The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMCFADDEN SQUARE PARKING*NEW FILE* MCFADDEN SQUARE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 30, 1986 TO: Jim Hewicker Ben Nolan Ron Whitley Dave Harshbarger Bob Lenard Don Webb FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Draft McFadden Square Plaza and Streetscape Concept Attached is a draft of the report outlining the program that Boyle Engineering is proposing for the McFadden Square area in response to the adoption and implementation of the Specific Area Plan. Please review this draft report. A meeting of City staff will be set up as soon as possible after the first of the year to discuss the proposals contained in the report. Boyle can then "fine tune" the program prior to submitting it to the property owners in McFadden Square for the formation of an assessment district. This draft proposal is similar in scope and format to that for the Cannery Village area, which was distributed on December 10, 1986. r CHRIS GUSTIN CG4/jm Attachment r 01- I304�LE� � TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT: MC FADDEN SQUARE PROJECT NO: AE-NO3-200-30 DATE: December 30, 1986 TO: I— Mr. Chris Gustin , SUBMITTAL NO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L J HAND DELIVERED WE TRANSMIT: (X) herewith ( ) under separate cover via () in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: () approval ( ) distribution to parties (X) review & comment ( ) record (X) use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: () information () Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples () Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature () change Order (X) Reports COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 5 12-29-86 MC FADDEN SQUARE PLAZA AND STREETSCAPE CONCEPT REPORT REMARKS TO: enc P.O. Box BY: Michael L. Wieters Cali forn a 0 Mc FADDEN SQUARE PLAZA AND STREETSCAPE CONCEPT INTRODUCTION McFadden Square, Newport Beach's "Window to the Sea" --this phrase says a great deal about both the history and the present function of McFadden Square. The square has evolved from a shipping port to a viable mixed -use commercial district, and the focus of a substantial number of present-day beach goers. McFadden Square is one of the few public open spaces within the Balboa Penisula's built environment. It is a special place, a place which requires realization of its full potential. (Figure 11 page 2) PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to implement the public improvement section of the Specific Area Plan, the intent of which is to improve the visual quality and to increase the commercial viability of the McFadden Square District. This report will identify areas of concern, present an overall design concept for McFadden Square, detail streetscape treatments, and produce cost estimates from which assessment financing may be established. EXISTING CONDITIONS The automobile is by far the most dominant force influencing McFadden Square. Confusion of traffic flow, pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, and general lack of perceived organization all contribute to an environment which tends to disregard the pedestrian. The random parking layouts and quantity of travel lanes have resulted in large amounts of valuable space being wasted or used for parking to the detriment of the aesthetic quality of the' square. One positive element of the square is the "Turn -of -the -Century" character which has been developed at the Doryman's Inn. This character, in addition to the Dory Fishing Fleet, creates a strong design theme from which the design concept for the square can be drawn. 1 p th t. �� ,�,♦♦� �� ,� Lido ] 0 MCFADDEN SQUARF, DISTRICT I CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Figure 1 - Location Map DESIGN CONCEPT The design concept for McFadden Square is twofold. One aspect of the concept deals with spatial organization of the plaza while the other addresses the streetscape treatments within both the plaza and the surrounding district. There is a need to organize and define a pedestrian plaza within the square. This plaza area will be the focal point of the square and become a special place where people can meet, enjoy a view of the ocean, or simply relax and watch the world go by, not unlike many of the other great plazas of the world. The plaza can be programmed for a wide variety of activities from open air art fairs to Sunday afternoon concerts. Located at the intersection of the main pedestrian routes, the plaza will serve to unify the area while emphasizing the entrance to the pier. The Dory Fishing Fleet, a valuable authentic attraction, will become a more integral part of the plaza with all its sights, sounds and activities. These are the types of activities which create an ambiance, a special atmosphere to which people are drawn. This atmosphere, along with the established character of the Doryman's Inn, can be integrated and emphasized in all of the plaza's furnishings, materials, and design elements. (Figure 2, page 4) Street Tree Plantino Street tree planting is an essential part of the design concept and will serve a number of important functions in McFadden Square. Trees will define outdoor spaces or "rooms." Trees will direct views. Trees will emphasize circulation routes and provide a pleasant pedestrian environment. The existing pattern of Mexican Fan Palms along Balboa Boulevard will be retained and supplemented. This pattern not only ties McFadden Square to the Cannery Village District, but will define the vehicular circulation along Balboa. The species of palms will change within the square to Canary Island Date Palms, a robust feather palm which will act to designate the square as a noticeably different area. These palms will connect the pier to the square and define the plaza "room." (Figure 2, page 4) There is both a functional and an historic precedence for the use of palms in Mc Fadden Square. The current and historic use of palms is evident throughout the Balboa Peninsula as they are one of the few groups of trees which thrive in direct coastal exposure. An existing planting of Mexican Fan Palms within the beach parking lot will be retained and supplemented on both the beach and building sides of the lot. A double row of London Plane Trees planted along the middle island will provide shade, a sense of enclosure and a human scale to the otherwise stark parking lot. (Figure 2, page 4 & Figure 3, page 5) 3 SECTIONS Figure 3 2 5 1 The two secondary streets within the district, 22nd and 23rd, provide both vehicular and pedestrian connections between Balboa Boulevard and the beach lot. These streets also provide an opportunity to develop a more intense commercial environment. The use of London Plane Trees along these two streets will create a pedestrian -scale environment which identifies them as being unique in the district. (Figure 2 page 4 & Figure 3, page 5). The London Plane Trees are repeated within the Square itself, incorporating the same human scale and "Turn -of -the -Century" character. (Figure 21 page 4 & Figure 31 page 5) Pavino Treatments An equally important aspect of the design concept is the treatment of the ground plane, or paved areas. Paving materials will unify the various parts of the district while emphasizing the special areas. As was stated earlier in this report, the "Turn -of -the -Century" character of the Doryman's Inn will be adopted as the basic theme for the McFadden Square District. The red tile paving present here will be continued in a consistent pattern throughout the district's primary sidewalks. The two secondary streets, 22nd and 23rd, will have a treatment incorporating the tile with natural color concrete. This treatment adds to the unique character and function of those streets. (Figure 4, page 7) The plaza area of McFadden Square, that area at the base of the pier, calls for a special paving treatment. The free flowing shape of the plaza, consistent with the atmosphere surrounding the pier area, is defined and organized through the use of a paving grid. This grid is composed of natural concrete and darker grey concrete with accent bands of terra cotta colored granite. This combination of materials will produce a rich effect while maintaining a control of the overall costs. (Figure 5, page S) Steet Furniture The street furniture completes the streetscape treatment. The furniture includes benches, bollards, trash receptacles, light fixtures, drinking fountains, and tree grates. Many of these items are already present at the Doryman's Inn and will therefore be continued throughout the district. The items not presently existing will be chosen for their compatibility with the theme, durability and cost advantage. (Figure'69 page 9) W 7c-4f , " CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Figure 4 - Sidewalk 2.2nd & 23rd Streets jWL/,4-� i .r 1 ' S. a/x . s� ,r--' ALE CANNERY VILLAGE / "Mc FADDEN SQUARE Figure 5 - Plaza Paving 8 MCFADDEN SQUARE PLAZA AND STREETSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT COST OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION QUANITY UNIT TOTAL DEMOLITION CURBS PAVING I (SIDEWALK) PAVING II (PLAZA) STREET LIGHTS BENCHES TRASH RECEPTACLES BOLLARDS IRRIGATION PALMS TREES GRADING TREE GRATES SIGNAGE & STRIPPING STORM DRAINAGE AC PAVING 1 L.S. $90,000 1 L.S. *215500 1 L.S. $500,000 1 L.S. $630,000 1 L.S. $140,000 1 L.S. $22,500 1 L.S. 4:69750 1 L.S. $20, c: oQ 1 L.S. $50,000 1 L.S. $3801000 1 L.S. $619000 1 L.S. $907000 1 L.S. $371500 1 L.S. $401000 1 L.S. $50,000 1 L.S. $100,000 ==«-oo«o««««oo«o«-«-«av««««o««a««aa««ac«aacc«accccccc000000««««o«ac SUB —TOTAL $2,241,250 CONTINGENCY 15.00% $336,188 TOTAL $2,577,438 00000000coo.