�munity S Dav_I:p;,ent AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEP 2 6 19]];a. cirr o.= (Central Newport Beach Parking Study), NEWPON, cACH, THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into 4L day of 0 e6w , 1977, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and WILBUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, City has determined that it is desirable and necessary to conduct a study of the parking needs and economic feasibility relative to the Central Newport Beach area, generally bounded by and including the commercial property along Newport Boulevard from the Arches Bridge to 19th Street, including McFadden Square area, the Cannery Village area and the Lido Village area; and WHEREAS, the information provided by the Central Newport Beach Parking Study will supply City with necessary information regarding parking needs and the economic feasibility of various parking needs solutions; and WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified to undertake and complete such a study for City, and has submitted a written proposal dated July 29, 1977'; and WHEREAS, City desires to accept said proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. General. (A) City engages Consultant to perform the services hereinafter described for the compensation herein stated. (B) Consultant agrees to perform said services upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. FILE 0(�I)XVIV ®0 NOT REMOVE I .' 2. .Services to be Performed.By Consultant. Consultant hereby agrees to perform the services as outlined in the proposal dated July 29, 1977, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A" and which is incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. The work to be performed includes the parking needs study and economic feasibility study. If conflicts occur between this Agreement and said proposal, the terms of this Agreement shall control. Consultant agrees to coordinate its activities with the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach, as needed.. 3. Duties of City. City hereby agrees to supply Consultant with such information, materials and consultation services as are reasonably necessary to provide Consultant with data, maps, statistics and other relevant materials owned or controlled by City for preparation and completion of the work hereunder. 4. Ownership of Project Documents. All reports, maps, notes, studies and other documents shall become the property of City and may be reproduced as deemed necessary by City. 5. Right of Termination. City reserves the right to terminate this agreement at any time by giving Consultant five (5) working days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed served on Consultant two (2) days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Consultant's office at 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 8.2_940, Los Angeles, CaliforniavvS 90036. In the event of termination due to fault of Consultant, City shall be relieved of any obligation to compensate Consultant beyond compensation paid to Consultant prior to termination. If this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than fault of Consultant, City agrees to compensate Consultant for the actual services performed to the effective date of the notice of termination, on the basis of the fee schedule contained in the proposal. -2- 0 G. Completion of Work. Consultant agrees to complete, all work described herein in two phases, phase one being the parking needs study and phase two being the economic feasibility study. All work herein shall be completed within four (4) months after notice to proceed. 7. Fee Schedule and Payments. (A) In consideration of the above described services, City agrees to pay Consultant an amount based upon the hourly rates set forth in the proposal. In no event, however, shall the total.compensation exceed Eighteen Thousand, Nine Hundred Dollars ($18,900.00), except as provided in paragraph 8. '(D) The contract amount shall be paid to Consultant as follows: (1) Consultant will submit monthly progress billings based on a percentage of completion of each phase of the project and monthly partial pay- ments shall be based on the amount earned in each month, as determined by the fee schedule. The sum of monthly partial payments shall not exeed ninety percent (90%) of -the maximum fee. (2) The balance of the total amount earned shall be paid upon acceptance of the final report by the City, acceptance will not be unreasonably withheld. 8. Amendments. The scope of the services to be furnished by Consultant may be -changed and the maximum fee revised upon prior written approval of the Community Development Director, if the increase in the maximum fee does not exceed One Thousand Eight Hundred.and Ninety Dollars ($1,890.00). If any proposed revision of the scope of services results in an increase in the maximum fee exceeding said amount, an amendment to this Agreement providing for such revision shall be processed and executed by the parties hereto. -3- r'l u 9. Additional Work Any additional work, beyond the work outlined in this Agreement and the proposal shall be authorized by City, based upon the fee schedule as set out in said proposal. 10. Hold Harmless. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers and employees, from any damage or liability arising from the errors, omissions, or negligence in Consultant's performance of this Agreement or in the consulting services herein provided. 11. Prior Services. By letter from the Director of the Community Development, dated August 11, 1977, Consultant has commenced and undertaken the initial phase of the "parking needs and economic feasibility study" for the Central Newport area, including the Parker Interview Task only, in accord with page 8, item B of Consultant's proposal. The consideration for said phase of the work was not to exceed $3,000.00, and said $3,000.00 is included in and is a part of the maximum consideration for all work under this Agreement, as set forth in Paragraph 7 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal Corporation WILBU SMITH AND ASSOCIATES -4- I CAOLEI WIL^+MITM CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANLT PLANNERS ' CALIFORNIA TELEX B7.9489 RYOP WI"HIR9 BOULEVARD, SUITX "30 • 13101 939•R30 July 29, 1977 Za ✓4.p-&, ea.bP , 90036 Mr. Fred Talarico Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach Newport.Beach, California 92663 Mr. Paul E. Carlson Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our proposal for professional engineering services.relative to the Parking Study for the Central Newport Beach area. The proposal documents our, anproach and insights into the study, our experience in similar projects, the qualifications of our proposed study staff, and. estimated project schedule and fee requirements. The scope of services we. have defined for the study is based upon our interpretation of the City's brief request for proposals,- and conversations with you. We would not hesitate to revise our work scope and fee if it is not totally responsive to the City's needs and objectives. We feel that our past involvement with parking planning'for the City in our 1968 Parking and Traffic Study, coupled with our extensive experience in Cities throughout the State, provides us with valuable insights into the proposed study program. Our staff has the necessary expertise and experience to provide the City with a realistic, implementable parking program. Respectfully submitted, WILBUEj. SMITH &l ASSOCIATES William V. Sheppard Western Region Vice President WVS :dk NEW HAVEN, CONN. COLUMBIA. S.C. - NEW YORK. N.Y. PHILADELPHIA. PA. - MIAMI, FLA. - ATLANTA. GA. WASHINGTON, D.C. RICHMOND. VA. - SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF - WINSTON-SALEM. N.C. - KANSAS CITY, MO. SOSTON. MASS. - DALLAS. TEX. HOUSTON, TEX. DENVER, COL TORONTO, ONT. PITTSBURGH. PA. HONG KONG LONDON SINGAPORE - - ATHENS - MELBOURNE BRISBANE EXHIBIT "A" INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach has long been noted as one of - California's premier coastal communities. The City provides both residents and visitors with an environment which combines excellent beach and water related recreational opportunities with a sophisticated and balanced urban structure, Newport Beach Has retained its resort•community atmosphere while success- fully emerging as a major center of business and commercial activity. The central Newport Beach area,'in dramatic contrast with most city centers, is experiencing unprecedented levels of economic activity. The key to the continued vitality of the center area is the diversity and the quality of the civic, commercial, cultural, and recreational activities which are served by the central city. The consolidation of all these activities on the narrow Newport Peninsula has resulted in the constraint availability of parking in dentral Newport Beach. The 1968 assessment of parking needs conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates revealed a major deficiency of over 1,500 parking spaces in the area. In order to reduce these deficiencies the City has extensively developed a curb system and off-street parking facilities. Several ma�or issues, however, must be addressed before the City can effectively increase its downtown resources: 1. The City has no formal means, such as a parking authority, or parking assessment district, of developing and managing the central area parking supply. Similarly, no organized plan of parking development exists. 2. Central area employees must compete for parking with the shoppers and visitors they are intended to serve.. Employees, shoppers,•tourists, beach -goers and other visitors to the central area all compete for a limited parking supply. 3. The central area consists of a mix of major civic, retail, industrial., restaurant, cultural, and recreational land uses with dramatically different parking needs. 4. The older retail and industrial development in the area was constructed without adequate off-street. parking. 5. The central area is in a period of major growth and transition. Future parking requirements may differ drastically from current parking needs. 6. The existing parking demand is well in excess of the current supply. The current number of parked vehicles in the study area is not representative of the full magnitude of the actual demand -for parking. The City of Newport Beach and the Central Newport Parking Commission (CNPC), an recognizing these issues, have called for the preparation of a comprehensive parking development plan. The study area would encompass the entire central area retail, commercial, and industrial area. The Parking Program Development Process The preparation of an effective parking development program requires the completion of•a multiple stage -planning and engineer- ing process which consists of the following key elements: 1. An assessment of existing and future parking needs. 2 The preparation and evaluation of alternative parking development concepts. 3. The •selection of a prefered parking development concept. 4,. The evaluation of the economic feasibility of the selected concept. S. The formalization of the concept plan into an implement - able parking plan. 6. Plan adoption, approval, and environmental review. 7. The development and implementation of a parking finance program: 8•. The•design and construction of specific parking facilities. it is essential that the entire parking plan development process be undertaken to ensure that adequate program financing is available, and that the development plan•is directed to satis- 3 fying the most significant parking needs. The -parking study must present the parking needs and financial feasibility analysis in. the manner required to provide the documentation which must accompany bonding and all other financing program proposals. Study Approach and,Scope The previous Newport Beach•parking study conducted by Wilbur Smith and•Associates in 196$ coupled with land use and parking inventory studies conducted by the City, will provide an analytical basis for the proposed 1977 Parking Study. in addition, the City of Newport Beach monitors the utilization.levels and revenues generated by the City's metered parking facilities. Past and on- going studies relative to study area development plans and design themes will provide a future land -use plan for the study area. The availability of this information significantly reduces the data collection and field study requirements of the proposed park- ing study. The study approach proposed by Wilbur Smith and Associates recognizes this potential for simplifying the scope of the study. Accordingly, however, the study approach recognizes that the previous parking study efforts are now a decade old, and the assumptions and conclusion which underly the recommendations of these studies must beck ticslly evaluated. Thus, a limited parker interview survey and related field'studies are included in the study scope. Essentially, the study approach involves all the necessary elements of a comprehensive parking study, recognizing that in many cases completion of these elements requires only a review or simple updating of available data. 0 of key importance in the total study will be the determination of the sort of parking management tool, an assessment district, a parking authority, or other organization would allow the most effective development and operation of the proposed parking facili- ties. The study recommendations must represent realistic long-term solutions to the needs, legal constraints, and resource availability of the central area. The study will fully evaluate, -in terms of parkin% demand and financial feasibility, the following alternatives: a. Development of currently -owned public lands as parking facilities. b. The development of "remote" parking lots outside the study area. c.• The "recycling" of existing parking facilities through the conversion of existing surface parking to structure parking. d. Modifications of existing parking rate structures and collection techniques. e. innovative financing options such -as private leasing of public parking, -use of air rights, tax increment finance, loans from public agencies, etc. The study will produce a short and long-range program of staged parking system development. The functional design develop- ment•costs, construction schedule requirements, revenue character- istics, and implementation priorities of each recommended parking ........ .. ... ....,. .•.,.-� ..._...,...,...... .., ,....-�•. -, ..... .... �... .... , �....,.«.. .,.., . �.•:_-.ram facility will be fully documented. The final project report will serve -'as the technical foundation for the financing of the recom-- mended_plan. Firm Qualifications Wilbur Smith and Associates is the recbginzed authority in parking planning, financing, and management both in the United States ^and throughout the world. Our past involvement in parking planning for Newport Beach is characteristic of the services we have provided cities and communities throughout_California; cities such as Los Angeles Laguna Beach, Anaheim, San Jose, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills. The professional staff proposed for this project consists of individuals.with-extens•ive•parkiiig planning, parking economics and engineering experience in a broad variety of cities and areas. The value of this experience is best measured by the continual successful implementation of our project recommendations. We feel that our previous work in Newport Beach, combined with the experience of our study staff, provides insight into the proposed Newport Beach Parking Study which will ensure successful implementation of a comprehensive parking plan. The Wilbur Smith and Associates project team also has the expertise to prepare the environmental documents, and the parking example design specifications and design plans to provide actual project implementation. Historically, the firm has worked directly with the City's bond councils* and financial consultant to ensure plan financing. 