�-0000000000000aao««c«00000000«0000000«««««ac«o«cccoon«c «acoc0000000000«o««««000c«cc«oo«00000000000«««0«000««coc««ao«a««««« DESIGN FEE 10.00% $2-571744 TOTAL $2, 835, 181 10 i 0 THE HILL PARTNERSHIP INC. December 24, 1986 Mr. Chris Guston Planning Department City of Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Chris: RUSH N. HILL. II, AIA LAWRENCEA FRAPWELL WOLFGANG J HACK. AIA Rush and I met with Dave Hoshbogger earlier this morning to discuss the functional requirements of the lifeguard operation at the Newport Pier. In addition, we walked the general McFadden Square area evaluating view corridors from various strategic locations including the general entrance area to the plaza, central plaza area, the entrance to the Doryman Inn and the Dory Fleet area. As a result of our meeting and site visit I believe we are prepared to move ahead with recommendations for theming the lifeguard facility as well as commenting on what we believe to be a proper location for the rest room facilities. In order to execute this work we need to expand our existing agreement with you to include some preliminary site planning as well as conceptual design for a thematic change to the lifeguard building. I am in the process of putting this Additional Services Agreement together and should have it to you immediately after the first of the new year. Could you provide me with the most current thoughts from Boyle Engi neei ng on the McFadden Plaza area including the entrance to the pier? This is of course essential in our planning effort and would assist me in finalizing our proposal for additional services. Sorry to hear about your brittle bones. Sincerely, L PARTNEWIN INC. 1, Architect i d'f4perati ng Officer RECEIVED s` Planning Department DEC261986 C)TV NEWF._ ARCHITECTURE e PLANNING a INTERIORS 9 ENGINEERING 115TWENTY-SECOND STREET • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 • TELEPHONE 714/675.6442 Boyle EnOneennc.7 Corporation Architect -Engineer Division consul[Inq engineers / architects 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 7141476-3300 Newport Beech, California 92658-9020 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 15, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-Weekly Status Report No. 6 and a Progress Schedule. Please note that this report actually covers a four -week period. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION , lexa'14 % /� John C. Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager kw Enclosures cc Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes Norm Suker AE-NO3-200-00 Y RfCa-1,, �C PlAn'..'T 6 O� Qe.Oq�•'i+ Nai-r 1966 a cAUF xNO� John P. Barbarino, AIA. C-5228 John C. Wieneke, ASLA. 2142 i Bi-Weekly Status Report Cannery Village/McFadden Square City of Newport Beach Report Number 6 Period Covered: November 18 to December 15, 1986 1. Significant Events 11/21/86 - A meeting was held with City staff to review inter- section schemes in preparation for the November 25 meeting with the community. 11/25/86 - A meeting was held with the McFadden Community group at which time Boyle presented the alignment plans, planting plans, and cost estimates for three Mixmaster concepts. 12/15/86 - A meeting was held at the pier to discuss the restroom location. 2. Progress to Date A. Newport/Balboa Intersection The City will review the alignment schemes and direct Boyle as to which scheme is to receive a final alignment refinement. This is expected to occur in January of 1987. B. McFadden Square Restroom At the December 15, 1986 meeting held at the pier with Chris Gustin, John Wieneke, and Lynn Shoger, Chris Gustin directed Boyle to develop two or three site plans with the restroom on the north side of the pier. C. Utility Undergrounding A letter report was mailed to the City on or about December 8, 1986. Boyle will await direction from the City as to which portions are to be incorporated into improvements. D. Cannery Village Parking Structure The City is assessing the project in-house and negotiating for land. E. Cannery village Streetscape A draft of the streetscape proposed design, with cost estimates, was submitted for review on December 9, 1986. wi Bi-Weekly Status Report 3. Anticipated Issues There is a general desire to begin construction on several of the public improvement projects in the Fall of 1987. A time -line to accomplish this will help the schedule planning of both Boyle and the City. 4. Upcoming Events No meetings are scheduled at this time. 5. General Conclusions Boyle will be submitting preliminary reports for the Parking Management Plan and McFadden Square Streetscape during the week of December 22, 1986. - 2- 4. 0 0 TO: Jim Hewicker Ben Nolan Ron Whitley Bob Lenard Don Webb Rich Edmonston FROM: Chris Gustin December 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Draft Cannery Village Streetscape Concept Attached is a draft of the report outlining the program that Boyle Engineering is proposing for the Cannery Village area in response to the adoption and implementation of the Specific Area Plan. Please review this draft report. A meeting of City staff will be set up as soon as possible after the first of the year to discuss the proposals contained in the report. Boyle can then "fine tune" the program prior to submitting it to the property owners in Cannery Village for the formation of an assessment district. A similar report is being prepared for the McFadden Square improvements and will be available in the near future. • 0 .a CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE CONCEPT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECEMBER 4, 1986 mocom 07gM�ao1^p Corporstbn rne.un. rct+�u'. wwxww • 0 INTRODUCTION Cannery Village is a real place. In this day of theme shopping parks and "tacked -on" images, Cannery Village emerges with a unique character, a real character which has evolved through time. A current trend is to take an older waning commercial district, apply an image to it and hope that the new character will draw the shopping public. What Cannery Village needs is not a new image but just a dusting off. The existing Village character is created by the diversity of land uses and architectural types. Within this district a myriad of retail, manufacturing, warehousing, restaurants, residential, marine and professional businesses produce a special commercial environment, one with a charm and heritage secured in its maritime roots and pedestrian scale. PURPOSE The "dusting off" and unifying of this environment takes form in this report, the implementation of the public improvement section of the Specific Area Plan. The intent of this process is to improve the visual quality and to increase the commercial viability of the Cannery Village District. This report will identify those concerns which relate to the pedestrian zone, offer an overall design concept, detail elements of the urban design plan, and generate cost estimates for the purpose of establishing an assessment district. EXISTING CONDITIONS In its present state, Cannery Village is only mildly "user friendly" to the pedestrian. The lack of sidewalks, tree planting and street lighting, parking in the pedestrian zone, and numerous breaks in the "street wall" all contribute to this non -friendly state. STREETSCAPE CONCEPT In order to rectify the problems which exist in the Village, an overall approach or concept is necessary, a concept which deals with the Village as a whole. The Streetscape Concept is best expressed as a series of elements, each dealing with a specific item. t' , • Vehicular Circulation A primary item which affects the pedestrian experience is the vehicular environment. Because these two methods of circulation are intertwined so closely, the second must be modified in order to improve the first. Major conflicts persist when two way traffic, car parking, and sidewalks are all compressed into a 40 foot wide right-of-way. When this circumstance exists it is almost assured that the pedestrian environment suffers. The three streets on which this occurs, 31st, 30th and 29th, between Newport Blvd. and Villa Way should then be converted to one way traffic flow as shown in Figure A, page 3. There will be no reduction of available on -street parking and it will allow for sidewalks on both sides of the street, as well as an overall simplification of the traffic flow pattern. (Illust. 1, page 9) Villa Way with a 30 foot right-of-way has extremely narrow sidewalks, an average of less than three feet in width. Rather than destroy a great deal of the character of the Village by widening the right-of-way, a reduction in the roadway width would be a much more practical alternative. A one lane road with a width of 16 feet and 7 foot sidewalks on either side would greatly enhance the pedestrian environment. The loss in parking would be offset by the proposed parking structure. (Illust. 1, page 9) Street Tree Plantia Street tree planting is an integral part of the overall Streetscape Concept. The use of street trees will serve a number of very important functions in Cannery Village. 1. To create a thread of unity to the districts variety. 2. To define similar circulation routes. 3, -To reinforce the "street wall" where holes occur. 4. To provide a pleasant pedestrian environment due to shade and scale. In order to define and reinforce the edges of the Village, an established pattern of Mexican Fan Palms (Washingtonia robusta) along Newport Blvd. will be expanded and incorporated into the streetscape of the perimeter roadways. This palm planting, along 32nd Street, Lafayette Avenue and Newport Blvd., will act as a landmark for the Village. The numbered streets on the interior of the Village will have a distinctly different tree planting scheme. The London Plane (Platanus acerifolia), a deciduous canopy tree, will differentiate these streets as primary shopping streets. The London Plane provides shade during the summer, allows sunlight through during the winter, and provides a continuity and 0 0 Traffic Flow Direction CANNERY VILLAGE CANNERY VILLAGE DISTRICT FADDEN SQUARE A -Vehicular Circulation Sweet Gum ` Mexican Fan Palm London Plane Tree CANNERY VILLAGE DISTRICT * Primary Intersection CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Figure B-Street Tree Planting character which closely aligns with the established maritime village environment. The tree locations along the street are determined by existing and future needs and conditions rather than by an established consistent spacing. A third distinct tree planting scheme will occur on Villa Way. Villa Way, the important North/South connector street, acts as an interior spine from which the main shopping streets project. Villa Way will be planted with Sweet Gum (Liquidamber styraciflia) providing a colorful fall character and good year-round interest. The street tree planting schemes will occur both in the public right-of-way and within landscape easements on private property as conditions dictate. Sidewalk Treatment An integral part of the Streetscape Concept and an element which will vastly improve the commercial viability of the Village is the upgrading and expansion of the pedestrian walkways. Treated as a functional unifying band, the sidewalks will be constructed of readily available and easily matched materials. A combination of natural concrete and used red brick will be the predominate paving materials. The concrete will provide a low key unifying element while the brick will serve to accent building entries. This design feature allows for the integration of new construction while being sensitive to the random variety of the Village buildings. (Illust. 