6 WORK PROGRAM The proposed Work Program for the Central Newport Beach - Parking Study was developed under the study approach that a total parking study program will be required. The Work Program recognizes that (A) the City maintains comprehensive parking data files relative to all public and off-street parking facilities, (B) other studies and development plans will provide specific .definitions of future study area land use and traffic circulation patterns, and that (c) an evaluation of the management, finance, and parking rate system is a major element of the study. The Work Program A schematic flow chart (See Figure 1) has been prepared for the proposed central area Parking Study. Each major study task is shown, and once the final scope of work is established, it would be possible to form a critical path timetable for each work item. - It is anticipated that the final project scope of work would be developed with city staff at a work session at the onset of the study. The Work Flow Diagram represents all the elements of a comprehensive parking study. Many of the specific work tasks will primarily involve an update of previous work or incorporation of the city's data and other study efforts into the project program. The study would be conducted in two major phases: (I) parking needs assessment and (II.).financial feasibility determination. II , ,J SCHEMATIC FLOW CHART Central Area Parking Study Newport Beach, California W z NEEDS II ASIHILJTY Figure 1 Parking Needs Assessment This study phase would determine the existing and future parking needs and requirements of the central area. A preliminary evaluation of alternative parking plans would be conducted. To develop objective plans and recommendations, the original project field data files developed in our 1968 studies will be updated from City files, other studies., and through any necessary field investigations. Investigations will include the following:. A. Updated Parking Space Inventory - Inventories of all parking facilities will be included in the study for. the defined study area. Inventories available will •be;updated, and full use will be made of inventory data available from various city departments. It is anticipated that the task will require only a review of available City files. The type of parking, restrictions, fees charged, and operational characteristics of all parking facilities, both curb and off-street will be. determined. B. Parker Interviews - A limited sample size survey in- volving personal interviews with parkers utilizing typical curb and off-street spaces will be conducted. These interviews are essential to the estimation of the magnitude of the actual parking demands in the central area. The interview with parkers will provide the following in- formational items relative to parIker characteristics: 1. Origin of trip before parking. 2. Primary central Area destination after parking, (detail land use at destination): .3. Principal purpose of trip. 4. Distance walked from parking location to primary destination. 5.• Time of arrival•and departure. 6. Next destination after unparking. 7. Trip and parking generation characteristics of downtown land uses. Field personnel would also note type of vehicle (car, truck, taxi, etc.,) and car occupancy. interviews would,be made between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on a normal business day, except where special weekend and evening demands exist, such as the pier and restaurant areas. These data•will yield information•necessary to determine future parking demands and effects of transportation improvements.. r. • � 4 i Yii,.v_,�� C. Parking Accumulation and Turnover - City data files and limited field surveys will be utilized to measure - parking accumulation and turnover rates. It is recognized that the City currently collects this data for all public off-street parking lots. D. Update Site Generation Characteristics - A special field study to sample pedestrian volumes at major buildings in the study area would be conducted. Control counts would be made at buildings and counts 1 collected of all persons entering•the buildings. The 1 sample counts would be correlated with the parker interview survey results. P11 E. Land Use Review - A thorough examination of land use in the study area for both present year and projection years would be made. All significant proposed projects Would be'reviewed and considered in the study. Present and future land uses, including floor area and employ-. ment, will provide essential -information for the pro- jection of short-range and long-range parking demands. Full use will be made of the parking -land use data contained in past parking, transit, and comprehensive transportation studies, including the specific plan study for the Cannery Village area and the Citywide. Transportation Study. F. Anticipated Parking Changes - Estimates of parking spaces, both curb and off-street,' which might be eliminated in the future would be reviewed with City staff. These estimates are essential to the accurate projection of total parking needs. PHEI . ; 1 .G. Parking Administratiop - Fully realizing the importance of reporting on the orgnization and administration of the City•'.s parking program, we would expect to review• and relate the advantages and disadvantages which the present program has produced. This would be done by detailed discussions with all of the public bodies. concerned with transportation and parking and by dis- cussions with the CPNC and other business and civic groups. ,close coordination with city staff would be especially important in these discussions. The organiz- ations and administrative practices will also be assessed in relation to those cities of comparable size with acknowledged successful parking programs. All of the inquiries and studies in this phase of the work will be.aimed at making sound recommendations'for a future" organization and administrative program for parking in Newport' Beach. H. _Legal and Financial. Elements - The studies should include an evaluation of alternate financial and/or legal'mechan- isms that would be employed to achieve the'same goals at less expense to the City in terms of 'tax incentives,' and/ or less impact on the City's borrowing authority.• The practices of supporting parking developments.through public funding will'be thoroughly reviewed. The.attitudes and view ,of the public and private agencies invol�ied will be ascertained. The full economic implications of the present program of•financing parking facilities in Central Newport Beach will be developed. 11 This phase of the Work Program would also involve the review, analysis, and evaluation of'the parking land use, traffic, trip generation, and financial data compiled, updated, and tabulated in the initial portion of the study.* The analysis. work would obviously include necessary planning and engineering evaluations and application of judgment to determine final parking demand values in the study projections for 1976, 1980 and 1985. These demand forecasts would be compared with the existing supply to determine actual parking needs. The parking demands and needs would be estimated for 1977, '1980 and 1985. in the analysis, full use would be made of all pertinent data including land use data, parking inventories, and economic studies. All materials will be analyzed to integrate with planning data for the study area. The demands for parking will be related to the parking supply on a block -by -block basis to determine parking surpluses and deficiencies.' in this manner, any desired grouping of blocks can be analyzed. Land use intorma-, tion, including floor area and employment available from the city, will be correlated with parking demands.' Parking projections will be based on floor area, employment, and other economic and land use factors; future demands will be.developed on a block and' total study area basis. A preliminary evaluation of alternative parking programs would be conducted to allow the selection of a preferred development concept. Economic Feasibility The economic feasibility of the preferred parking development plan will be evaluated in this major phase of the study. Potential sites for parking facilities will be located and costed. The .12 , '. I type of parking facility required on each site will be developed in terms of capacity, functional design, operational features,. and construction cost requirements. An economic analysis which compares annual parking revenues with the debt service and operating cost requiremznts'of each facility will be conducted. The financing alternatives which would be available to fund any -operating deficit would be identified.. in this manner, a financial feasibility analysis of each proposed facility and -the total parking plan would be conducted. Draft Report Tipon completion of all field studies and analyses, a pre- liminary report of findings and recommendations will be prepared and submitted: A. The report will contain the parking inventory and parker characteristics, including trip purpose, origin and destination, occupancy, turnover rates, hourly accumu- lation of cars and walking distances. complete analyses and discussions of these data will be presented. B. supply versus demand will be analyzed on a block -by -block, basis based upon field survey and floor area data. Existing and future (1977, 1980, and 1985) deficiencies (and surpluses) in parking will be evaluated by type and location. C. Alternate methods of achieving a balanced parking supply and demand will be explored, and the most efficient plan for developing an adequate parking supply will be presented. 13 D. Existing and proposed sites for off-street parking development will be evaluated.. This will include jvarious types of facilities, consisting of those that could be developed as long-term employee. parking, as well as short-term, high -turnover parking facilities. E. A complete economic feasibility analysis for each of the recommended parking sites will be prepared. These analyses will include development costs, operating _costs, and gross income. From cost -income summaries, it will be possible to determine•the extent -to which each of the facilities can be developed as self-liquida- ting projects. It will also be possible to relate the jj economic data to various methods of financing. Total J project costs would be provided, as well as estimated project initiation and completion dates. F. A long-range (1985) parking program and management plan •-� will be prepared. The plan will delineate a program of parking site acquisition, development, and management necessary to accommodate the long term needs of the study area. ,. Presentation and Reports ' . The consultant team would make formal presentations of the project recommendations to City Staff, to the CNPC, the Planning 'Commission and to the City Council. A presentation of interim project findings would be made to City Staff at.the end of the n inventory and analysis phase of the study. After review and approval of the project recommendations the consultant would .1 14 11 provide the City with fifty (50) copies of -the final report, as well as with the report originals and graphics. Consultant team members would be available -to attend all meetings and work sessions dictated by the work program requirements, to ensure that all study products are developed in full coordination with City Staff and other involved interests. The Consultant would also assist bond counsel in the preparation of any required bond sale prospectus. Supplemental Studies The Consultant Team would be prepared to conduct any environ- mental, assessments or impact analysis, as tequired by program recommendations. Members of the team are fully familiar'with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Act -as related to environmental impact reports of transportation related projects. The Team is also experienced in the preliminary design, and the development of construction specifications and construction plans for parking lots and structures of all types. Team members would be available to conduct these studies on an as -needed basis. U ' 15 STUDY COSTS The ..scope of work defined in this proposal for Phase I, the Parking Needs Assessment, and Phase II, the Economic Feasibility Analysis, would require approximately 420.professional manhours. Table 1 presents a project cost estimate, delineating the estimated costs of both Phases, which total $ 18,900. Cost estimates include time and material expenses for attendance at presentations and hearings at the conclusion of Phases I and 1I. Conduct of the supplemental project requirements, such as preparation of necessary environmental documents, or preparation of detailed parking facility design -construction plans are not included. At' this time the scope of these supplemental requirements is not sufficiently defined to allow a detailed cost estimate. We would plan to conduct these supplemental efforts, using our standard schedule of hourly per diem rates as shown'in Table 1. 0 a 26 i Table 1 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Central Newport Beach Parking Study HOURLY* PHASE I PHASE II TOTAL PER DIEM PARKING NEEDS ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY COST COST ITEM RATE Hours Cost Hours Cost PERSONNEL 10 400 $ 800 Associates $ 40 1p 400 2240 5440 ' Principal Engineers, 32 100 3200 70 , 5400 27 120 3240 80 2160 Engineers - 600 Technicians 15 40 600 - 1100 11 40 440 60. 660 Draftsman 680 1640 Clerical &.Field 8 • 120 960 "85 1620 g 80 720 - ,100 900 Secretarial INDIRECT COSTS 150 300 50 1 Travel - 110 200 90 Office 1,100 1,800 700 , , Printing ,$.10,500 $ '.8,400 $ 18,900 * Includes salaries, benefits, office overhead, and a 10 per cent profit factor. *I 4V 11 /.3s September 23, 1977 Dear Committee Member: The purpose of this letter is to keep you informed of the activities of the Central Newport Parking Committee. The City of Newport Beach, on our recommendation, has hired the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates to prepare a "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" of the Central Newport area. The general meeting of our committee on September 19th was held to review the initial results of the parking survey work obtained by Wilbur Smith and Associates. During the last week in August, they conducted a comprehensive parking survey throughout the Central Newport area. They interviewed over one thousand parkers (a 12% sample) to determine generally: 1. Where people who were parking came from; 2. What the purpose of the trip was; and 3. How long they planned to say. Additionally, the survey and additional field work determined the turn -over rate and occupany level of each public. and private off-street parking lot and each on -street parking space. From this and other data they are collecting and from the City's efforts to develop a land use plan for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area, Wilbur Smith and Associates will generate several overall parking plans for the Central Newport area to meet both the immediate and future needs for parking. In the near future, they will be briefing both the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission on the initial results of the study. Prior to these meetings, we will be requesting another more -detailed briefing of our committee. During our last meeting, members of the committee were able to question members of the consultants' study team and City staff. In this way the committee had an opportunity to bring forth the many parking problems that they feel are unique to their situations. The following discussion ranged from how the parking needs can best be met physically to the best methods of achieving its financial success. We look forward to seeing you at our next meeting. MB:so De° pePt• ,g��a gEP c o9,Pr NE,NP 6P�'tF• .c. Sincerely, AW4 _ z ilw:�� Milbeth Brey Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 CITY -OF NEWPORT BEACH / MEMORANDUM: From Office of the City Manager Dick Hogan, Director To......... CQmmunity.Deyelopment ................. sa.0 mtr Q., 19 77. SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM H-3(b) DATED 9/19/77 The City Council at their meeting of September 19, 1977, referred the attached letter from Ronald Hein to the staff for inclusion in an ongoing study. The letter concerns the Central Newport Parking Study which is being conducted by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Please take appropriate action in response to the Council's request. RLW:GJB:ib Attachment 1, 0 C.. i .. 2 SEP orry C = NEW,r PAPIY w&ated ❑ Q r. `Xi NnMY not neoeerry p j, ., NI.1� ILE Da P:DT RLE .IOVE S y........N'W.... ............ROBERTWYN 0 To: ,'ay'1ii I I i ama Fr: non Hain N E:W iA r �t7 t ' ,E 4 V i . �.; t ' Itve lived here on the Balboa peninsula t. fox, eight years, parking has been a• problem all this time and the same date ' 'k back many years. My observation is that the existing vehicle-parking-is--a-control which --has permitted people to still use the beach area. The introduction of the 25(bus fare to the beach has substantially increased the beach density. I believe additional parking facilitiesr 3 in the -McFadden Square -will -further-- destroy_what-little living value has survived to date. I hope the City will not expand the` A gn parking for either the visitor or the merchants. l _ 271'i St. Newport w^ PPoPERtIES rJ � _ - _-- -- _--- ttarix The to ,ne �C _L-.