3, page 11) At significant intersections these paving materials will be continued out into the street forming the crosswalks and a treatment which will designate these intersections as main entries into the Village. (Fig. B, page 4 & Illust. 2, page 10) SPECIAL TREATMENT AR A number of areas exist within the Village which require treatment atypical to the above overall design plan. These special areas and treatments are as follows and are identified in Figure C, page 6. Automotive Repair Facility - 30th Street and Newport Boulevard. The 30th St./Newport Blvd. intersection forms a most important entry into Cannery Village and consequently should present a good image. At present a visitor is confronted with a view directly into an unsightly repair garage and auto storage yard. CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc Figure C-Special Treatment LAGE FADDEN SQUARE Areas 0 • 2. 3 9 11 To improve this primary entry, a screen consisting of fencing surrounding the establishment, covered with plant material is recommended. Creeping Fig (Ficus repens) could be planted along the base of the fence at 24" on center and trained to cover the fence. The installation of an appropriate irrigation system will also be required. Automotive Repair Facility - 31st Street and Newport Boulevard. A similar circumstance exists as in Item 1, and a similar treatment is appropriate, the existing fencing should be vine covered. An additional improvement to this facility will occur with the removal of the substandard parking spaces which presently encroach across the entire pedestrian zone on 30th Street. This removal will coincide with the construction of the sidewalk as part of this plan. Intrusion of Parking into Pedestrian Zone - 31st Street. Substandard perpendicular parking spaces will be eliminated due to their intrusion into the public right-of-way and conflict with the sidewalk area. Parking Lot Along 30th Street behind Market. In an effort to minimize breaks in the street wall a vine covered fence or hedge should be installed along the 30th Street frontage within private property. Inconsistent Tree Planting - North & South sides of 31st Street at Lafayette Ave. As a reinforcement to the street tree planting discussed earlier, the existing trees along the street in this location should be removed and replaced with the species as defined in the Street Tree Planting Concept Figure B, page 4. Villa Way at 32nd Street - Unnecessary Roadway Width. It is recommended as a part of this report that the plans to widen Villa Way be abandoned. Therefore, the first half block of Villa Way at 32nd Street, which presently reflects the previously proposed widening should be brought back to a consistent alignment with Villa Way save 8' for parking. This widening of the sidewalk area will permit the addition of street trees, and other pedestrian amenities such as benches into the newly created pedestrian open space. This open space is very important since it is one of only two within the Village. (Illust. 4, page 12) k, 0 • 0 7. Triangular Island - Villa Way and 29th Street. This extremely important open spaced should be redesigned to become a pedestrian refuge. The inclusion of trees, benches, trash receptacles, and a Cannery Village Business Directory will develop the space into a functional and aesthetic part of the Village Streetscape. (Illust. 4, page 12) CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Illustration 1-Typical Street Sections 1 CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Illustration 2-Intersection Treatment 1 1VA �f�!lWMWMJli law, CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Illustration 3-�-Sidewalk Treatment Ilk CANNERY VILLAGE / Mc FADDEN SQUARE Illustration 4-Street Light/Bench DRAFT" CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO PARKING STRUCTURE COMPONENT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE/NO CAPITALIZED INTEREST COST OF PROJECT Description Cost Demolition 65,340 Curbs 89,100 Paving I 137,214 Paving II 196,020 Street Lights 240,000 Benches 18,000 Trash Receptacles 7,000 Irrigation 30,000 Trees 25,000 Grading 32,670 Tree Grates 25,000 Signage 20,000 Storm Drainage 20,000 $ 905,000 15% Contingency 136,000 1,041,000 10% Design Fee 104,000 1,145, U 00 T �F304rLE r. , .:,� TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT:CANNERY VILLAGE/MC FADDEN SQUARE PROJECT NO: AE-NO3-200-00 TO: r Chris Gustin CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. P. 0. Box 1768 ,Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 WE TRANSMIT: 9) herewith ( ) under separate cover via () in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: () approval ( ) distribution to parties () review 6 comment ( ) record C() use ( ) THE FOLLOWING: () Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples () Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles () Product Literature () Change Order (X) Goncept Draft DATE: December 9 SUBMITTAL ( ) information O j k ti�Ao, y'or98s COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 3 12-4-86 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE CONCEPT (DRAFT) REMARKS Chris - this is the type of report we envision to identify work and costs for the two streetscape projects. Costs will include assessment district information where necessary. � ! 0 N23 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Marine Department December 811986 TO: CHRIS GUSTIN FROM: Marine Director SUBJECT: MCFADDEN SQUARE RESTROOM LOCATION The primary function of the Marine Department is public safety and emergency response to problems of a marine nature. The Lifeguard Division of the Marine Department responds to approximately 6,000 water rescues each year as well as 650 medical aids. The department headquarters located on the south side of the Newport Pier at the base of the pier additionally serves the Police Department as a substation for their officers assigned to this high activity zone. During the summer, spring and fall months the Police Department stores some emergency equipment in the dory bent beneath the Newport Pier. Emergency vehicles from the Lifeguard division, the Police Department and the Fire Department utilize parking surrounding Lifeguard Headquarters. One of the proposed locations for the new restrooms is in close proximity to the rear of Lifeguard Headquarters. This location, from a public safety standpoint, is unacceptable for the following reasons: 1. This would be a disruptive and non-compatibile utilization within a zone now sited for the primary emergency response functions of lifeguards, police and fire departments. 2. Lifeguard emergency vehicles are open and not locked jeeps with emergency equipment inside and on the vehicle. The security of this equipment is of concern. 3. Access to Lifeguard Headquarters needs to be open and unconfined for emergency vehicle responses and parking of various public safety vehicles. 4. The Newport Pier restroom is an extremely heavy use facility which, if placed behind the Lifeguard Headquarters, would increase the pedestrian traffic and create conflicts with the public safety emergency function of the Lifeguard Division. 5. Public restroom facilities unfortunately draw a segment of society with deviate and degenerate behavior patterns. This is fact, and has been substantiated by our observations as well as statistical data from the Police Department. 6. The rear of the Lifeguard Headquarters building should be left open so as not to preclude the future use of this zone for temporary facilities for the City's very popular Junior Lifeguard Program. Currently the Junior Lifeguard program educates approximately 800 young boys and girls each summer in the safe use of the ocean environment. A public restroom in close proximity to the meeting rooms and equipment storage for these juveniles is not recommended. 7. The first five or six blocks west of the Newport Pier has two or three times the beach population of the south side of the pier. Consequently, the heaviest use of the public restroom will be coming from the west side of the pier. The location of the restroom should be on the west side of the pier and no closer to Lifeguard Headquarters than the existing facility. 8. A public restroom facility in close proximity to the Lifeguard Headquarters will increase night-time vandalism of the lifeguard facility. During the summere months the lifeguard facility is not manned from midnight to 6 o'clock A.M. In the wintertime the facility has no one in it between 6 or 7 o'clock at night until 6 o'clock in the morning. In conclusion, I have discussed the above reasons for not placing the public restroomn facility behind Lifeguard Headquarters with a representative of the Newport Beach Police Department, the City's Parks and Recreation Department, parents of past Junior Lifeguard cadets and department heads of other lifeguard agencies. If the City's Planning Department or Public Works Department need further input from these sources, it will be readily available now or at future hearings regarding this subject This memo does not discuss the advantages of locating the restroom near or incorporated with the Dory Fishing Fleet. There are some logical reasons for this alternative. Additionally, the use of vehicles to launch dory vessels and the storage of boat trailers on the beach needs to be addressed by the Specific Area Plan Study. If this practice is to continue, vehicular access needs to be relocated away from the pedestrian mall at the base of the pier. David Harshbarger, Marine Director cc: Public Works Department McFadden Square Community Association To gov a 'PLgce �" dilOY AUL ewF, e.&t z pomp OF I A votic CV6, Aiwo W 4a u. 40111mr 'LbHU I4 esJG. W IL4 Pew 0 � Q4W gut a�ics oa''IU�i� xwm u H►LLMAN PROPERTIES WE5T' INC. DWIGH'r R. 6ELDEN VICE PRESIDENT DEVELOPMENT 450 NNIA .WPCRT CENTER CRIVE. SMITE 4 7 NEWPDRT BEACH, tC-6 649C0 g2660-64C 714.675-7300 Your Host and Hostess Rick and Jeannie IAWronco (/ "REAK F ASvT B E DSL 2102 W. Ocean Front, Newport &aeh, Calffornfa 91643 6 • RU Sm4le Enc7lneerinc7 Corporation Architect -Engineer Division consuittnq engineers i architects 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 714 1476-3300 Newport Beach, California 92658-9020 Telex 685561 -Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner November 19, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Improvements In response to the need for accurate survey data for the Newport/Balboa intersection portion of our work, Boyle has obtained the following fee quote from Bush and Associates to verify existing rights -of -way and curb lines from Ocean to 28th Street. Research 1.5 days $ 750 Survey Crew 1.0 days 1,000 Compilation 0.5 days 250 Total $2,000 With your written permission to proceed, Boyle will have this work executed. SNEERING CORPORATION All n C. Wieneke, ASLA ject Manager jl AE-NO3-200-00 John P. Berbarino, AIA. C-5228 John C. Wieneke, ASLA. 2142 v Y 0 • B O Y L E E N G I N E E R I N G C O R P O R A T 1 0 N CHANGE IN SCOPE NO. 2 CLIENT: City of Newport Beach DATE: November 19, 1986 Project Description: Contract Date: September 11, 1986___ Cannery_ Village/McFadden Square BEC Project No: 0C-NO3-200-00 Client Project No: _ Nature of Changes: FEE ADJUSTMENT: Change project completion date from December 15,: Previous Fee $ JO L 706 1986, to February 15, 1987. : Increase/Decrease $ NO CHANGE Revised Fee s 101,706 ACCEPTANCE: Estimate Lump Sum Maximum Fee X PERIOD OF SERVICE ADJUSTMENT: Previous Deadline:. 12/15/86 New Deadline: 2/15/87 Date: / '<- ,C _ Date: (/ U� , it B O Y L E E N G I N E E R I N G C O R P O R A T 1 0 N CHANGE IN SCOPE NO. 1 CLIENT: City of Newport Beach DATE: November 19, 1986 _ Project Description: -Cannery Village/McFadden Square Nature of Changes: Contract Date: September 11, 1986 BEC Project No: OC-NO3-200-00 Client Project No: To verify the right-of-way and curb lines from Ocean to 28th Street for the Newport/Balboa intersection work to be performed by Bush and Associates in accordance with the attached letter. ACCEPTANCE: FEE ADJUSTMENT: Previous Fee $ 99,706 Increase/f?)e=0Eux>X $ 2,000 Revised Fee s 101,706 Estimate Lump Sum Maximum Fee X PERIOD OF SERVICE ADJUSTMENT: Previous Deadline: New Deadline: Date: Date: �'_ 7 b R'QF' V eo Ptanapart nl ® rtz 2Mont 19B 6 fro. _ Ntw CI)}.OF Smile Enc/lr'aerinn Corporation 2- B ON, �p Architect -Engineer Division co g engln rcri tects 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 _ 7141476-3300 rt� Newport Beach, California 92658-9020 Telex 685561 •CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 17, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-Weekly Status Report No. 5 and a Progress Schedule. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION John C. Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager jl Enclosures cc Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes AE-NO3-200-00 John P. Barbanao, A/A. C-5228 John C. Wieneke, ASLA. 2142 1 r � BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Cannery Village/McFadden Square City of Newport Beach Report Number: 5 Period Covered: October 31 to November 17, 1986 1. Significant Events 1L/7/86 - A meeting was held for the review of Newport/Balboa intersection designs. 11/11/86 - John Wieneke attended the regularly scheduled meeting of the McFadden Community. 11/12/86 Concept plans were submitted to the City for the location of the Newport Pier restroom. 11/12/86 Revised preliminary estimates for financing were submitted by Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon. 11/17/86 A meeting was held with the City and Boyle to discuss the Cannery Village parking structure. L Progress to Date A. Newport/Balboa Intersection At the November 7, 1986, meeting the City directed Boyle to prepare three intersection concepts for presentation. These will be: a refined concept of the Community's Scheme, refined Scheme D, and a planting concept for the existing intersection layout. The Community Group would like Boyle to present to them on November 24, 1986. The plans will include data on parking changes and con- struction cost estimates. B. McFadden Square Restroom Concept plans and a perspective sketch were submitted to the City. With this information, the City will determine the restroom location and provide Boyle with direction to proceed. C. Utility Undergrounding Costs are expected from the utility companies by the week of November 17, 1986. D. Cannery Village Parking Structure During the meeting on November 17, 1986, two parking structure locations were analyzed for: location, adjacent street capacity, site geometry, and potential for land control. Site B was determined to be most appropriate. Boyle was directed to prepare an analysis of parking demands based on adjacent .land uses to determine the need for parking at the Site B location. If little demand is determined, the City may use the site for a surface lot for a few years. Anticipated Issues A. The only issue is the general problem of making decisions on these complex beautification projects which provide nominal parking space or traffic flow increases and have so many interested parties involved. 4. Upcoming Events A. The McFadden Community will be working with the City to schedule an Intersection Presentation for November 24. B. Boyle will meet with the -City prior to the 24th to present data on the intersection concepts. Cannery Village/McFadden Square Page 2 Bi-Weekly Status Report 11/17/86 C. City staff will review the revised financing scenarios in preparation for a meeting with the City Manager. 5. General Conclusions Preliminary reports are being prepared on the following ele- ments of the project. Newport/Balboa intersection McFadden Plaza and Streetscape Cannery Village Streetscape Undergrounding costs Parking Management Plan Financial Models The purpose of these reports is to aid the City in making specific decisions on the various proposed public improve- ment elements of the Specific Plan. Cannery Village/McFadden Square Bi-Weekly Status Report 11/17/86 Page 3 PROJECT SCHEDULE Nitt 11111=01 ttlNNTIN to t.a ) •11:31:11 It !1.11.1111 SIII JW;.M lt10.TNt •'ll 1:7 ho1llwttlhtllw d Ilttrttl hed 1 '- t"1/u-Yltt Ithttt 11 7.1 iIth 1u11=tihed d`t•N 7.N 2m IIUA 1711111M �:1� Ueir`elt�►!w ilst ii17:1 Mt"4d Nu 1•1C4bkL 3.06 1.N N r111N om tnllttAW llw 7. i1tIMM/ /. in to Irtiluu 1. OI�rt 1Ntlw adTot* 4.11 Jot, Jl tetet iJpu1 • ful LN 136 1NINtl/1L101 SHU11111, 1.10 11tefutitl I ltltsul • 714 !d1 I.N 71111N IINCNIN rW ••01 IJJaol1 IN NN OOMIL �' NIl to ICrWN rtultt 11Y. Jul 11111I1 .. ..................... .........:......::::::: :..............:::: :::•:.:�:�• •.............•... ...................:::C ...........:............ ... . .... ................... .................. ...... .......... . ...:......... .......... ....... •..... ...... ... .t. .... ............... � o '•, w � r • t i•1 142 3! n Boyle Encynaerincl Corporation 1561 Quail Street consultlnq enalneers 1 arcnitects P.O. Box 3030 714-/ 476-3300 Newport Beech, CA 92658-9020 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 31, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-Weekly Status Report No. 4 and a Progress Schedule. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION ohn C. Wieneke; ASLA Project Manager M Enclosures cc Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes AE-NO3-200-00 /y�"RECEISED �7T Plannir'a '•(�• Npy�41966 s b N ?OR O EACH. ra CALIF- i /� RFCEi pepidhni yFp b N0 panmr N�lvpaRT pF9BtS \ter CAG/ . Cy BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Cannery Village/McFadden Square Report Number: 4 City of Newport Beach Period Covered: October 15 to October 30, 1986 1. Significant Events 10/21/86 - A meeting was held for the review of preliminary financing scenarios and preliminary designs for McFadden Square. 10/24/86 - A meeting was held for a progress review of the Newport/Balboa intersection design. 10/28/86 - A meeting was held with the McFadden Community to present and discuss four alternative concepts to the McFadden Square design. 2. Progress to Date A. Newport/Balboa Intersection: Boyle made some refinements to the "Community" proposal and presented a new concept with two variations. The City asked that Boyle perform a conflict analysis and prepare a signal operation concept for one of the two variations; refine the existing conditions intersection geometry; and prepare a landscape concept for the existing intersection. As a result of the community presentation the City would like to present intersection concepts to the McFadden Community at their November 10, 1986 meeting. B. Cannery Village Streetscape: Boyle has not advanced the design work for this phase of the project in order to focus on the more controversial components. C. McFadden Square: Boyle prepared four alternative designs for the Square and presented them to the Committee on October 28, 1986. It was the concensus of the members present that: a) the restroom should be as close to the Lifeguard building as possible; b) the south access to the ocean front parking lot should be closed, but with emergency access; c) the buses should not lay -over in the Square, but may make short stops; d) some parking should remain in the Square; e) the Square is a "Window to the 01 C, L Sea"; f) the dory fisherman activities should play a strong and visible role in the Square; and g) the use of structure parking is not desirable. Boyle was directed to proceed with a refinement of Concept C based on the Community's concerns. D. Financing: Based on preliminary cost estimates, a preliminary financing scenario was presented to the City on October 21, 1986 by Bill Kadi. The Boyle/Kadi team was directed to refine the scenario by including potential parking revenue and preparing initial assessment spreads. With this data, the City staff will brief the City Manager. 