-•-9_u r ,ii t v y /� /-,a 7 Centf 3 Acker get cil — - — model �r r , 1NG FACILITY 's Help ktee says it wants m king district winch )ends to raise money: wrate parking lots.. - clson, _ committee+ Ind general manager. ge; said the commit - a cityto buy the land ' he district; when ldbuy itback. dng district fails too he said,'; the, city, rr thesell the proper *ate the parking r lf. Dr. Carl Ackerman`; [ding 'on-23rd Street'`.' ed by the. Newport Museum. im is slated to move' arters, in Newport two months -and- s, currently trying; to, roval for plans to re-' wo buildings on his' committee has in imbining'the two fi•6.nvietinn noririn6` COUNCILMEN �O q GO��.c �9 i9 BOA OT �2s CRY OF NEWPORT ARACH gnnfhomhor 1Q_ 1977 FILE l1� MINUTES C0'�y nn NOT REMOVE KULL I.HLL -- (b) Resolution No. 9194 authorizing the Mayor and Senior City Clerk to execute an Architectural Citizens Services Agreement between the City of Center Newport Beach and Wilson V. Woodman & Associ- R-9194 ates in connection with the Senior Citizen (2784) Multipurpose Room at Fifth and Marguerite. (A report from The Parks, Beaches and Recrea- tion Director attached) c) Resolution No. 9195 designating an inter- Stop section at which vehicles are required to Signs top and directing the Traffic Engineer to R-9195 er t the necessary stop signs (Dove Street (8F) at Qu 1 Street). (A report from the Public Works De rtment attached) (d) Resolution No. 9196 approving the Memorandum Budget of.Understanding egotiated by the repre- R-9196 sentatives of the ort Beach Fire Fighters (764) Association and the C representative. (Attached) (e) Resolution No. 9197 approving a application for grant funds under the Robert 'Berg Open -Space and Recreation Program ( dball Courts/Mariners Park). (A report from a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director) 3. The following communications were referred as indicated: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. Open Space Program R-9197 (2640) (b) To staff for inclusion in on -going study, a letter to Councilman Williams from Ronald Hein concerninggtt e—Centraal NewportCParking SL-u-d ("A"ttach`e_d) Central Newport Parking (2745) (c) To staff for reply, a letter from Norman H. Smedegaard regarding the proposed purchase of land between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach for parks. (Copies mailed to Council) (d) To staff for reply, a letter from Orange County Fair Housing Council su tting their monthly report for August,, which includes a request to pkries for funds on a percentage basis,�pr the publication of the Fair Housing J urnal. (Copies mailed to Council) (e) To aff for reply, a letter from Hunter utchison with a suggestion regarding the use of the beach by dogs and dog -owners. (Attached) (f) To Pending Legislation and Procedural Ethics Committee, a resolution from the City of DownSp st D elopmei (1090) OrCo Fair Housing (2780) Animal Control (862) Property Taxes Fountain Valley disapproving the policy of (1429) rr the Orange County Tax Assessor in prematurely releasing assessed valuation figures. (Attached) Volume 31 - Page 250 G*'Y OF NEWPORT BPACH C0U CILMEN ?'p\�v�oo��i ROLL CALL \ September 19. 1977 MINUTES A report was presented from the General Services Director. Motion x The trash receptacles offered by the Corona del Ayes x x x x x x x Mar Chamber of Commerce were accepted, and the servicing and maintenance of the receptacles by the City was authorized. 7. John Wilson of Carden School addressed the Council Carden and asked for waiver of the Building Code re- School quirements for an anchoring system in connection (2168) with the relocatable buildings being used for classrooms and of the $1,000 bond required to insure eventual removal of the relocatable buildings. Motion x Mr. Wilson was granted ten minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x x presentation. Motion x Mr. Wilson was granted two additional minutes Ayes x x x x x x x to complete his presentation. B Fowler, Director of the Building Division of th Community Development Department, gave a brief sta report on the Building Code requirements pert a ning to relocatable buildings. Motion x The bon ing requirement and the requirement for an Ayes x x x x anchorin system were waived. Noes x x x CONSENT CALENDAR Motion x The following item were approved by one motion affirm - Ayes x x x x x x x ing the actions on a Consent Calendar, 1. The following or nances were introduced and set for public hearing on October 11, 1977: (a) Proposed Ordina a No. 1752, being, AN District ORDINANCE OF THE ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Map 28 AMENDING A PORTIO OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 28 0-1752 TO RECLASSIFY FROM UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT (2178) TO AN R-1-B DISTRIC CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 930 MARINERS DRI EASTERLY OF GALAXY DRIVE, ADJACENT TO UPP NEWPORT BAY IN LOVER SHORES, Planning Commis on Amendment No. 500, a request initiated y The Irvine Company. (A report from a Community Development Department a hed) (b) Removed from the Consent Cale dar. 2. The following resolutions were adopt (a) Resolution No. 9193 authorizing t Mayor and Harbor Vw City Clerk to execute a Landscape intenance Comm Assn Agreement between the City of Newpo Beach R-9193 and Harbor View Community Association Phase I, (2779) (A report from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director attached) Volume 31 - Page 249 0 • TO: ,lay VVil.liams 1 r: Lon Ilein /1 - 31� 1 i'�ve lived here on the Balboa peninsula for eight years, parking has been a problem all. this time and the same date back many years. My observation is that the existing vehinle parking is a control vrhich has permitted people to still use the beac area. The indlroduction of the 25¢ bus fare to the beach has substantially increased the bear"h density. I believe additional parking facilities ' in the McFadden Square will further destroy what little living value has survived to date. I hope the city will not expand the parking for either the visitor or the merchants. H1k,'•Ry f\ • G �ARKIN11 L 0 T » aw _ 150n pkity's Help 014t1 Newport to Study Pier Parking Plan A group of Newport Beach The committee says it wants to businessmen want the city -to buy form' a parking district which at least two pieces of property would issue bonds to raise money near the Newport Pier and puta to buy and operate parking lots. two-story parking structure on Paul Carlson, committee them,., - . ,1 sklodifaenand gendral'mihager Councilmen have agreed to of'Lido Village, said the commit - study the proposal. tee wants the city to buy the land The suggestion came from a now and the district, when group known as the Central formed, would buy it back. Newport Parking Committee, a If the parking district fails to coalition of businessmen materialize, he said,,the city representing businesses from could then either sell the proper. Lido Village to McFadden ty or operate the parking 'Square near the pier. facilities itself. The committee wants the city to buy two lots on 22nd Street owned by Dr. Carl Ackerman and the building on.23rd Street now occupied by the Newport Harbor Art Museum, The museum is slated to move to new quarters in Newport Center in two months and Ackerman is currently trying to get city approval for plans to re- .model the two buildings on his lots. What the committee has in mind is combining the two parcelsarki t at Forgit's Hardwiare storetlg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2137 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING This notice is to inform you of the following public hearing in which you may have an interest. PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN Concept Plans "CP-I, "CP-II, and "CP-III" Date: September 1, 1977 Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: City Hall - City Council Chambers 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN The City of Newport Beach is developing ✓P specific area -plan for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area of the City in three parts. The first part (Phase I) has been completed and involves a "research report" which outlines the existing environmental conditions of the overall area and urban features of each indi- vidual sector. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach in February, 1977. The second part (Phase II), and the subject of this hearing, involves the review and adoption of an overall areawide concept plan, dealing with land use and development intensity. The third part (Phase III) will involve the adoption of detailed zoning regulations, individual circulation plans, parking and public improvement programs. The area included in this planning project is shown on the map on the reverse side of this notice. For further information, feel free to contact Fred Talarico at (714) 640-2261, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •"l `I.'.Vfidgan,, rector RVH:FT: jmb City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 0 CANNbR'f YILL.A4E / Mf- PA'D0Et4 SQuP Pgk 5MCIPi[, NZEA PLatd F"o11Nvmtc of PLANNItAA AFEti L1Dp pl` NINSUL s- 15A.Y `�-Fill W-2 w ', ; 'iw�u� ; �' \ r►�1�;�� rya`` 0 G r CIRY OF NEWPORT 1APACH �-- COUNCILMEN MINUTES y 00 Oc < 0� onl 1 rn� i `n �� \ September 12, 1977 _INDEX (c) To staff for reply, a letter from C. P. Avery Street suggesting no -parking restrictions for street Cleaning cleaning be arranged for Balboa Boulevard on (639F) two different days of the week, so that cleaning could be done close to the curbs. At present there is a great deal of litter that collects under the cars since some are not moved for days at a time. (Copies mailed to Council) f for report back, a letter from the Parking/ del Mar Chamber of Commerce requesting City -owned order to provide for off-street Lot on Bay g, the City -owned lot on Bayside Drive side Dr Jasmine Avenue and the alley adjacent X (2777) Bayside entrance to the United Califor- be black -topped. (Copies mailed to l) ding Legi lation and Procedural Ethics Electric Committee, a resoution from the City of San Generating Diego relative to As embly Bill 1852, an act Plant to repeal Section 2552 of the Public (1370) Resources Code relating t Nuclear Power plants. (Copies mailed to Co cil) (f) To staff for reply., a letter from the City of Youth Adv Concord regarding possible Youth Co issions Comsn and their activities in the City of Ne ort (558) Beach. (Copies mailed to Council) (g) To staff for reply, a letter from Helen M. Complaints Kieron opposing construction schedules and 00) morning construction noises on Saturdays and Sundays as allowed by the Municipal Code. (Copies mailed to Council) (h) To staff for inclusion in on -going study, a Central letter from Clyde R. Groetzinger regarding Npt Prkg the crowded beaches and t e of ecf t more (2745) parking would have on the over -crowded beach areas. (Attached) (i) To Technical Oil Advisory Committee, a letter Oil to Mayor Dostal from Richard L. Franck 111ing enclosing a copv of a letter to Councilwoman (106) Weider of Huntington Beach protesting Shy Channel Oil Drilling Platforms proposed by Shell Oil Company which will Visible from Huntington Beach, Newpo�Beach and Laguna Beach. (Copies mail d to Council) (j) To Harry Bub , the City's representative to OrCo - the 05ange County Health Planning Council, a Health letter from the Health Planning Council Planning calling for nominations for Assembly at -large Council positions and Board of Directors for the (1830) / Health Planning Council. (Copies mailed to ,.� Council) / (k) To staff for report back, a letter to Mayor Handicappe l Dostal from the City of Fountain Valley (1476) Volume 31 - Page 237 C%Y OF NEW PORT BRACH COUNCILMEN O 9 �O�P.c �G�O y F \� G\`/9N��'� 0�y yy� September 12, 1977 MINUTES iNnFY (c) Resolution No. 9184 authorizing the Mayor and Marinapark City Clerk to execute a Consent to Sale of R-9184 mobilehome and trailer space in Newport (209) Marinapark (Mathisen and Hersh). (A report from the City Attorney attached) (d) Resolution No. 9185 declaring that weeds and Weed other public nuisances exist upon streets, Abatement alleys, sidewalks, parkways, and private R-9185 property within the City, declaring that said (150) weeds and public nuisances must be abated, setting the time and place for a public hearing at which the City Council will consider protests from persons objecting to the proposed destruction or removal of such public nuisances by the City, and directing he Fire Chief to give notice of the passage this resolution and of the public hearing s for September 19. 1977. (e) Res ution No. 9186 approving the Memorandum Budget of Un erstanding negotiated by represents- R-9186 tives f the Newport Beach Police Employees (764) Associa ion and the City representative. (f) Resolutio No. 9187 authorizing the Mayor and Off -Site City Clerk to execute an Off -Site Parking Parking/ Agreement b tween the City of Newport Beach Inter - and Internat onal Bay Clubs, Inc., Newport national Beach. (A re ort from the Community Develop- Bay Clubs ment Departmen attached) R-9187 (g) Resolution No. 9 8 approving and authorizing I Record the destruction o certain records of the Destruction Planning Commissio meetings maintained by R-9188 the Community Devel meet Department. (A (1200) report from the Comm ity Development Department attached) (h) Resolution No. 9189 awa in& a contract to Harbor i G. M. Boston & Associates in connection with Pollution the harbor debris clean-up program. (A R-9189 report from the Marine Depa tment attached) (1388) 2. The following communications were eferred as indicated: (a) To staff for reply, a letter fro the PTA Ensign Board of Corona del Mar High Scho opposing Vw Park renovating the Baptist Church on C ff Drive (1294) for community use, and suggesting a se for the building as it stands. (Copies iled to Council) (b) To staff for reply, a letter from Charl and Complaints Marcia Bergh regarding an experience the (600) daughters had while at the beach in Newpo when their car was towed away. (Copies mailed to Council) Volume 31 - Page 236 NEWPORT CITY COUNCIL,- 1 HAVE BEEN LIVING ON WEST OCEAN FRONT FOR THE LAST 29 YEARS. IN REGARDS TO THE PARKING PROBLEMS - THERE IS ONE ANGLE THAT NEVER SEEMS TO SE BROUGHT UP. I AM REFERRING TO THE BEACH ON A SUMMER v. 3k WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY IN THE AREA OF THE NEWPORT PIER, WHEN ALL THE AVAIL - AM[ PRESW PARKING PLACES ARE FILLED YOU WILL FIND T11[ BEACH IN THE BLOCKS ADJACENT TO THE PIER ARE PACKED. IN FACT TO BE SO EXTREMELY OVERCROWD AS TO BE QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE, TO THIS PASSENGER CAR CROBDB MUST SE ADDED THOSE BROUGHT BY THE OCTO SUSSES WHICH ARE UNLOADED IN THIS AREA. THIS MUST, BE EXPERIENCED TO REALIZE HOM OVERCROWDED THE BEACH IS'. NOW TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOTS AND PARKING BUILDINGS IN THIS CON- DENB O AREA WOULD MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE. THE FORGIT HARDWARE PARKING LOT IF NOT ATTENDED BY GUARD - FILLS UP COMPLETELY WITH ADDITIONAL BEACH GOERS -NOT SHOPPERS, THE ONLY TIME NEW PARKING LOTS WOULD BE U6b ARE ON WEEKENDS - HOLIDAYS - ETC. - AT OTHER TIMES THE NQN AVAILABLE PARKING FACILITIES TAKE CARE OF THE SHOPPERS AND BEACH CROIMOS QUITE NICELY. NEW PARKING SPACES IN THIS AREA STILL WOULD NOT PROVIDE ROOM FOR SHOPPERS AS THE VOLUME OF RECREATION CARS ARE FAR TOO GREAT AT THESE TIMES. IT 18 A BAD SITUATION. AT FOOTBALL STADIUMS - BASEBALL FIELDS - BASKETBALL - TH[ATERS ETC.,- WHEN THE AREA 18 FULL - THE EXCM CRO[D$ GO [LSEWHERE FOR RECREATION. THIS SHOULD APPLY TO THE PIER AREA (EXTENDING g OR 6 SLOCK8) WHERE THE.BEACH IS BADLY OVERCRONDED. MORE PARKING WOULD MAKE THE CONDENSED CARS AND OR0N08 EXTREMELY HARD TO HANDLE. A SURVEY SHOULD BE WADE NOT TO FIND MORE PLACES TO PAN CARS IN THIS AREA - BUT TO FIND OTHER PLACES FOR THE CRCWD8. rµ S�• 1 CECEIVE CITY CLERK - SEP 619770w 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE LIDO SHOPPING AREA - AS IT IS IEMITLY FAR AWAY 80 AS NOT 'TO SE USED BY THE CROWDS FOR THE 8INCER[LY, Clyde R. Groetzinger 2506 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92660 C*Y OF NEWPORT BLOACH 1. � COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL September 12, 1977 MINUTES :1 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop- Curb ment Department forwarding recommendation of the Cuts Planning Commission that the City Council proceed (687) with sppropriate action to close up unused curb cu n order to restore on -street parking in Corona aI Motion x The staff was direc to take the appropriate Ayes x x x x x x action to close the unuse rb cuts in Corona del Absent x Mar with the proviso that indiv ua.1s whose curb cuts are to be closed may appeal to C-ounizail if they have a grievance. 3. BA-19,_$18,900.00 increase in Budget Appropriations for a parking needs and economic feasibil� study Motion x for Central Newport from Reserve for Off -Street, Parking Meter Fund to Community Development, Ayes x x x x x Noes x Services -Professional, Techn caf 1 e_tc_, General Absent x Fund, was approved.._ Motion x At 10:55 p.m. the meeting was ordered adjourned to Ayes x x x x x x 7:30 p.m. on September 19, 1977. Absent x e Volume 31 - Page 242 ' COY OF NEWPORT BACH i COUNCILMEN \ 'A 9 00 'AL oc �� ROLL CALL August 22, 1977 uZH0q i AND ADDING SECTION 12.62.050 DEALING WITH TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE AND AMENDING SECTION 12.40.120 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH Motion x MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OBSTRUCTING PARKING SPACES, was p ented for second reading. Ordinance No. 8 was adopted. FILE ��,,. +PIS' 11 Ayes x x x x x x x DO NOT CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the City nager EMOVE Ticonderoga Motion x regarding the vacation of Ticonderoga St t. The subject was postponed to October 25, and the staff was directed to report back at an earlier Street (2587) Ayes x Ix x Ix X1 X1 x date if possible. Motion x 2. A report was presented from the City Manager concerning matters related to the formation of a Central Newport Parking District. The following people addressed the Council in support of the proposed Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study: John Zaremba, 'Milbeth Brey, Bill Hurrell of Wilbur Smith and Associates and Bill Frederickson. Senior Planner David Dmohowski gave a brief staff report. Councilman Ryckoff made a motion to refer the for Central Newport Parking District (2745) Ayes x x issue back to the Committee a resubmission the Cannery Noes x x x x x to the people involved (including Village and Lido Village areas) and then back to Council, which motion failed to carry. Motion x Resolution No. 9167, authorisin the Playor�and between the R-9167 Ayes x x x x x City Clerk to execute an a reement Beach Wilbur Smith and Noes x x City of, Newport and Associates for the preparation of a "Parking Needs and Economic=Feasibility Study for the Central Newport Area,," was adted Motion x 3. A report was presented from the Assistant to the City Manager regarding the latest meeting with the Police Employee's Association. Sergeant Jim Gardner of the Police— mployee's Association addressed the cil. The staff was d cted to prepare a Memorandum Bu (764) M, i Ayes x x x x of Unders ng containing new employment by the Police Employee's Noes x x x cond H ona as spelled out ssociation in their letter of August 15, 1977. �. Councilman Ryckoff asked that the following statement be included in the record: i Volume 31 - Page 214 r-sm COUNCILMEN �mo�"\ 10 9 O .t G CGI 1 \ CWY OF NEWPORT B&CH Regular Council Meeting Place: Council Chambers Time: 7:30 P.M. Date: August 22, 1977 MINUTES I tunFY Present x x x x x x x Roll Call. The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Motion x August 8, 1977 was waived, and said Minutes were Ayes x x x x x x approved as written and ordered filed. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions Motion x under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk Ayes x x x x x x was directed to read by titles only. 6 YEARINGS: 1 Mayor Dostal opened the public hearing regarding Revenue the use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Sharing (1159) A report was presented from the City Manager. lliam Eilers, representing the Newport Center A ociation, addressed the Council and supported th use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for lib ry purposes. Motion x The h axing was closed after it was determined Ayes x x x x x x x that n one else desired to be heard. The use f $419,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Motion x Funds for library purposes was approved, and the Ayes x x x x x x x staff was irected to prepare the appropriate Budget Amen ment. 2. Mayor Dostal pened the public hearing regarding Sundance the reconside tion of acceptance of Sundance Drive Drive in Tract o. 7989 (Newport Terrace) as a (2380) public street. A report was prey nted from the Public Works Director. Motion x The hearing was cunt nued to September 12. Ayes x x x x x x x ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READI AND ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1747, bein PERS 0-1747 AN ORDINANCE OF THE C TY OF NEWPORT BEACH (617) AUTHORIZING AN AMEND T TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCI AND THE BOARD OF 1 ADMINISTRATION OF THE C IFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SY EM, was presented for second readin Motion x Ordinance No. 1747 was adopted. Ayes x x x x x x x 2. Ordinance No. 1748, being, Street Closure/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPO T BEACH Prkg Proh AMENDING CHAPTER 12.62 OF THE NEWP RT BEACH (300 & 440F) MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 2.62.010 0-1748 Volume 31 - Page 213 STUDY SESSION No. 9 COUNCIL AGENDA No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 8, 1977 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING DISTRICT Background The City Council, on July 25, 1977, requested that the necessary steps be taken to begin the process of forming a parking district in the McFadden Square -Cannery Village area. The purpose of this staff report and related attachments is to inform the Council as to the status of the district proposal. Legal Framework The first step which is necessary in the initial parking district creation schedule relates to a determination regarding the type of district Which would best serve the interests of the subject area. The attached memorand- um from the Assistant City Attorney summarizes the basic legal alternatives which are available as frameworks within which a district may be formed and made operational. Any determination as to petition requirements, etc., would necessarily be preceded by the designation of a specific district type. According to the Community Development Department, a study of the economic feasibility of parking alternatives should be conducted in order to determine the type of district best suited for meeting the parking objectives of the area. The Central Newport Parking Committee and the Community Development Department are in the process of analyzing alternative proposals from various consult- ing firms for the preparation of such a study. Position of the Central Newport Parking Committee Attached also to this report is a copy of a position paper which was sub- mitted by the Central Newport'Parking Committee and which deals with parking district formation in relation to perceived parking needs in the area. The committee is reiterating its request that the City purchase the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Ackerman properties for parking purposes in anticipa- tion of the completion of the feasibility study and the formation and op tion of the district. ROBERT L. WYNN RLW:GJB:ib Attachments 0 0 2. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY TO: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager August 3, 1977 FROM: Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Formation of Off -Street Parking District At your request, I am summarizing some of the basic aspects of three off-street parking district acts which could be used by the City of Newport Beach. These acts may be adopted by the City of Newport Beach to provide a method or vehicle for the acquisition and improvement of off-street automobile parking spaces. This memo, of necessity, will be relatively brief but will outline some of the policy decisions that will have to be made prior to adopting the type of parking district appropriate for the needs of the City of Newport Beach in and around the Lido Village and McFadden Pier areas. 1943 ACT The 1943 Act provides a method for the acquisition and improve- ment of off-street automobile parking places using, as its source of revenue, revenues derived from the facility itself and on -street parking meters as well as an assessment by benefit of the property within the district. Under this Act, property which is exempt from property taxes can be required to pay its fair share by virtue of the assessment. The.Act does provide a method for free parking and allows a preferred rate or validation parking. To institute a 1943 parking district the property owners owning at least 51% of the total assessed value of land and over one-half of the land area, must execute a petition consenting to the formation of the district. The district itself would be of a limited area and there may be several 1943 districts within the City. The district is governed by a board of parking place commissioners appointed by the City Council, and nay include members of the City Council as well as district businessmen. 1951 PARKING DISTRICT LAW The 1951 Parking District Law takes a different approach to C, J 3 Robert L. Wynn, City Manager August 3, 1977 Page Two Formation of Off -Street Parking District payment of off-street parking spaces. This Act does not provide for an assessment by benefit but does provide for an ad volorum tax. Thus, under the 1951 Act, tax exempt properties would not pay any of the cost of the parking facility. Only taxable properties would be subject to the ad volorum assessment. The necessary revenue is generated from the facility revenue, by on -street parking meters as well as the ad volorum tax which would apply at a uniform rate, when the facility revenues and street meter revenues are not adequate to pay debt service and maintenance and operation costs of the facility. This method allows for preferred rates or validation but does not permit free parking. The formation of the 1951 parking district requires a petition signed by the owners of real property representing 51% of the assessed valuation of all taxable property and constituting not less than 51% of the district area's taxable land. PARKING LAW OF 1949 The Parking Law of 1949 is the last vehicle considered for the acquisition and improvement of off-street automobile parking places. That Act does not provide for an assessment by benefit or an ad volorum tax. The payment of the cost of the district is through street meter revenues, facility revenues and a pledge by the City, as lessee of the facility, of the payments on the lease. Thus, should the revenues from the street meters in the facility be inadequate to pay the debt service and maintenance and operation, the City would be obligated to make up the difference through -its lease payments. The City's rental agree- ment is the sole security for the bonds that would be issued to acquire the property and construct any facilities necessary. The Act does provide for validated parking but would not permit free parking. The governing body of the 1949 Act is a parking r(, authority which owns the facilities which are leased to the City. This Act does not require a petition to be executed by property owners since there is no ad volorum tax nor assessment levied in conjunction with the financing of the off-street parking spaces and facilities. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS As can be seen by this brief summary, certain basic policy decisions will have to be made before one course of action can • 0 '. y, Robert L. Wynn, City Manager August 31 1977 Page Three Formation of Off -Street Parking District be selected. The considerations are, among others, whether or not property owners within the district should pay assessments according to benefit (benefit determined by proximity to the facility, existing parking spaces and so forth) or pay an ad volorum tax, based on the assessed value of their property without considering the benefits to the property by a proximity to the facility, or whether there should be no assessment or tax at all and the City should underwrite the lease an the assumption that the facility and street meter revenues will be adequate to pay the debt service and maintenance and operation costs. in embarking on a 1949 Act, the City would have to determine whether or not it would agree to be the lessee of the parking facility, thus, guaranteeing to bond holders that it would appropriate adequate funds, on an annual basis, to guarantee debt service and maintenance and operation costs. Another consideration is whether or not free parking should be allowed or considered at all, and whether preferred rates or validation should be permitted, whether present or future. In all acts, an excise tax may be placed on business operators within the subject area to assist in the payment of the debt service and maintenance and operation costs. In conclusion, I would be happy to discuss, in more detail, any of the aspects of the various parking district acts. It should be pointed out, however, that under most hopeful circumstances, it would take approximately six months from the initiation of legal steps to create a district to the sale of necessary bonds. It would be helpful to acquire the services of professional parking consultants who provide package parking facilities and to obtain the services of bond counsel to provide needed bond j legal services in conjunction with the formation of a district -� and the sale of bonds. HRC3yz r� J. August 3, 1977 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: At the July 25,.1977 City Council Study Session you discussed a report from the City Manager regarding our request for the acquisition of the art museum and two properties owned by or. Ackerman in the McFadden - Square area and indicated your desire that the CNPC move forward to form a parking district and acquire the property. On August 3, 1977, the Executive Committee of the CNPC met to discuss our next step. Presently we have received four proposals from consulting firms for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area, which will lead us toward our desired goal of solving the parking problem in the Central Newport area through the formation of a parking district. Because of the amount of time involved i.n the preparation of need studies, their review, the acceptance of a workable solution, and the sale of bonds, we have requested as an interim action the City's immediate acquisition of the three properties in the McFadden Square area. The property owner of the art museum parcel has indicated to the CNPC that he would be willing to accept a moderate downpayment and the remainder of the purchase price when the district is formed. The immediate acquisition by the City of the art museum property and the two parcels owned by Dr. Ackerman will allow the district to acquire them from the City at such time as the District is formed. Because of the two property owners' desires to develop or dispose of their property at this time, we are asking for City action on an interim basis realizing the CNPC is proceding with the formation of the parking districts. If, for some reason, the district cannot be formed, the City would still have the option of either operating them as municipal lots or selling the properties. It is important to note that while,a formal district boundary has not been established, it is presently envisioned that it will address the parking problems of the entire Central Newport area including .the McFadden Square, Cannery Village, Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and Lido Village areas. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/676-8662 4 City Council Page Two August 3, 1977 As you will note by my signature, I am now serving as chairman of the CNPC. Paul Carlson, the former chairman, has been promoted and assigned additional duties with the Koll Company which will be removed from the Newport Beach area. I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, 7 J Milbeth Brey Chairman MB:FT:dec i 4 Ir COY OF NEWPORT BACH I ROLL COUNCILMEN tP �! 'D O��'� �G\i 9 t css�9\Ar � CALL August 8, 1977 MINUTES Initiative prohibiting,public employee strikes and requesting endorsement by the City of Newport Beach. Motion x The Council endorsed this State Constitutional Ayes x x x x x x Amendment Initiative and directed that notice of their endorsement be registered with the League, CSAC (County Supervisors Association of California) the City's legislative representatives and the State Chamber of Commerce. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: The general issue of the current standards, guide- Conflict lines, rules and regulations dealing with conflict of x of interest was referred to the Pending Legislation Interest ,Motion Ayes x x x x x x x nd Ethics Committee with a request for recom- (2622) m dations and report back within two weeks. Motion x 2. Coun lman Kuehn made a motion to refer the issue of La Lynch and his appointment on the Planning Commiss n to the Appointments Committee for report ba k in two weeks. Councilman Innis asked that the motion be amended to de y the action by the Appointments Committee until fter the Ethics Committee had made its report, hich amendment was accepted by the maker of the m ion. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on C cilman Kuehn's amended Noes x x motion, which motion ca ied. 3. Resolution L, a proposed r olution from the Peripheral• Orange•County Division to bee considered by the Canal State League at the League Co erence in San (2744) Francisco in September, relatin to the construc- tion of the Peripheral Canal was resented. Motion x The City's delegate to the League wa instructed Ayes x x x x x x x to support Resolution L amended so th final paragraph would read as follows: "NOW, THEREFORE, the Orange County Chamber of Commerce re immediate action by the State Department Resources and the State of California to the Peripheral Canal under conditions rec \fo by the Department of Fish and Game in ordboth the San Joaquin Delta and Southern Cto realize their urgently needed water qu objectives." Motion x 4. The staff was directed to appeal to the Board of 0 0 Ayes x x x x x x x Supervisors regarding the Negative Declaration Air rt regarding the Orange County Airport, which would (195) include the City's opposition to the construction of new air freight facilities. 5. Councilman Rogers asked that the issue of the Art Art Museum Property Museum property be considered. (2522) A letter from Peg Forgit regarding the sale of the Art Museum property was presented. Volume 31 - Page 211 *Y OF NEWPORT d&CH h.. r-rm COUNCILMEN \� 9 00 rep t � August 8. 1977 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x Peg Forgit addressed the Council and stressed that the escrow was to close on the Art Museum property on September 2, unless condemnation proceedings were commenced by the City. The staff was directed to place the subject of the Art"Huseum property on the agenda for August 22, to" advise thi people involved and to present to Council in the staff report information on possible financing. Mayor Dostal adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M. • I i I .%f s r I I I 1 t i Volume 31 - Page 212 y C*Y OF NEWPORT BACH � 35 I.vew COUNCILMEN 9 O° '"G �O r\11VV \10 3��y� °T`ys s August 8, 1977 MINUTES ►rk FO 1 Initiative prohibiting public employee strikes and requesting endorsement by the City of Newport Beach. Motion x The Council endorsed this State Constitutional Ayes x x XN x x x x Amendment Initiative and directed that notice of their endorsement be registered with the League, CSAC (County Supervisors Association of California) the City's legislative representatives and the State Chamber of Commerce. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: y The general issue of the current standards, guide- Conflict lines, rules and regulations dealing with conflict of Motion x of interest was referred to the Pending Legislation Interest Ayes x x x x x x x nd Ethics Committee with a request for recom- (2622) m dations and report back within two weeks. Motion x 2. Coun lman Kuehn made a motion to refer the issue of Lar Lynch and his appointment on the Planning Commiss n to the Appointments Committee for report ba in two weeks. Councilman M nnis asked that the motion be amended to de y the action by the Appointments Committee until fter the Ethics Committee had made its report, hich amendment was accepted by the maker of the m lion. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on C lman Kuehn's amended Noes x x motion, which motion ca.ed. 3. Resolution L, a proposolution from the Peripheral Orange County Divisionbe considered by the Canal State League at the LeCo erence in San (2744) Francisco in Septemberlatin to the construc- tion of the Peripheralal was resented. Motion x The City's delegate to League w instructed \thfinal Ayes x x x x x x x to support Resolution ended so th finalparagraph would read allows: "NOW, THEREFORE,the Orange County Chamof Commerce re uestsimmediate action by thate Department o WaterResources and the Statf California to co tructthe Peripheral Canal uconditions recomme dedby the Department of Fand Game in order foboth the San Joaquin Dand Southern Californ ato realize their urgenneeded water quality " objectives." Motion x 4. The staff was directed to appeal to the Board of Ayes x x x x x x x Supervisors regarding the Negative Declaration \(195 regarding the Orange County Airport, which would include the City's opposition to the construction of new air freight facilities. 5. Councilman Rogers asked that the issue of the Art Art Museum Museum property be considered. Property (2522) A letter from Peg Forgit regarding the sale of the Art Museum property was presented. Volume 31 - Page 211 C*Y OF NEWPORT B&CH COUNCILMEN 00 �x �G\O s\ Fy 2 N'A��.p �yP onti r�� OAii August 8. 1977 MINUTES INDEX Motion Ayes x x x x x x x x Peg 'Forgit addressed the Council and stressed that the escrow was to close on the Art Museum property on September 2, unless condemnation proceedings were commenced by the City. The staff was directed to place the subject of the Art Museum property on the agenda for August_22, ae to a3v3the people involved and to present to Council in the staff report information on possible financing. ~ Mayor Dostal adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M. ' I t r f A �I a I Volume 31 - Page 212 I STUDY SESSION No. 9 COUNCIL AGENDA No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 8, 1977 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING DISTRICT w Background The City Council, on July 25, 1977, requested that the necessary steps be taken to begin the process of forming a parking district in the McFadden Square -Cannery Village area. The purpose of this staff report and related attachments is to inform the Council as to the status of the district proposal. Legal Framework The first step which is necessary in the initial parking district creation schedule relates to a determination regarding the type of district which would best serve the interests of the subject area. The attached memorand- um from the Assistant City Attorney summarizes the basic legal alternatives which are available as frameworks within which a district may be formed and made operational. Any determination as to petition requirements, etc., would necessarily be preceded by the designation of a specific district type. According to the Community Development Department, a study of the economic feasibility of parking alternatives should be conducted in order to determine the type of district best suited for meeting the parking objectives of the area. The Central Newport Parking Committee and the Community Development Department are in the process of analyzing alternative proposals from various consult- ing firms for the preparation of such a study. Position of the Central Newport Parking Committee Attached also to this report is a copy of a position paper which was sub- mitted by the Central Newport Parking Committee and which deals with parking district formation in relation to perceived parking needs in the area. The committee is reiterating its request that the City purchase the Newport Harbor Art Museum and Ackerman properties for parking purposes in anticipa- tion of the completion of the feasibility study and the formation and op tion of the district. ROBERT L. WYNN RLW:GJB:ib Attachments OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Formation of Off -Street Parking District At your request, I am summarizing some of the basic aspects of three off-street parking district acts which could be used by the City of Newport Beach. These acts may be adopted by the City of Newport Beach to provide a method or vehicle for the acquisition and improvement of offs -street automobile parking spaces. This memo, of necessity, will be relatively brief but will outline some of the policy decisions that will have to be made prior to adopting the type of parking district appropriate for the needs of the City of Newport Beach in and around the Lido Village and McFadden Pier areas. The 1943 Act provides a method for the acquisition and improve- ment of off-street automobile parking places using, as its source of revenue, revenues derived from the facility itself and on -street parking meters as well as an assessment by benefit of the property within the district. Under this Act, property which is exempt from property taxes can be required to pay its fair share by virtue of the assessment. The Act does provide a method for free parking and allows a preferred rate or validation parking. To institute a 1943 parking district the property owners owning at least 51% of the total assessed value of land and over one-half of the land area, must execute a petition consenting to the formation of the district. The district itself would be of a limited area and there may be several 1943 districts within the City. The district is governed by a board of parking place commissioners appointed by the City Council, and may include members of the City Council as well as district businessmen. 1951 PARKING DISTRICT LAW 3. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager August 3, 1977 Page Two Formation of Off -Street Parking District payment of off-street parking spaces. This Act does not provide for an assessment by benefit but does provide for an ad volorum tax. Thus, under the 1951 Act, tax exempt properties would not pay any of the cost of the parking facility. Only taxable properties would be subject to the ad volorum assessment. The necessary revenue is generated from the facility revenue, by on -street parking meters as well as the ad volorum tax which would apply at a uniform rate, when the facility revenues and street meter revenues are not adequate to pay debt service and maintenance and operation costs of the facility. This method allows for preferred rates or validation but does not permit free parking. The formation of the 1951 parking district requires a•petition signed by the owners of real property representing 51% of the assessed valuation of all taxable property and constituting not less than 51% of the district area's taxable land. PARKING LAW OF 1949 The Parking Law of 1949 is the last vehicle considered for the acquisition and improvement of off-street automobile parking places. That Act does not provide for an assessment by benefit or an ad volorum tax. The payment of the cost of the•district is through street meter revenues, facility revenues and a pledge by the City, as lessee of the facility, of the payments on the lease. Thus, should the revenues from the street meters in the facility be inadequate to pay the debt service and maintenance and operation, the City would be obligated to make up the difference through -its lease payments. The City's rental agree- ment is the sole security for the bonds that would be issued to acquire the property and construct any facilities necessary. The Act does provide for validated parking but would not permit free parking. The governing body of the 1949 Act is a parking authority which owns the facilities which are leased to the City. This Act does not require a petition to be executed by property owners since there is no ad volorum tax nor assessment levied in conjunction with the financing of the off-street parking spaces and facilities. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS As can be seen by this brief summary, certain basic policy decisions will have to be made before one course of action can 0 • 4, Robert L. Wynn, City Manager August 3, 1977 Page Three Formation of Off -Street Parking District be selected. The considerations are, among others, whether or not property owners within the district should pay assessments according to benefit (benefit determined by proximity to the facility, existing parking spaces and so forth) or pay an ad .7 volorum tax, based on the assessed value of their property without considering the benefits to the property by a proximity to the facility, or whether there should be no assessment or tax at all and the City should underwrite the lease on the assumption that the facility and street meter revenues will be adequate to pay the debt service and maintenance and operation costs. in embarking on a 1949 Act, the City would have to determine whether or not it would agree to be the lessee of the parking facility, thus, guaranteeing to bond holders that it would appropriate adequate funds, on an annual basis, to guarantee debt service and maintenance and operation costs. Another consideration is whether or not free parking should be allowed or considered at all, and whether preferred rates or validation should be permitted, whether present or future. In all acts, an excise tax may be placed on business operators within the subject area to assist in the payment of the debt service and maintenance and operation costs. in conclusion, I would be happy to discuss, in more detail, any of the aspects of the various parking district acts. it should be pointed out, however, that under most hopeful circumstances, it would take approximately six months from the initiation of legal steps to create a district to the sale of necessary bonds. It would be helpful to acquire the services of professional parking consultants who provide package parking facilities and to obtain the services of bond counsel to provide needed bond legal services in conjunction with the formation of a district and the sale of bonds. HRC:yz J. August 3, 1977 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: At the July 25, 1977 City Council Study Session you discussed a report from the City Manager regarding our request for the acquisition of the art museum and two properties owned by Dr. Ackerman in the McFadden Square area and indicated your desire that the CNPC move forward to form a parking district and acquire the property. On August 3, 1977, the Executive Committee of the CNPC met to discuss our next step. Presently we have received four proposals from consulting firms for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area, which will lead us toward our desired goal of solving the parking problem in the Central Newport area through the formation of a parking district. Because of the amount of time involved in the preparation of need studies, their review, the acceptance of a workable solution, and the sale of bonds, we have requested as an interim action the City's immediate acquisition of the three properties in the McFadden Square area. The property owner of the art museum parcel has indicated to the CNPC that he would be willing to accept a moderate downpayment and the remainder of the purchase price when the district is formed. The immediate acquisition by the City of the art museum property and the two parcels owned by Dr. Ackerman will allow the district to acquire them from the City at such time as the District is formed. Because of the two property owners' desires to develop or dispose of their property at this time, we are asking for City action on an interim basis realizing the CNPC is proceding with the formation of the parking districts. If, for some reason, the district cannot be formed, the City would still have the option of either operating them as municipal lots or selling the properties. It is important to note that while a formal district boundary has not been established, it is presently envisioned that it will address the parking problems of the entire Central Newport area including the McFadden Square, Cannery Village, Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and Lido Village areas. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 City Council Page Two August 3, 1977 As you will note by my signature, I am now serving as chairman of the CNPC. Paul Carlson, the former chairman, has been promoted and assigned additional duties with the Koll Company which will be removed from the Newport Beach area. I look forward to working with you in the future. sincerely, <� a� 7 r Milbeth Brey v Chairman MB:FT:dec F • • 13s Mr. James E. Crawley DeLeuw, Cather & Company 9841 Airport Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Dear Mr. Crawley: August 12, 1977 FILE COPY Do NOT REMOVE Re Y co°EiVs� Or '1 nity Or t nt AUK 1197✓�� NE POI?T OF CALIFa EACy Thank you for your prompt response to our request for proposals for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area. The Central Newport Parking Committee has carefully reviewed each proposal it has received for the preparation of the study and has decided to recommend to the City Council that firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained for this study. Once again, thank you for your time and effort in the preparation of your response. MB:FT: dec Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chai an Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 August 12, 1977 Mr. George Bissell Bissell -August Associates Gateway Plaza 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Bissell: Thank you for your prompt response to our request for proposals for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the'Central Newport area. The Central Newport Parking Committee has carefully reviewed each proposal it has received for the preparation of the study and has decided to recommend to the City Council that firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained for this study. Once again, thank you for your time and effort in the preparation of your response. MB:FT: dec Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chairorn Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/676-8662 R E D I D�• RuG rc,1G7, 6'" EWPORTOB''a T cALIF- 0 August 12, 1977 Mr. Charles M. Boldon Conrad & Associates 14656 Oxnard Street Van Nuys, CA *91401 Dear Mr. Boldon: Thank you for your prompt response to our request for proposals for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area. The Central Newport Parking Committee has carefully reviewed each proposal it has received for the preparation of the study and has decided to recommend to the City Council that firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained for this study. Once again, thank you for your time and effort in the preparation of your response. MB:FT:dec Sincerely, G��CG�=GEC Milbeth Brey, Chairm Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 August 12, 1977 Mr. William V. Sheppard Wilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2950 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Mr. Sheppard: FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVC The Central Newport Parking Committee has decided to recommend to the Newport Beach City Council that your firm be retained to prepare the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" of the Central Newport area. The Committee will take this recommendation to the City Council for action at its August 22, 1977 meeting. I look forward to working with you and will be in contact with you in the near future. Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee MB:FT: jmb F .. o L. „cnt u. t. AUG 171977i>, CITY OF NEWPORF SCACH, CALIF. Send to: Mr. James E. Crawley DeLeuw, Cather & Company 9841 Airport Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mr. George Bissell Bissell -August Associates Gateway Plaza 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE 10 R EC EIV EU Mr. Charles M. Bol don ` Dcv-'.: nent Conrad & Associates �' D'"' 14656 Oxnard Street 'i AUG I1?1977:-. Van Nuys, CA 91401 CITY OF ` NEWPORT BEACH, 4+. CALIF. Mr. Thank you for your prompt response to our request for proposals for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area. The Central Newport Parking Committee has carefully reviewed each proposal it has received for the preparation of the study and has decided to recommend to the City Council that the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained for this study. Once again, thank you for your tilme and effort in the preparation of your response. Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chairman Central Newport Parking Committee MB:FT: jmb �aE�vPORr ' o es Departtent ent of Community Develpment C,�IFO PN� DATE: August 15, .1977 TO,: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager FROM: R. V. Hogan, Director FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE SUBJECT.: "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" •- Central Newport Area Requested'Action L35� The Central Newport.Parking Committee has requested that the City fund a "Parking Needs and'Economic Feasibility Study" of the Central Newport area and that the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained to conduct this study. Background At the direction of th.e City Council, the Department of C-ommunity Development has been working, with the Central Newport Parking Committee (CNPC) for the past several months. The CNPC has indicated a need for a coordinated and logical approach to solving the - parking problems in the Central Newport area. Toward this end the CNPC has requested proposals from various private consulting firms for the preparation of a "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study' of the Central Newport area. The proposed study is a prerequisite to the establishment of a parking district in that it will clearly define the number of spaces, proper location and type of facility required. It will establish the best legal mechanism and method of funding, and the findings can be incorporated into any future bond prospectus. Scope 'of Work Attached to this memorandum (Exhibit "A") i.s'a copy of -the .request for proposals sent by the CNPC to various, firms with expertise in the preparation of this- type of study, The CNPC outlined the minimum scope of work to be accomplished by the consultant as follows: "l) Review and establish the existing and future parking needs of the Central Newport area. 2) Present alternative methods of meeting both short-term parking problems and long-range needs in the area. 3) 'Establish.ing the economic feasibility of each alternative including est%mated cost of necessary property acquisition, construction costs, finance charges and other information necessary to demonstrate the feasi- bility of each. alternative to the satisfaction of the TO: Robert L. Wynn - 2 CNPC and the City. 4) Providing adequate information to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act allowing for the implementation of a selected alternative. 5) Establishing an implementation program for a selected alternative. In addition to the basic scope of work outlined above, the consultant firm's investigation of potential problems and needs should review at a minimum: parking charges including in -lieu fees collected by the City; parking problems of projected land uses and alternative uses; parcel acquisition; preliminary design data to allow for the construction of parking structures; transit needs and coordination; employee, consumer and recreational parking needs; individual -parcel - by -parcel parking needs and requirements; parking conTrol and access; existing City parking requirements and possible changes thereto; and other areas of investigation so as to demonstrate sound planning practices." Consultant Selection Procedure The Department of Community Development, at the request of the CNPC, carefully reviewed each response to the request for proposals as to the scope of work outlined, the experience of the respondent firm in similar projects, and the qualifications of the personnel that would be assigned by the firm to the study. Based on this review the Department recommended two firms to the CNPC for its careful consideration: DeLeuw, Cather and Company, and Wilbur Smith and Associates. On August 10, 1977, the CNPC met with representatives of the two firms. Based on these interviews and its review of the firm's proposals, the CNPC has requested that the study be authorized by the City Council and that the firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates be retained. The response of Wilbur Smith and Associates is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit "B"; the other responses as Exhibits "C", "D", acid "E". Wilbur Smith and Associates has indicated that the cost for the proposed study would be $18,900. This would require a transfer I • TO: Robert L. Wynn - 3 of funds from the Off -Street Parking Fund to the Community Development Department's Professional and Technical Services Account. A contract will be prepared for the City Council's consideration at the meeting of August 22, 1977. RVH:FT:jmb Attachments: 0 Exhibit "A" - Request for proposals by CNPC. Exhibit "B" - Response from Wilbur Smith and Associates. Exhibit "C" - Response from Bissell August Associates. Exhibit "D" - Response from Conrad Associates. Exhibit "E" - Response from DeLeuw, Cather a-n-d-Company. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2137 August 12, 1977 % J ^� ' Ib WWilliam V. Sheppard Wilbur ! FILE COPY 4lilbur Smith and Associates 5900 Wilshire Boulevard DO NOT REMOVE Suite 2950 U n� Los Angeles, CA 90036 ryN �b Dear Mr. Sheppard: II RE: Authorization to Commence Work on Initial Phase of "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study' -for Central Newport Area. This letter is to authorize your firm to commence work on the initial phase of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area, to include the parker interview task only, in accordance with Page 8 Item B of your proposal. You are authorized further to incur time and material costs for this purpose not to exceed $3,000. An agreement pertaining to the overall "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study", of which this initial phase is a part, will be prepared and presented to the Newport Beach City Council for its action at the City Council meeting of August 22, 1977. Please contact me regarding any assistance you may require from the City staff. I look forward to working with you toward successful completion of this project. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. oga , rector RVN:DD:jmb City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr41l.1 u6-u� _ •: NbWQOc3;—��ileh Ce..� �F .._.ai"ZtoL{� --- M I 0 August 12, 1977 City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: FILE COPY, DO NOT REMOVE The C.N.P.C. hereby requests your consideration of Wilbur Smith and Associates as our recommended choice of consulting firms to conduct a complete feasibility study for the Central Newport area for a fee of $18,900. Based upon their conclusions, the C.N.P.C. will be able to recommend specific subsequent actions to the Council in approximately three (3) months. Wilbur Smith and Associates will be present at the Council study session August 22nd to make a brief presentation and answer any questions you may have before making a final determination at.the evening meeting. Because of the fact that data accumulated during the summer months is critical to the ultimate determinations, we have sought and obtained from the City Manager interim approval to proceed with preliminary studies by our consultant not to exceed $3,000 until final approval by the Council. It was the decision of the C.N.P.C. to postpone obtaining petition signatures from a predetermined parking assessment district until a feasibility study can be completed. Your decision regarding the acquisition of the Art Museum property must then, by necessity, be predicated upon whatever guidance you may receive from the August 22nd study session input. MB:dec Sincerely, Milbeth Brey, Chair n Central Newport Parking Committee 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 . DAIO PILOT 8/12/77 Study on Parking 3S'' DO NOT REMOVE Proposal Sought ' I Central Newport Beach busi- nessmen who have been urging city councilmen to grab up three ,pieces of property for parking lots, have decided to ask for a study of their proposal before moving ahead: Milbeth Brey, chairman of the Central Newport Parking Com- mittee, said today her group has selected a consulting firm to do a study of the parking lot proposal and will ask the city council to use money in the area's off-street parking fund to hire the consul- tant. She said the committee, which is composed of businesses from Lido Village through the Cannery. Village to McFadden Square at the Newport Pier, decided a study should be done before a inidrive apark- gdistrict is launched, "It maybe that if we go with a parking authority, we wouldn't need to use the petition process at all,"shesaid: Membersof the committee are still the thegpertyµhiletheysetupthe p agency to 'operate the parking facility. Monday committee members asked for immediate action by the council in condeming for city purchase the former art museum site at 22nd Street and Balboa Boulevard. They pointed out the property's sale for $400,000 will closeonSept.2. Councilmen,, who have been supporting the committee's ef- forts, have hedged at buying land the suuDoort formation a park- N However Councilman Don McInnis suggested Monday he might be willing to consider the purchase while the agency is be- ing formed. The city would then sell the land to the agency. once it is operating. "We could come up with the money if we really wanted to," hesaid. At Monday's meeting, coun- cilmen still maintained that a petition would be the beat way of giving them airindication oftiow much support a parking district wouldhaveinthe area. • • NEWPORTER 8/11/77 / 55' H LE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Pa rki n g tri t-� Petitions Out The City Council authorized the city staff to begin circulating petitions for the acquisition and improvement of 1 off street parking .facilities in the i Central Newport area Monday.'Staff had recommended formulating a parking district under the provisions of the 1942 act which requires property owners owning at least 51 i percent of the total assessed valuation d and over one-half of the land area to sign a peltition consenting to forming 1 the special district. What money that . is presently available from current parking funds or raised through the operation of the new parking district would go to offset the expense of operating the facility. j Any additional funds needed become a I liability of the districts property YY } owners through special assessments. 1 I The Central Newport Parking Committee has recommended the immediate acquisition by the'city,of the property previously occupied by the Art Museum and two parcels owned by Dr. Ackerman. A two story 9 parking structure capable of holding F xs automobiles is planned for the propery, It is the committees feeling that , When the parking district is formed it + would then acquire these properties froin the city. The -city staff is ex- pected to report back owthe progress of the petitions by the 12th of Sep- f G tember. It DATE: TO: FROM: Departtent. of Community Devei*1pm9nt ' August 8, 1977 FILE COPY Central Newport Parking Committee DO NOT REMOVE Fred, T,alarico, Se,nior:Planner „ SUBJECT: Proposal - "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" -- Central Newport Area Attached to this memorandum are copies of the responses by the various private consulting firms to your request for propo-sals for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" of the Central Newport area. The Department of Community Development has reviewed each proposal carefully as.to the scope of work outlined, the past experiences of each firm and the qualifications of the personnel to be assigned to the study. It is the'opinion of the Department that the firms of Wilbur Smith and Associates and DeLeuw, Cather and Company both appear to be well qualified to accomplish your objectives. The Department would suggest that you review carefully the proposals of both firms and prepare a letter recommending one firm to the City Council and requesting its funding of the study. Toward this end we have taken the liberty of inviting representatives of both firms to your meeting of August 8, 1977, (16:00 a.m.) so that you might meet the principals of the firm that will be involved in the preparation of your study. FT:dmb , Attachments r I ----------------- i • •DAILY PILOT 8/3/77 FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE T . a.�PWA!i Finances�r._� _ t A group of businessmen in Central Newport + would like to do something more about parking -than just complain about the lack of it. They say they want to form a parking district which would issue bonds to raise the money to buy land'near the Newport Pier for a parkinglot. The problem is that they want the city to buy the land first and hold it until the district is formed and can assume the financial burden. The idea of forming a parking district to deal with that area's problem is an appealingly sound one. However, the businessmen may have their priorities slightly out of order in suggesting the city first put up the money to buy the land. City councilmen seem to see it the same way. They're willing to do whatever is necessary to help 'I the parking district get under way, but they balked at the idea of sinking more than $500,000 of the tax-9 3 payers' money into the land purchase,-- a purchase" that should only be handled by the district, if it'si formed. • • City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: August 3, 1977 FILE COPY Do NOT REMOVE R60m�c v �oc A PvGc� oe��N, ni At the July 25, 1977 City Council Study Session you discussed a report from the City Manager regarding our request for the acquisition of the art museum and two properties owned by Dr. Ackerman in the McFadden Square area and indicated your desire that the CNPC move forward to form a parking district and acquire the property. On August 3, 1977, the Executive Committee of the CNPC met to discuss our next step. Presently we have received four proposals from consulting firms for the preparation of the "Parking Needs and Economic Feasibility Study" for the Central Newport area, which will lead us toward our desired goal of solving the parking problem in the Central Newport area through the formation of a parking district. Because of the amount of time involved in the preparation of need studies, their review, the acceptance of a workable solution, and the sale of bonds, we have requested as an interim action the City's immediate acquisition of the three properties in the McFadden Square area. The property owner of the art museum parcel has indicated to the CNPC that he would be willing to accept a moderate downpayment and the remainder of the purchase price when the district is formed. The immediate acquisition by the City of the art museum property and the two parcels owned by Dr. Ackerman will allow the district to acquire them from the City at such time as the District is formed. Because of the two property owners' desires to develop or dispose of their property at this time, we are asking for City action on an interim basis realizing the CNPC is proceding with the formation of the parking districts. If, for some reason, the district cannot be formed, the City would still have the option of either operating them as municipal lots or selling the properties. It is important to note that while a formal district boundary has not been established, it is presently envisioned that it will address the parking problems of the entire Central Newport area including the McFadden Square, Cannery Village, Newport Boulevard, Via Lido and Lido Village areas. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 r • City Council Page Two August 3, 1977 As you will note by my signature, I am now serving as chairman of the CNPC. Paul Carlson, the former chairman, has been promoted and assigned additional duties .with the Koll Company which will be removed from the Newport Beach area. I look forward to working with you in the future. MB:FT! dec Sincerely, kIIL��I� Qly Chairman :�¢ntfcl nPwQcrt parkinQ comma¢¢ 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 _,. 1977)','..