3. Anticipated Issues A. Conflicts are surfacing regarding the location of several project elements, such as the McFadden Square Restroom. If the City can not make timely and specific decisions on the various components of the project, we must discuss alternative ways to reach decisions in order for the project to proceed. B. The efficient use of Cannery Village parcels for structured parking must be considered in the packaging of that land. 4. Upcoming Events A. A revised financing scenario will be delivered to the City on Monday, November 3, 1986. B. Boyle will present the Newport/Balboa Intersection designs at the Community meeting on November 10, 1986, after meeting on, or about, November 6th with the City staff. 5. General Conclusions Progress is being made on all fronts of the project despite being slightly behind schedule. The Cannery Village parking structure is again on hold, and the Parking Management plan is falling further behind schedule. 2 �v II PROJECT SCHEDULE iolts W111Itl11 CCH011T1oI :u :i > .fl:f1:12 It )i-1S•Ifl{ :.0{ ltU:ll sn=u leatmut) Hut ad Ietlutu :. I helot httita$ :.It :41aut Netust ur Tito :.11 :aural Cawsts u :.fl i KiW TuUdils t 1.I1 3.11 luau VILUn inimeL21 Issti ut T Ilm f It=lsn litt isms .auat Notltlt ad Tits 6f1 lets )i ttiet Tittaut - Tstl 1.0 CH fO IWu MAU 'A ltaltsiw2 Plus 1..1 lat:utss t.r?I,st[{Isms 1l.11 *01 at Mata hins u1 Tots /.f1 fors )Lttict lsltatll - Tut 4.10 LA IINl:IT11ILMI 100LIT111 f.ls It'autia 1 ftitout -tut f.{I f.a H11110 IINI0UINT tug -jo I!MUTT I11 1011 MU101L CIIII1I III ICT/01il 11-TII Pegat Ise'. Jolt IIIIIu 10 7 30 t ts(a IIII, .................................................................................................................................................................... .. .., o. ...... I. ...... ... ......... . .. .. ..... .... ...... ...... ... .... .............. .. .. ............ .. .. .. ............... ... .... ...... Is ..... ...... . .... ... ........ ... . ..... . ...... .... ::: ..::. ............. ... .... .......... ..... .................. ....... r. ........:� ..... ............ .. ......... ............ ............ ...... ........ ........ `......... ..... �... ........ .. ... ........'....•.... .. .r.... ......... •.A �.. 4J r.... r... .. .............. .+ .. .. .. ......... ...... ...... .............. .. ....... ......:...... ................. .. ............... ......... ......... ......... ... ... .. .... .. .. . .......... a .......... ... ... • •� � � Tom. .�. .. � y Smile Ennineerirm Corporation consul[Inq engineers t arcnitects 1501 Quell Street P.O. Box 3030 714 1476-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 21, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-Weekly Status Report No. 3 and a Progress Schedule. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. BOYLE NGINEERING CORPORATION ohn C. Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager gd Enclosures cc Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes OC-NO3-200-00 BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Cannery Village/McFadden Square City of Newport Beach Report Number: 3 Period Covered: October 1 to October 15, 1986 1. Significant Events 10/6/86 - A meeting was held for the review of preliminary design progress on the Cannery Village and McFadden Streetscape and a review of the community's intersection proposal. 10/14/86 - Financing tools were presented and design progress reviewed for the McFadden Square area. 2. Progress to Date A. New orBalboa Intersection: Boyle has discussed its• rev ew ot/f the community's proposal with the City. City asked Boyle to refine the proposed design and refine the design at the existing intersection layout and report back to the City. B. Cannery Village Streetscape: The City approved Boyle's approach to this portion of the project. The concept included clean curbs and sidewalks, pavement markings for building entrances, street lights, and trees. These design elements would be incorporated in a nonridged pattern along the street. The idea being, the use of a continuous design that reflects the diversity of the area. The City directed Boyle to proceed with the presented concept. C. McFadden S uare: Boyle presented several design a ternatives—�corporated into four concepts. In the October 14 meeting, the City directed Boyle to present all of the concepts to the McFadden community. D. Financing: Bill Kadi presented financing alternatives at the October 14 meeting. He was directed by the City to prepare a financing scenario based on the specific plan's 1 3. 4. 5. percentage breakdown. Boyle will provide project cost estimates. E. The City surveyed all public parking in the Mixmaster and McFadden Square area and submitted the counts to Boyle. Anticipated Issues Boyle has been asked by the City to prepare costs to underground utilities in the specific plan area and incorporate these costs into the financing scenario. This work is outside the scope of the contract and cannot be accomplished within our current schedule. However, Boyle can modify the financing plans as we are able to obtain undergrounding costs from the utility companies. Boyle will prepare a fee estimate for this work. Upcoming Events A. A meeting to present a financing scenario has been scheduled for October 21, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. B. A meeting to ,present the McFadden Square designs has been scheduled for October 28, 1986, at 9:30 a.m. in the Firehouse Meeting Room. General Conclusions The streetscape and intersection designs are slightly behind schedule; however, the process is still dovetailing with the scheduled financing analysis portion of the project. Work is beginning on the Cannery Village structure now that a tentative location has been identified. The Parking Management Plan is falling behind schedule and must receive immediate attention in order to interface with the financing plans. 2 PROJECT SCHEDULE iotti jictunim; cmunlog to tam ) IMM41 Is 41.01-1114 cgtillif lip mcilcum so projen Bit; JOIN KIIIII JAI Mil.? acullillop ..of hum STID= 1.11 heli"Ally Plug of Irtluto . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . ..:I L31 hout latitills, :61fact volth"U" 'I" . . . . . . ........ 'strut loci., I fu .41 UP ludi3s latillis, ... fellow - Tuk 1.41 ........ I ...... ..................... IAG mgnf fluJAM 31mcall .................. ....... .. .............. I 2.16 holfalury Plus .... .... ...... ......... .............. litintat .......................... 1 titlow !ro., M " bItilis Yet$- • ........................ ........... 3:1' Lif of foil )ISUld ............ ..... ....... iOGGI-Ink 3.11 . .............. Coe PC linn 14911111, Ht hillallur Plum ............ ................. 4 litfutor ... — ......... I......... 1.11 ratitical futills rate UP 's "I "I fete mmtriat I' Tuk 4.14 131 fiff-JIVIALICA 10"ITIN. .................... 5.14 iltormtho I .....................•jiltattl - talk 1.44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . F.All Mlill NANIGMIT Pug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 WOU" UP MAI WHOM .......... ....... ** .......... . .. . . ....................... ........ ...... ......... ... . . . . ....... . . ......... 140 4fra&54 11 13 Is Is HP 0 4P. TO: Jim Hewicker Bob Lenard Ben Nolan Don Webb Rich Edmonston Jeff Staneart FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Cannery Village/McFadden Square Implementation On October 21, 1986, at 1:30 P.M. Boyle Engineering will be at City Hall (Planning Dept. upstairs conference room) to discuss the following: a. Potential funding sources for the landscape and streetscape plans and the parking structure, based upon the discussions of the October 14,1986, meeting. Bill Kadi , Boyles bond counsel, indicated that he would be exploring the use of Certificates of Participat ion to fund the parking structure, and the formation of Assessment Districts for the landscape/streetscape programs. Boyle will provide very preliminary cost estimates to work with. b. Based upon discussions with staff, the four conceptual designs will be refined and again presented to staff at this meeting. It is intended that these conceptual designs will be presented to the McFadden Square people on October 28, 1986, at 8:30 A.M., in the Fire Dept. conference room. On October 24,1986, at 1:30 P.M. in the upstairs conference room Boyle Traffic Engineers will discuss the proposed refinement of the Blurock "mixmaster" realignment, and the potential of "tweaking" the existing alignment. As indicated above, there will also be a meeting on October 28, 1986, in the Fire Dept. conference room at which the McFadden Square people will see the conceptual designs for their area, as well as the "mixmaster". This meeting will begin at 9:30 A.M., and you are also invited to this. i 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 20, 1986 Sherman Wang 2412 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663-5126 Subject: 2822, 2824, and 2826 Newport Blvd. Dear Mr. Wang: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery Village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director aA6:�By CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach • E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 Arthur Mello 516 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: 2812 and 2814 Newport Blvd. Dear Mr. Mello: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 Edward and Anita Thayer 106 Via Lorca Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: 2820 Newport Blvd. Dear Mr, and Mrs. Thayer: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery Village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport. Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 John F. Ricciardi 524 N. Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90004 Subject: 2818 Newport Blvd. Dear Mr. Ricciardi: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery Village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By oL- &4 CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 Mary Ann Braun 360731 Finley Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: 2830 Newport Blvd. Dear Ms. Braun: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By , CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 Sherman Wang 2007 S. Waverly Drive Anaheim, CA 92802 Subject: 2822, 2824, and 2826 Newport Blvd. Dear Mr. Wang: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in: the Cannery Village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director r By i C S GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach �J 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 15, 1986 Sherman Wang 2007 S. eR early Drive /v Z An V y r m, CA 92802 / Subject: 2822, 2824, and 2826 Newport Blvd. r ' Dear Mr. Wang: The City of Newport Beach is in the process of selecting a site for a public parking facility in the Cannery Village area. The above referenced property has been identified as one of several contiguous sites along Newport Boulevard having the potential for such a facility. The City is interested in discussing with you the acquisition of the subject property. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself at 644-3225, or Bob Burnham, City Attorney, at 644-3131. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By C S GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach bR e PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NewpOrt B' 6IIevard x P.O. BOX 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658.8915 RECtEIVED PlalTft Departav t OCT201986 ob- CITY OF NE IMPORT BEACH, CALIF. OCT1586 Sherman Wang 2007 S. Waverly Drive Anaheim, CA 92802 Z-18 WAN 07 0717].38:kF,'E:TIJ1-,M 'TT0 SENDER WI NG Nr-.WP0Kl* Bl"-'AE.H CA r?:t:f6,:3••,51241t V:F"flJRN TO SEIDE:It CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 6, 1986 TO: Jim Hewicker Bob Lenard Ben Nolan Don Webb FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Funding Mechanisms for Cannery/McFadden Improvements On October 14, 1986, at 1:30 p.m., Boyle Engineering and their bond counsel will discuss the various funding mechanisms for the proposed public improvements in Cannery Village and McFadden Square. Also the revisions to the Newport Blvd./Balboa Blvd. intersection will be discussed. i t CG4/jm EA Soyle Er7pinaarinn Corporation 1501 Quail Street consul[Ino enolnears I architects P.O. Box 3030 714 / 476.3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 3, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-Weekly Status Report No. 2 and a Progress Schedule. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. E ENGINEERING CORPORATION Z , 4"0;1111v� C. Wieneke, ASLA ect Manager dhs Enclosures cc Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes OC-NO3-200-00 C� 1. 3. BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Cannery Village/McFadden Square Report Number: Period Covered: City of Newport Beach 2 September 17 to October 1, 1986 Significant Events 9/29/86 - Boyle submitted review of the Newport/Balboa intersection proposal prepared by landowners Progress to Date A. Boyle has reviewed the Newport/Balboa intersection. Discussion of the project with the City must take place in order for Boyle to proceed. B. The preparation of schematic layouts for the parking structure is on hold due to the uncertainty of available land. C. The Cannery Village streetscape design is proceeding and ready for presentation of concept developments at the October 6, 1986, progress meeting. D. The McFadden Square streetscape design is also proceeding and ready for presentation of schematic concept developments at the October 6, 1986, progress meeting. E. Bowie, Arneson, Kadi & Dixon (BAKD) have begun their investigation of financing task and will present their report at the tentatively scheduled meeting on October 14, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. Anticipated Issues A. The absence of a site for the parking structure precludes the viability of preparing schematics for the facility. However, no other part of the contract work is dependent on the parking structure schedule. B. It appears that all proposed concepts for the Newport/Balboa intersection will offer only minor improvements despite their costs. However, a major realignment may be the only way to provide visual clarity 1 0 and organization for the intersection and McFadden Square. Consequently, this must be addressed. 4. upcoming Events A. The October 1 meeting for the review of preliminary design progress has been rescheduled for October 6, 1986, at 9 a.m. at City Hall. B. A meeting to address financing tools and design progress has been scheduled tentatively for October 14, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall. 5. General Conclusions Due to the rescheduling of the October 1 meeting and absence of contolled land for the parking deck, we are slightly behind schedule. PROJECT SCHEDULE B0YLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION CANNERY AND WADDEN Disk 6 50-713 Project Mgr: FOHN NIENERE run time > >14:22:55 n 10-06.1986 page I ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MM 9 __________________ ID 11 12 1 YY 86 Bb 86 86 B7 _------------------ _--- _---------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________ ---------------------------------------- _-------- 1.00 PROJECT 00.6ANRA710N _---------------------------------------------------------- • • - - - - • • • • • • . .. ... .... 1 .. ... . .. ... ... ... .. 2.QD PARKIN; STRUCTURE .. • - . .. .. i - • - - •1 .. . - - - - ... .... ... ..... . ..., • • • • • • - • • - ... .. .. .. .... ... -. ... ..... .. .... .. ......... 2.10 PreliminaryPet Plans -and Eshutes - - • • - - • • - - - - - • • 2.30 Prepare .. ..... ........ - ... ........ .... . Meetings 2.40 Conduct MDocments Vote - • • - • • - - • •1 - • - - - - - - • • - - • • • • - - 2.40 NA) --- --- I - - ••-••••-•• •- . -- ••-• -•• - --•- -•-• -- ---•-••••- - Analysis 2.50 Funding Analysis - • - • - - • -1 - - - - o ... . Subtotal . 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE . ... .. .. .. ..... ..... .. .... .�. ... .... ....... ...... ...... - . ..... .... ..... .. .. .. ... . • ....... , ... ... ... ............. ..... .. ......... . r, 3.10 Preliminary Plans - - - - • • • • - - - - - - - - - - 3.20 Estimates .... . , . .. .... . , ... .... .......... .. ... . 3.30 Prepare Petitions - ). .. ... .. , • . - ....... ..... ... .. . 3.40 Conduct Meenncs and Vote - . - - 1 - - - • - - • • • • .. • 3.50 Fon District Subtotal - Task 3.00 • ... - - 4.00 MC FADDEN SQUARE ••• .••• .• •.• 4.10 Prelumery Plans - - - - - - - - • - • • • • - - • • • • • • - - • • • 4.20 Estimates ... .. - ...., ... _ - - . .. ....... .. - .. . 4.30 Prepare Petitions .. • ... - .... .. .. .. . .. .... ... .. ... - ... . 4.40 Conduct Meetings and Vote - - - . • - • - I• - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - • - - - • - 4.50 For. District Subtotal - Task 4AD - - - • • - - • - 5.00 NEVPORIJBAUOA BOULEVARD - • • • - j 5.10 Pllernanre A ............. .. ... • .... .... .... .. .1 .. .. .. .... ....... .. _ .... ... .. ....... .. .. ... ..... ... .............. .. ...... . Subtotal - Task 5.00 ....... .... . ... .. �. ... ... ........ ... ..... . .................... ...1 ....................... .... ..... .... ........ ...... ................... 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN ............... .. .. ... ......... ............... .... ...t ............ .. ...... . • I . .. ........ .......�1 ................ ... .. f ..... ............ - 7.00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL ..... . . ---------------------- ..........�.L _-------------------- _-_---._-___-__--.-._________-__-_-:-_--___.....___-_.___-___ ------ ..... _---- ______ Legend York remaining Progress made Tue of Update I • 0 6 41 McFadden Square Community Association October 3, 1986 RECEIVtD'� Planninl MEETING: McFadden Square Community Association Department Steering Committee meeting ou 9 1986 IV CITY OF TIME: Wednesday; October 1, 10:00 a.m. NMIPOR'TFACH, CALIF. XIN- PLACE: Rex Restaurant The committee met with Bob Lenard from the City Planning to give us an overview of where the City is with the consultant contract for implementation of McFadden/ Cannery Village. ATTENDANCE:' Rick Lawrence, Rex Chandler, Bob Roubian, Bill Blurock, George Dussin, Carl Ackerman, Piero Serrra, Evelyn Hart•(City Council), Bob Lenard (City Planning). CONCERNS: Traffic: Much discussion ensued regarding the Mix Master and Beachfront parking area cruising and the ability to monitor cruising, motorcycles and ingress/egress from the Beachfront. Mix Master: It was the consensus of all that we have a chance to review with the City and consultant the "third plan" as it was a composite of all the ideas of the effected property owners. Area Characters: Plaza/Promenade/Toilet Rooms. The group and most impor- tantly the owners around the McFadden Square/Newport Pier area feel the character of the area must be preserved and that some form of design review should be started to preserve the character. Reference the General Plan Amendment April 28th report to City Council referencing "Historic Preser- vation" and page 6, referencing McFadden Square area characters "image of the Doryman's Inn, a turn of the century resort center to be continued throughout McFadden Square." How can the property owners conform when the city does not with the toilet building and additions to the Lifeguard Headquarters? Parking: The discussion was centered around traffic and parking of the pier area, the beach area and the center of the Mix Master, all of which are important to both beach visitor's use and the local business year round. Bus traffic was also discussed as a factor to the Plaza and Mix Master. Evelyn Hart and Bob Lenard assured the group that we will be consulted prior to any final conclusions on the above items. Next meeting was called for October 14th, Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. at the Rex Restaurant. Meeting adjourned 11:30 a.m. Submitted by: Bill Blurock CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 29, 1986 T0: Jim Hewicker Bob Lenard Don Webb Rich Edmonston FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Boyle Engineering's Review of Mixmaster Realignment Attached are Boyle Engineering's comments on the mixmaster realign- ment. Please review these comments so that the subject can be dis- cussed at the October 1, 1986 meeting, scheduled for 2:00 p.m. CG4/jm Attachments U 80LJ1e Englneerinq Corporation consuitinq engineers i efCnlCects 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 30.70 714 / 476-3300 Newport Beech, CA 92658.9020 Telex 686561 •CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 29, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Attached 'is Boyle's report on our review of the publically submitted alignment for the Newport/Balboa intersection. I suggest we include this topic in our October 1, 1986, project review meeting, and I will call you to establish the agenda. If you have any questions concerning the attached report, please call me or Dennis Barnes (476-3349'). BOYLE ENGINEERING.CORPORATION / e ASLA John C. Wien ke, Project Manager pb Enclosures cc Vic Opinear/BEC Bill Hawthorne/BEC Dennis Barnes/BEC OC-NO3-200-40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Attention Mr. Chris Gustin Senior Planner Advanced Planning Cannery Village/McFadden Square Project OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF THE MIX -MASTER SITE PLAN Prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 26, 1986 The following is a letter -type report of our operational review of the subject site plan. Existing traffic volumes provided by the City of Newport Beach and traffic volumes contained in the Austin -Foust report, dated January 28, 1986, were used in the review. However, this report does not contain a detailed weave analysis of the merge condition shown in the proposed plan since the peak -hour traffic volumes were not available at this location. General The proposed Newport/Balboa crossover realignment concept plan depicted in Figure 1 essentially requires a westerly relocation of the crossover point and redesign of the existing parking lots, medians, and intersections. The intent of this plan appears t-o be consistent with the previous plan developed by Austin-Foust's January 28, 1986, report which is to encourage the use of Balboa Boulevard. As reported by the City of Newport Beach•, Newport Boulevard has an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 30,000 vehicles per day west of 23rd Street (see Figure 2) whereas Balboa Boulevard has an ADT of 20, 000 west of 23rd Street. Also, the plan eliminates a number of the existing intersection conflicts and creates more defined intersection stopping points within the project area. With regard to parking spaces, the proposed plan provides a total of 255 spaces in the McFadden Square area (referred to as the mix -master). Although not counted, there are approximately 224 existing spaces in the project area according to information contained in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. Intersection Geometries With regard to intersection geometries, the following comments have been prepared according to the letter designated areas defined in Figure 1. The specific comments and recommendations are based upon Caltrans design standards. The intent is to provide a critique of selected areas and improve the design by increasing the curb return radii to accommodate truck -turning movements. W Area "A" The amount of left -turn storage area provided at the proposed signalized intersection in the southbound direction is approximately 60 feet. Depending upon the expected turning movements, this left -turn pocket has the potential to cause backups into the through traffic lanes. Recommendation: Prohibit the left -turn movement or redesign the layout to allow development of a greater storage length. Area "B" Centerline turn radius is 95 feet. Width at this location is not sufficient for two-lane truck -turning traffic. Radius is also insufficient to permit 30-mile per hour (mph) operation. Recommendation: Increase width and radius. Area "C" The proposed plan does not provide any advance notice or shadowing of the left -turn lane to 26th Street. Recommendation: Provide "shadow" curbing for protection of left turn or eliminate opening into 26th Street. Area "D" Parking lot entry is in close proximity to intersection. Recommendation: Move entry south (see Figure 1) and provide deceleration and acceleration lanes on each side of entry, respectively. Also, increase roadway radius to 370 feet to permit 30-mph operation. Traffic Operations Relative to traffic operations, several comments can be made regarding the proposed realignment concept plan. Consistent with the previous section, the following comments are directed to the general letter designated areas defined in Figure 1. 2 Area "A" In addition to the left -turn storage length and reduced capacity problem discussed in the previous section, the proposed lane dropping of the right -turn lane to 22nd Street may appear confusing to motorists traveling southbound to Balboa Boulevard. The confusion results from the short block spacing from 23rd Street and the limited distance to provide advance signing to convey to the motorists that the lane ends. However, if 22nd Street was made one-way, this problem would be minimized since no one would be making a right turn onto 22nd Street and would not be making lane changes. Recommendation: Require proponents of plan to provide a signing plan to allow better evaluation or eliminate proposed lane drop starting at 23rd Street. Area "Bn The proposed island configuration in this area is not large enough to discourage southbound motorists on Newport Boulevard from making a straight through -movement in an exclusive left -turn only lane. Recommendation: Move island nose closer to the through lane but allow a 2-foot shy distance from the curb face. Area "C" The proposed driveway entrance to the 17-space parking lot should be designed to allow an entering vehicle turning speed of 15 mph. Also, only low profile landscaping should be allowed along the entire frontage of the islands adjacent to the driveway entrance and exit points (less than 2-1/2 feet in height). Recommendation: Check these specific conditions when site plan is submitted for approval (if adopted). Area "D" In addition to relocating the parking lot entrance point, the proposed merge condition needs to be redesigned. The merge area does not allow a weave distance so that the two flows of traffic can smoothly make lane changes in the southbound direction. Each direction of flow does not have a separate lane. Also, the intersection sight distance is inadequate to allow a safe lane change, not to mention the adverse impact of any proposed landscaping in the median area. As 3 shown, there is a good potential for sideswipe accidents. Recommendation: Redesign the intersection to correct this condition. The solution would likely eliminate the center island parking spaces. Conclusion In summary, the proposed plan is an improvement over existing conditions because a significant number of conflict points are eliminated. However, several changes are required to the proposed plan in order to make it workable in terms of intersection geometries and traffic operations. Some of these changes include the relocation of parking lot entrances, increasing curve radii, and further study of the several merge conditions. In order to further address the merge conditions, additional traffic flow data is required. Additional considerations in reviewing the plans have been discussed, however, specific conclusions are difficult to quantify. The redesign of the interaction can act as a unifying element in clarifying the visual disorganization that now exists thereby making the intersection and McFadden Square a more desirable place to be. Other opportunities in adjacent areas may also be realized from this proposed design. i FIGURE 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACr- - �.wr�� y I NCIti<'ORT/6ALBOA CROSS-OVEF REALIGNMENT CONCEPT Pl A•. Jii rp-f_or"vE JG 1 la /Jf ---7 20 43 2G �vo 9 26 P.. \ LP29 u JO 2a OR/STOL 20 St N I1 2909 JJ ORIZi STO` ?9� MfSA S6 OR. \ JG \n\ 1 UNIVERSITY OR, J9 p SO a�31 SAOTER o 2JRO Sr. ` I18 `\ 30 22N0 It 10 !' ST, 36 a 2071{ S 10 qo 7 35 SAN 197 2i ono r' HSr 11\ 322 29 1 7S `G 9 10 >TRsr 19_ p� 2R 3) 4) EAST W m I 44� a22 1 Tl JI 14� 1? GO r�� IJSfDE 43 2 G c T to IS �1lT PI � Vm A 29 IF 1 2 ) 0 I y 11 �so, H� G 20 r0 �Lpnlvt y G11 10 64 1B , SO 3 OPgt 40 GI B f21- 29�`G0.4 49 L VA0.0 T24 �6 1r y. OOULE 2J miry}-la— �21 ``2% f 2p— Y) �JJi� i/ 9 o�4 FIGURE 2 1986 AVERAGE DAILY rRAFF/C SUMMERMIF CM OF Nl-WPORT SUCH r-Laos .S M.K. 41 ar w.+.m /. / HIGHWAY J9_ Boyle Enq/neerinq Corporation CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 26, 1986 TO: Jim Hewicker Bob Lenard Don Webb FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Cannery Village/McFadden Square As a reminder,there will be another meeting with Boyle Engineering regarding the Cannery Village/McFadden square program on Wednesday, October 1, 1986, at 2:00 p.m.. Your attendance at this meeting will insure a successful project. C Boclle Enc7inee inc7 Corporation 1501 QuaH Street consulting englneers / architects P.O. Box 3030 714./476-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 22, 1986 Attention Mr. Chris Gustin, Senior Planner Advanced Planning 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Enclosed is the project Bi-weekly Status Report No. 1, a list of the initial meeting participants, and an updated Approach/Process Diagram, and Schedule. If there are any questions or need for clarification, please contact me. BOY ENGINEERING CORPORATION • Az ohn C. Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager dhs enclosures cc: Bill Kadi Vic Opincar Bill Hawthorne Dennis Barnes OC-NO3-200-00 BI-WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Cannery Village/McFadden Square City of Newport Beach Report Number: 1 Period Covered: September 11 to September 17, 1986 Contract Schedule: Contract start date September 11, 1986 1. Significant Events 9/11/86 - Contract Executed 9/17/86 - Project "kick-off" meeting with City of Newport Beach and Boyle team personnel at City's office. 2. Progress to Date A. At the "kick-off" meeting of 9/17/86, Task 1.00 Project Organization was performed. Those items included: a meeting sign -in sheet attached to this report; for communication flow and project documentation all communication shall be copied to Chris Gustin (City of Newport Beach) and John Wieneke (Boyle Engineering Corporation); and, bi-weekly progress reports will be prepared by Boyle and submitted to the City. B. The project Approach/Process diagram was reviewed and clarified. Funding alteration will be reviewed by Bill Kadi in the first month in preparation for the strategy meeting. C. The scope of this contract is to, bring the projects through the public hearing, or other appropriate event depending on financing tools, and produce documents ready for levying taxes and final project design. D. Chris Gustin and John Wieneke will prepare a detailed project schedule. E. Boyle will review the Newport/Balboa intersection proposal submitted by landowners and report to the City by 9/26/86. 