-� y262': Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 c� July 29, 1977 FILE COPY, DO NOT REMOVE Dear Executive Committee Members: It is with deep regret that I must advise you of my resignation as Chairman of the Central Newport Parking Committee. I will be leaving Lido Village shortly to assume a new position with the Koll Company and the time requirements and travel of my new assignment will prohibit me from being able to function effectively as your Chairman. Schedule permitting, I will be happy to remain a member of the Committee and assist in every way possible. Let's have a meeting and pick a new Chairman and also plan our next move toward the formation of a parking district: PEC:dec WEDNESDAY, AUGUST•3rd, 10:00 A.M. LIDO VILLAGE GENERAL OFFICES Ver t m/y yo�urs�, �� Paul E. Carlson 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 • Iss- July 6, 1977 TO: City Council City Council Meeting July 11, T977 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM: Department of Community Development G-1 FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE SUBJECT: Report from Department of Community Development regarding the request from the Central Newport Parking Committee for the acquisition of property in tMcFadde he n Square area for off-street parking. Suggested Action If desired, (a) direct the staff to invest-igate the necessary actions involved in acquisition of the properties, probable costs of acquisition, source of funding, and report back to Council at the meeting of July 25, 1977; or (b) inform the Central Newport Parking Committee that the Council does not believe that acquisition of the properties by the City is warranted. Background The Central Newport Parking Committee is a community -constituted committee of property owners, merchants and other interested citizens devoted to solving the parking problem in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area by the formation of a Municipal Parking District. The City Council has previously endorsed its purpose and appointed three of its members to serve on the Committee. The Central Newport Parking Committee previously asked the City to acquire properties in the McFadden Square area (letter attached). The properties are located at 2209 and 2211 West Balboa Boulevard at the corner of Balboa Boulevard and 23rd Street (presently the Newport Harbor Art Museum site) and at 106 and 108 22nd Street (the Dr. Ackerman properties). (Exhibit 1) The Central Newport Parking Committee is moving toward the establishment of a parking district in the Central Newport area. The Committee recently has requested proposals from several consulting firms for the preparation of a parking needs and economic feasibility study of the Central Newport area. Additionally, the Committee has received a proposal for bond counseling services in conjunction with the formation of the parking district. The Committee has indicated to staff that City action is needed at this time to save the above -mentioned properties for parking purposes. They further indicated that the district would acquire the properties from the City when the parking district is formed. Newport Harbor Art Museum Property At the April 25, 1977 City Council meeting, the Council received and approved a recommendation from its Off -Street Parking Committee recommending against the acquisition and development of the Art Museum property for a public parking lot. The Off -Street Parking Committee recommended that the City not purchase the subject parcel at this time, but consider alternative parking facilities that may be provided on public property in the McFadden Square area. Subsequent to this action, the City Council received,at its June 13, 1977 Study Session,a letter from the Central Newport Parking Committee requesting that the City reconsider the parcel's acquisition for parking purposes until such time as a parking district could be formed to acquire it from the City. Since then, the property has been sold and the new owners have applied for, and received, a modification to permit interior alterations to the non -conforming building. The property is non -conforming in that it encroaches to within four feet of the rear property line where a ten -foot setback TO: City Council - 2 would normally be required. Dr. Ackerman Properties The properties owned by Dr. ACkerman are located at 106 and 108 22nd Street, on the easterly side of 22nd Street, northerly of West Ocean Front in the McFadden Square area. At the May 5, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission denied an appeal from Dr. Ackerman and sustained the action of the Modifications Committee regarding a request for alterations to an existing dwelling in a commercial district permitted by a previous variance (Modification No. 2058) to the property at 106 22nd Street. Further, the Planning Commission, at its May 59 1977 meeting, denied Site Plan Review No, 4, a request to permit the construction of a 1,000 square foot commercial building in an area designated for a Specific Area Plan for the property located at 108 22nd Street. Both of these items, have been appealed to the City Council and are on the July ll, 1977 agenda. Discussion The Central Newport Parking Committee has previously requested that the City take the necessary actions toward the acquisition of the Art Museum property and the Dr. Ackerman property in order to save them for future use as off-street parking. The Committee has indicated to staff that they are moving forward toward the establishment of a municipal parking authority for the Central Newport area,and would acquire these parcels from the City at such time as the parking authority is formed, They have further indicated that if for some reason the parking district should not be formed, the City would have the option of either selling the parcels or operating them as a City parking lot. It is the intention of the Central Newport Parking Committee to investigate the acquisition of three lots adjacent to the properties on the easterly side of 22nd Street and the connection of the properties with a two-story parking structure over 22nd Street and the existing private off-street parking lot on the westerly side of 22nd Street (Forgit Hardware). Staff has estimated that a parking structure in this location (Exhibit 1) could provide approximately 288 spaces. No appraisals of the properties involved have been made to date. The Council's Off -Street Parkin Committee indicated that the Art Museum property was listed for 1400,000 in April, 1977. Based on this figure, staff has estimated that the two-story parking structure envisioned by the Central Newport Parking Committee would cost approximately 1.7 million dollars. Presently, it is anticipated that the Central Newport Parking Committee will be asking the City to take those actions necessary to save the properties for future off-street parking use. The Committee would be financing an overall parking plan for the Central Newport area through a bond sales program to be determined after a parking needs and economic feasibility study has been accomplished. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :G. RVH:FT:jmb Attachments: (1) Letter from the Central dated July 5, 1977. (2) Letter from the Central dated June 1, 1977. (3) Exhibit 1 Newport Parking Committee Newport Parking Committee 3 July 5,. 1977 The Honorable Milan Dostal Mayor of the City of Newport Beach Honorable Councilmembers of the City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Dostal and Councilmembers: The Central Newport Parking Committee respectfully requests to be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting on Monday, July 11, 1977. The purpose of our appearance is as follows: (1) request that you make immediate acquisition of some properties that have prime parking. potential, (2) appraise you of our progress to date and inform you of our current activities, and (3) give you a preliminary report on our long-term goals. PEC:dec Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. Very txuly yours, Paul E. Carlson Chairman 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 COMMITTEE CIT jUL 519771�' CITY OF OS Cll �r June 1, 1977 City Council City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Dear Council Members: On April 250 1977, the Council received and approved a recommendation from the Chairman of its off-street parking committee regarding purchase of the former Newport Beach Art Museum property recommending against acquisition and development of the property for public parking. That item (H7b) was approved by the Council. The Council has heard a report from the Central Newport Parking Committee (a community constituted committee) devoted to solving the parking problem in the Cannery Village and McFadden Square areas by the formation of a Municipal Parking District. Three members of the Council were appointed to serve on the Committee, and its purpose endorsed. On May 5; the Planning Committee rejected an -application by the owner of the lots at 106 and 108 Twenty -Second Street for further redevelopment of the two properties. This action is being appealed and will be before the Council soon. In the meantime, with information furnished to the Committee by the Department of Community Development, studies are progressing on the solutions to the parking problems in the general area. Additional input comes from the Committee. Three additional lots adjacent are either vacant or have sub- standard developments. The five properties could accommodate 24 cars at grade or 54 cars with a two -level parking structure. By action of the Central Newport Parking Committee Executive Committee on May 24, you are respectfully and urgently requested to consider rejecting the proposed redevelopment of lots at 106 and 108 Twenty -Second Street, and evaluate the acquisition of those two properties and the three adjoining for public parking use. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 5 June 1, 1977 Page Two Additionally you are also urgently requested to reconsider for the same purpose the Art Museum property; •Altogether this could accommodate 288 cars using two levels, and both properties thereby joined at the.second level. The Committee further requests -that you carefully consider the acquisition by the City immediately of the several properties described here. You would therefore save these properties for later acquisition from the developing Newport Beach Public Parking Authority, and through price reimbursed to the City under the bonding plan soon to be selected. These two properties will not remain available long, and if redeveloped take them for•maoy years as critical land for the Parking District. If for any reason the District does not materialize, the City could elect to operate the lots itself or sell -the properties then. The Committee .requests that you accommodate this recommendation, reject the Site Plan Review appeal and proceed forthwith to acquire the described parties. Further recommendation on the Cannery Village area will proceed in due course of the legal formation of the Parking District. PEC:dec Sincerely and urgently, CEN L N//EWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE Paul E. Carlson Chairman ...f A �- X1 �l • b i. 0 7 HIM I 0 city of Newport Beach AOV&H&L VIVISION ;.;. # yip SCAL£ IN FEET 6N FIE COPY DO NOT REMOVE �� R ommun tY July 5, 1977 t- pavDept ;IULG c The Honorable Milan Dostal N °eau,- Mayor of the City of Newport Beach Z, Honorable Councilmembers of the City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mayor Dostal and Councilmembers: The Central Newport Parking Committee respectfully requests to be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting on Monday, July 11, 1977. The purpose of our appearance is as follows: (1) request that you make immediate acquisition of some properties that have prime parking potential,•(2) appraise you of our progress to date and inform you of our current activities, and (3) give you a preliminary report on our long-term goals. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. PEC:dec BCC: Mr. Bill Frederickson ) Mr. Jack Zaremba )) Ms. Milbeth Brey Ms. Trudi Rogers ) Mr. Dick Hogan ) Mr. Fred Talarico ✓ ) Ms. Marguerite Forgit j Very txuly yours, COMMITTEE Paul E. Carlson Chairman Let's meet at 10:00 a.m., Friday, July 8th, at Lido Village Offices to plan our presentation to the City Council. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675.8662 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 1. Conrad and Associates c/o Chuck Bolden 14656 Oxnard Street Van Nuys, CA 91411 2. Alan M. Voorhees, Inc. c/o Jim Federhart 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego, CA 92117 3. Deleuw Cather c/o Mr. Diamant 9841 Airport Boulevard Suite 900 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Y CONSULTANT LIST FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE (213) 873-3030 (:7.14) 278-3363 (213) 636-2010 The Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee (C.N.P.C.) is requesting proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study of the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach, California. The Central Newport Parking Committee is an association of property owners, merchants and civic leaders, who have established as its goal the solution of the parking problems in the Central Newport area. The C.N.P.C. has received City Council authorization and support for the committee and a commitment to its goal. The Committee has been working toward its goal for the past several months with staff support from the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of this letter is to solicit proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study. Subsequent to the receipt of proposals, the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. will meet with the interested firms to analyze the firm's scope of work and professional expertise and then make recommendations to the Newport Beach City Council for action. Location of Study Area The City of Newport Beach is located along the Orange County coast between Los Angeles and San Diego with a permanent population of 64,200. The City contains 37.5 square miles of land, bay'and ocean, with 32.3 miles of water frontage. The Central Newport area designated for the parking and economic feasibility study, is located on the Newport Peninsula. While the C.N.P.C. has not established fixed boundaries of the study area, it can be assumed that the study would investigate the area from the intersection of Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard to the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard and from the sandy beach to Lower Newport Bay. The scope of work outlined by the consultant should allocate resources to work with the C.N.P.C. and City to establish appropriate parameters of investigation and logical future boundaries of any one or series of parking districts or authorities as the consultant firm may recommend. Scope of Work The executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wishes to meet with representatives of responding firms to establish a fixed scope of work. Presently, the committee envisions a minimum work program to include and accomplish the following: 1) Review and establish the existing and future parking needs of the Central Newport area. 2) Present alternative methods•of meeting both short-term parking problems and long-range needs in the area. 3) Establishing the economic feasibility of each alternative including estimated cost of necessary property acquisition, construction costs, finance charges and other information necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of each alternative to the satisfaction of the C.N.P.C. and the•City. 4) Providing adequate information to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act, allowing for the implementation of a selected alternative. 5) Establishing an implementation program for a selected alternative. The Central Newport Parking Committee has met with and received a proposal from the firm of Rutan and Tucker to do bond counsel services for the City in conjunction with the development of a possible Central Newport Parking District. It•is assumed that the firm chosen for the parking and economic feasibility study would establish a close working relationship with the legal firm chosen for bond counsel services to assure program implementation. In addition to the basic scope of work outlined above,•the consultant firm'•s•investigation of potential problems and needs should review at a minimum: parking charges including in -lieu fees collected by the City; parking problems of projected land uses and alternative uses; parcel acquisition; preliminary design data to allow for the construction of parking structures; transit needs and coordination; employee, consumer and recreational parking needs; individual parcel by parcel parking needs and requirements; parking control and access; existing City parking requirements and possible changes thereto; and other areas of investigation so as to demonstrate sound planning practices. Selection of Consultant Firm Members of the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wish to schedule meetings with representatives of responding firms: 1) to review .their proposals for the study; 2) to review the professional and educational backgrounds of the personnel to be assigned by the firm to the study; 3) to meet the person who is to have overall responsibility for the study's coordination and its presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission; 4) to review your firms past experience with this type of problem; and 5) to review your suggested timing, duration, and cost of the study. The City of Newport Beach has assigned Fred Talarico, Senior Planner (714) 640-2261 of the Community Development Department of the City to coordinate this study. Both he and I will gladly answer any questions regarding this request for proposal. The Central Newport Parking Committee looks forward to meeting with you to discuss your approach to meeting our goal of solving the parking f ,i. Y,�T • 0 problems in the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Paul E. Carlson Chairman Alan M. Voorhees, Inc. c/o Jim Federhart 5252 Balboa Avenue San Diego, CA 92117 Dear Mr. Federhart: June 30, 1977 FILE COPY 00 NOT REMOVE The Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee (C.N.P.C.) is requesting proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study of the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach, California. The Central Newport Parking Committee'is an association of property owners, merchants and civic leaders, who have established as its goal the solution of the parking problems in the Central Newport area. The C.N.P.C. has received City Council authorization and support for the committee and a commitment to its goal. The Committee has been working toward its goal for the past several months with staff support from the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of this letter is to solicit proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study. Subsequent to the receipt of proposals, the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. will meet with the interested firms to analyze the firm's scope of work and professional expertise and then make recommendations to the Newport Beach City Council for action. Location of Study Area The City of Newport Beach is located along the Orange County coast between Los Angeles and San Diego with a permanent population of 64,200. The City contains 37.5 square miles of land, bay and ocean, with 32.3 miles of water frontage. The Central Newport area designated for the parking and economic feasibility study, is located on the Newport Peninsula. While the C.N.P.C. has not established fixed boundaries of the study area, it can be assumed that the study would investigate the area from the intersection of Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard to the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard and from the sandy beach to Lower Newport Bay. The scope of work outlined by the consultant should allocate resources to work with the C.N.P.C. and City to establish appropriate parameters of investigation and logical future boundaries of any one or series of parking districts or authorities as the consultant firm may recommend. Scope of Work The executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wishes to meet with representatives of responding firms to establish a fixed scope of work. Presently, the committee envisions a minimum work program to include and accomplish the following: 1) Review and establish the existing and future parking needs of the Central Newport area. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 June 30, 1977 • Page Two 2) Present alternative methods of meeting both short-term parking problems and long-range needs in the area. 3)* Establish the economic feasibility of each alternative including estimated cost of necessary property acquisition, construction costs, finance charges and other informa- tion necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of each alternative to the satisfaction of the C.N.P.C. and the City. 4) Providing adequate information to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act allowing for the implementation of a selected alternative. 5) Establishing an implementation program for a selected alternative. The Central Newport Parking Committee has met with and received a proposal from.the firm of Rutan and Tucker to do bond counsel services for the City 'in conjunction with the development of a possible Central Newport Parking District. It is assumed that the firm chosen for the parking and economic feasibility study would establish a close working relationship with the legal firm chosen for bond counsel, services to assure program implementation. In addition to the basic scope of work outlined above, the consultant firm's investigation of potential problems and needs should review at a minimum: parking charges including in -lieu fees collected by the City; parking problems of projected land uses and alternative uses; parcel acquisition; preliminary design data to allow for the construction of parking structures; transit needs and coordination,; employee, consumer and recreational parking needs; individual parcel by parcel parking needs and requirements; parking control and access; existing City parking requirements and possible changes thereto; and other areas of investigation so as to demonstrate sound planning practices. Selection of Consultant Firm Members of the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wish to schedule meetings with representatives of -responding firms: 1) to review their proposals for the study; 2) to review the professional and educational backgrounds of the personnel to be assigned by.the firm to the study; 3) to meet the person who is to have overall responsibility for the study's coordination and its presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission; 4) to review your firm's past experience with this type of problem; and 5) to review your suggested timing, duration, and cost of the study. The City of Newport Beach has assigned Fred Talarico, Senior Planner (714) 640-2261 of the Community Development Department of the City to coordinate this study. Both he and I will gladly answer any questions, regarding this request for proposal. The Central Newport Parking Committee looks forward to meeting with you to discuss your approach to meeting our goal of solving the parking problems in the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, CEN, NEWPORT PARKING COMMITTEE Paul E. Carlson Chairman PEC:dec June 30, 1977 JCALIF. E0 0lty "t �O CITY 97.76 - Wilber Smith & Associates F�LG C®P I! ACH, 7/ .c/o Terry Brothers 5900 Wilshire Blvd. DO KOT KEME� .`Los Angeles, California 90036`�' Dear Mr. Brothers: The Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee (C.N.P.C.) is requesting proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study of the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach, California. The Central Newport Parking Committee•is an association of property owners, merchants and civic leaders, who have established as its goal the solution of the parking problems in the Central Newport area. The C.N.P.C. has received City Council authorization and support for the committee and a commitment to its goal. The Committee has been working toward its goal for the past several months with staff support from the Community Development Department of the City of.Newport Beach. The purpose of this letter is to solicit proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study. Subsequent to the receipt of proposals, the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. will meet with the interested firms to analyze the firm's scope of work and professional expertise and then make recommendations to the Newport Beach City Council for action. Location of Study Area The City of Newport Beach is located along the Orange County coast between Los Angeles and San Diego with a permanent population of 64,200. The City contains 37.5 square miles of land, bay and ocean, with 32.3 miles of water frontage. The Central Newport area designated for the parking and economic feasibility study, is located on the Newport Peninsula. While the C.N.P.C. has not established fixed boundaries of the study area, it can be assumed that the study would investigate the area from the intersection of Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard to the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard and from the sandy beach to Lower Newport Bay. The scope of work outlined by the consultant should allocate resources to work with the C.-N.P.C. and City to establish appropriate parameters of investigation and logical future boundaries of any one or series of parking districts or authorities as the consultant firm may recommend. Scope of Work The executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wishes to meet with representatives of responding firms to establish a fixed scope of work. Presently, the committee envisions a minimum work program to include and accomplish the following: 1) Review and establish the existing and future parking needs of the Central Newport area. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 1. June 30, 1977 . Page Two 2) Present alternative methods of meeting both short-term parking problems and long-range needs in the area. 3) Establish the economic feasibility of each alternative including estimated cost of necessary property acquisition, construction costs, finance charges and other informa- tion necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of each alternative to the satisfaction of the C.N.P.C. and the City. 4) Providing adequate information to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act allowing for the implementation of a selected alternative. 5) Establishing an implementation program for a selected alternative. The Central Newport Parking Committee has met with and recei-ved a proposal from.the firm of Rutan and Tucker to do bond counsel services for the'City in conjunction with the development of a possible Central Newport Parking District. It is assumed that the firm chosen for the. parking and economic feasibility study would establish (a close working relationship with the legal firm chosen for bond counsel.services to assure program implementation. In addition to the basic scope of work outlined above, the consultant firm's investigation of potential problems and needs should review at a minimum: parking charges including in -lieu fees collected by the City; parking problems of projected land uses and alternative uses; parcel acquisition; preliminary design data to allow for the construction of parking structures; transit needs and coordination; employee, consumer and recreational parking needs; individual parcel by parcel parking needs and requirements; parking control and access; existing City parking requirements and possible changes thereto; and other areas of investigation so as to demonstrate sound planning practices. Selection of Consultant Firm Members of the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wish to schedule meetings with representatives of responding firms: 1) to review their proposals for the study; 2) to review the professional and educational backgrounds of the personnel to be assigned by the firm to the study; 3) to meet the person who is to have overall responsibility for the study's coordination and its presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission; 4) to review your firm's past experience with this type of problem; and 5) to review your suggested timing, duration, and cost of the study. The City of Newport Beach has assigned Fred Talarico, Senior Planner (714) 640-2261 of the Community Development Department of the City to coordinate this study. Both he and I will gladly answer any questions regarding this request for proposal. The Central Newport Parking Committee looks forward to meeting with you to discuss your approach to meeting goal of solving the parking problems in the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach. Chairman PEC:dec COMMITTEE our 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 r,�` ww^•, `P80C !M 11aER6 0aq' �....f3-,.. o p PA1 S JUL 20, `- ,977 ------------ Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 June 30, 1977 Bissel & August Associates c/o George Bissel FILE COPY 190 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 W NOT ROVE Dear Mr. Bissel: The Executive Committee of the Central Newport Parking Committee (C.N.P.C.) is requesting proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study of the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach, California. The Central Newport Parking Committee'is an association of property owners, merchants and civic leaders, who have established as its goal the solution of the parking problems in the Central Newport area. The C.N.P.C. has received City Council authorization and support for the committee and a commitment to its goal. The Committee has been working toward its goal for the past several months with staff support from the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of this letter is to solicit proposals for the preparation of a parking and economic feasibility study. Subsequent to the receipt of proposals, the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. will meet with the interested firms to analyze the firm's scope of work and professional expertise and then make recommendations to the Newport Beach City Council for action. Location of Study Area The City of Newport Beach is located along the Orange County coast between Los Angeles and San Diego with a permanent population of 64,200. The City contains 37.5 square miles of land, bay and ocean, with 32.3 miles of water frontage. The Central Newport area designated for the parking and economic feasibility study, is located on the Newport Peninsula. While the C.N.P.C. has not established fixed boundaries of the study area, it can be assumed that the study would investigate the area from the intersection of Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard to the intersection of 19th Street and Newport Boulevard and from the sandy beach to Lower Newport Bay. The scope of work outlined by the consultant should allocate resources to work with the C.-N.P.C. and City to establish appropriate parameters of investigation and logical future boundaries of any one or series of parking districts or authorities as the consultant firm may recommend. Scope of Work The executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wishes to meet with representatives of responding firms to establish a fixed scope of work. Presently, the committee envisions a minimum work program to include and accomplish the following: 1) Review and establish the existing and future parking needs of the Central Newport area. 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 telephone 714/675-8662 r L: dune 30, 1977 • Page Two 2) Present alternative methods of meeting both short-term parking problems and long-range needs in the area. 3) Establish the economic feasibility of each alternative including estimated cost of necessary property acquisition, construction costs, finance charges and other informa- tion necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of each alternative to the satisfaction of the C.N.P.C. and the City. 4) Providing adequate information to satisfy the•California Environmental Quality Act allowing for the implementation of a selected alternative. 5) Establishing an implementation program for a selected alternative. The Central Newport Parking Committee has met with and received a proposal from.the firm of Rutan and Tucker to do bond counsel services for the City in conjunction with the development of a possible Central Newport Parking District. It is assumed that the firm chosen for the• parking and economic feasibility study would establish a close working relationship with the legal firm chosen for bond counsel services to assure program implementation. In addition to the basic scope of work outlined above, the consultant firm's investigation of potential problems and needs should review at a minimum: parking charges including in -lieu fees collected by the City; parking problems of projected land uses and alternative uses; parcel acquisition; preliminary design data to allow for the construction of parking structures; transit needs and coordination; employee, consumer and recreational parking needs; individual parcel by parcel parking needs and requirements; parking control and access; existing City parking requirements and possible changes thereto; and other areas of investigation so as to demonstrate sound planning practices. Selection of Consultant Firm Members of the executive committee of the C.N.P.C. wish to schedule meetings with representatives of responding firms: 1) to review their proposals for the study; 2) to review the professional and educational backgrounds of the personnel to be assigned by the firm to the study; 3) to meet the person who is to have overall responsibility for the study's coordination and its presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission; 4) to review your firm's past experience with this type of problem; and 5) to review your suggested timing, duration, and cost of the study. The City of Newport Beach has assigned Fred Talarico, Senior Planner (714) 640-2261 of the Community Development Department of the City to coordinate this study. Both he and I will gladly answer any questions regarding this request for proposal. The Central Newport Parking Committee looks forward to meeting with you to discuss your approach to meeting our goal of solving the parking problems in the Central Newport area of the City of Newport Beach. Paul E.-Carlson Chairman PEC:dec PARKING COMMITTEE Mr. Fred Talarico Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 3475 Via Oporto, Suite 205 Newport Beach, California 92663 y -ti � aEW aaRr • �z Department of Community Development Gad ORNP DATE: April 27, 1977 TO: Central Newport Parking Committee FILE COPY, DO NOT REMOVE FROM: Fred Talarico, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Parking Lot Sites - Central Newport Area The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Central Newport Parking Committee�of a request to develop two lots in the McFadden Square area previously identified for the C.N.P.C. by staff as potential areas for expanding off-street parking. The lots are located at 106 and 108 22nd Street between Ocean Front Avenue and Balboa Boulevard. The lots are identified on the attached map as parcels "A" and "B". Parcel "A" (108 22nd Street) 1) Existing Use: vacant 2) Proposed use: 1,000 sq. ft. commercial structure and six parking spaces 3) Existing zoning: C-1-H 4) Existing General Plan designation: "Recreational and Marine Commercial" 5) Access: 22nd Street and alley 6) Size: 25' x 95' Note: This parcel is scheduled for Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission on May 5, 1977. Parcel "B" (106 22nd Street) 1) Existing use: 500 sq. ft. residence above two-car.garage 2) Proposed use: Garage conversion to 500 sq. ft. commercial use, addition of lb0 sq. ft. to residential use, and four parking spaces 3) Existing zoning: C-1-H 4) Existing General Plan designation: Commercial" 5) Access: 22nd Street and two alleys "Recreational and Marine TO: Central Newport Parking Committee - 2 6) Size: 25' x 95' Note: This parcel is scheduled to be reviewed 6x th.e Planning Commission on May 5, 1977. FT:jmb Attachment gLv7 p64i-IL OG�t