1 3. Anticipated Issues A. A question spaces are determined B. The lack o utilities, additional investigat of how many, if any, handicapped parking required in the parking structure will be by the City. f accurate record data for property lines, and street improvements may necessitate surveys of these items. This will be Bd further and discussed with the City. 4. Upcoming Events A. Boyle to review landowners' intersection proposal and report to the City by 9/26/86. B. The next major meeting for the review of preliminary design progress is set for 2:00 PM on October 1, 1986, at City Hall. 5. General Conclusions The basis for the Scope of Work lies in the concept of implementing one or more assessment districts. In fact, a review of financial tools and'�project costs may suggest the use of additional tools, or financing tools other than assessment districts. By following Boyle's proposed "Approach/Process" we have a framework for proceeding without limiting project financing options. F • CA J Cannery Village/McFadden Square Initial Meeting Participants September 17, 1986 at Newport Beach City Hall NAME ORGANIZATION TITLE Bob Lenard CNB Adv. Ping. Admin. Chris Gustin CNB Senior Planner Don Webb CNB City Engineer Jim Hewicker CNB Planning Director Dick Hoffstadt CNB Public Works Rich Edmonston CNB Traffic Engineer Robin Flory Bowie Arneson Attorney Kadi & Dixon Bill Kadi Bowie Arneson Attorney Kadi & Dixon Dennis Barnes BEC Sr. Traffic Eng. William Hawthorne BEC Sr. Civil Eng. Russ Hulse BEC Sr. Civil Eng. Vie Opincar SEC Managing Engineer John Wieneke BEC Project Manager 3 PHONE 644-3225 644-3225 644-3311 644-3222 644-3311 644-3344 851-130.0 851-1300 476-3349 476-3307 476-3305 476-3301 476-3590 CANNERY VILLAGE / McFADDEN SQUARE 0000000IIOOOC IE00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SMALL PROPERTIES PRELIMINARY DESIGN CANNERY VILLAGE I PARKING STRUCTURE CANNERY VILLAGE II STREETSCAPE MCFADDEN SGUARE IIISTREETSCAPE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES NEWPORT / BALBOA IV INTERSECTION PARKING Y. MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC INFORMATION LARGE PROPERTIES PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY STRATEGY ASSESSMENT APPROACH TO ENGINEERING BENEFIT DETERMINATIONS rz- ----------- FUNDING ALTERNATIVES --' PRELIMINARY / DESIGN PRELIMINARY P.M.P. TWO I ESTABLISH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Y FINAL DESIGN AND HEARING CONSTRUCTION N DOCUMENTS FINAL �`- IMPLEMENTATION BYCIT-y, P.M.P. t / '0 1 • +11-tv, r F PROJECT SCHEDULE BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION run time ) )01:28:42 St 01-02-1980 CANNERY AND WADDEN 50-713 Project Mgr: JOBN HENSKE page I DD 1 10 11 12 I TV 86 86 86 86 87 PROJECT ORGANIZATION .... ... . a ................. ... ..... .... ..... ........... ... ... ....... ............................................... ........................ ........... .... 2.00 PARKING STRUCTURE .... ........... ........... .............. ........................ .. ... ......... . 2.10 Preliminary Plans and Estimates - • - - - - - • - • - • • . • • • . • • • • • ... • .... . • . .. • . • .. • . • • • .. - 2,20 Prepare Petitions ... .............. . ....... . . . .. ...... .......... . 2.30 Conduct Meetings and Vote ....... ....................................... 2.40 Contract Documents )NA) 2.50 Funding Analysis ... ......... .... ........... .. ..... ................. ........ . Subtotal - Task 2.00 ............ ....... ......................... .. ................... .... ...................... . 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREBTSCAP6 • • ............................... ......... • • • • .... .... ... ... ..................... . .. ... .. ...... .. ..... ........ ........................ ..................... .. 3.10 Preliminary Plans ... - ... .. • • .. . • ... ....... . ... • . ... .. ... . 3.20 Estimates ..... ........ ...... .. .. ... .. ... 3.30 Prepare Petitions .......................... ... ... .. .. ....... ... .. .... ..... ... . 3.40 Conduct Meetings and Vote . .. .. ... .............. ..................... ......... ... ........ .. ... , . 3.50 Form District .. .. .... ... ... ......... ....... ........... .................... . Subtotal - Task 3.00 ..... ...... ................. ... ....................... ... .. .. .. ..... 4.00 MC PADDEN SQUARE ................... .. ....................... ........................ .......... ..... 4.10 Preliminary Plans - •-- -•--• ••--••-•-••'---- -• 20 Estimates .. ... ...................... .. ..� ........................ . ...... .. . .. . . . .. Prepare Petitions .. ..... ... ... .... .. .... ........ .. ......... ... .. • .. Conduct Meetings and Vote - • - - • - • - - • • - • - • - • • .... - - Pore.District Subtotal - Task 4.00 • ••-•-•-•••••• ••• . ...... ........................... .......... .............. ... .... ......... 5.00 NENPORTJBALBOA BOULEVARD - ..... ......... ... ..... ....... ..... .. ................. .. . . .... ......... ........................ .................... ... . 5.10 Alternative A Subtotal - Task 5.00 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN - - - - - - - • • - - • • - • - • • - • - - - • • - • • • - • • • - - • • ' • • - • - • - - - - • - 7.00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL - q " m •• •• •• •� +�+ mNi eo a m M Y a 0 Om •Gi mm .,NO�yo .� .i ai 6 u fi u r. roc tu.a Haw w a u uc um L Y •.� R1 •.� i0 x M M ri .-I H � y •.+m xm xpu s+ ow eo a am au 4 0 CANNERY VILLAGE / McFADDEN SQUARE APPROACH I mno0 00000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PRELIMINARY DESIGN CANNERY VILLAGE I PARKING STRUCTURE CANNERY VILLAGE II STREETSCAPE McFAODEN SQUARE IIjSTREETSCAPE IV NEWPORT / BALBOA INTERSECTION PARKING V MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGY PUBLIC INFORMATION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ENGINEERING SMALL PROPERTIES LARGE PROPERTIES PRELIMINARY APPROACH TO BENEFIT ---------- FUNDING ALTERNATIVES --' PRELIMINARY DESIGN PRELIMINARY P.M.P. MONTH TWO ESTABLISH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Y FINAL DESIGN HEARING AND CONSTRUCTION N i DOCUMENTS MO_DIFY_ OTi $TO1.iy[ ------------------1 FINAL ' IMPLEMENTATION P.M.P. BY CITY l 1 MONTH THREE mmiw s,or70as,g corA«atlan PURCHASE ORDER i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE: (714) 644-3118 VENDOR C Hoyle Engineering Corp. 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 DATE DEPT SHIP TO No. 28590 INVOICE IN DUPLICATE THIS ORDER NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES, SHIPPING NOTICES, BILLS OF LADING, EXPRESS RECEIPTS AND PACKAGES. DELIVERY TICKETS SHALL INCLUDE UNIT PRICE. Septenibar 16, 1986 Planning Dept. QUANTITY DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES REQUIRED UNIT PRICE TOTAL Consultant Agreamxtt for Implementation of Priority I and II of the Cannery Village/McFadden Scluare SpecifiC Plan Public Improvement Component. 99,706.0( ti W 9 9 RECEIVED 5+ P(annirg Departmsmi SEP251986 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. N � Contract No. C-2612 F.O.B.: TERMS: FOR CITY USE ONLY IMPORTANT The Articles covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must con- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' CODE AMOUNT )22997391 99,706.00 form to applicable Cal—OSHAStandards,and/or other appropriate laws, regulations, rules, and codes of the Federal Government and the State of California. Show as a separate Item any retail sales tax, use tax or Federal tax ' • applicable to this purchase. FRANK H. CLARKE III This order subject to California sales tax. All purchases and transportation charges are exempt from Federal PURCHASING AGENT excise tax. NOTE: All allowable transportation charges must be prepaid and shown as a separate Item on the invoice. Do not Include Federal uunaP�nuumr wn. DEPARTMENTAL COPY No. 28590 ,'Jvs� �, 0 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERKY P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714) 644-3005 TO: VINANCE DIRECTOR Planning Department FROM: CITY CLERK DATE: September 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Contract No. C-2612 Description of Contract Consultant Agreement for Implementation of Priority I and II of the Cannery"Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Public Improvement Component Effective date of Contract 'September 11, 1986 Authorized by Minute Action, approved on - August 25, 1986 Contract with Address Boyle Engineering Corp. 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Amount of Contract (See Agreement) Z� (�e &e4 Wanda E. Raggio City Clerk WER:pm Attachment 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 0 • CONSULTANT AGREEMENT XHIS A AGREEMENT, entered into this day of riX7 9^ , 198 by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation (here-inafter referred to as "City"), and BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a California corporation, whose address is 1501 Quail'Street, Newport Beach, California (hereinafter referred to asj'r1`Consultant",) is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the Statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. The City and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement for consultant services for implementation of priorities 1 and 2 of the public improvement component of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan under the terms and conditions herein. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of September, 1986, and shall terminate on the 31st day of August, 1987, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT Consultant shall perform each and .every service set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. -1- L] 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount and manner set forth in Exhibit 1113" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. STANDARD OF CARE In the performance of its professional services, Consultant will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions in similar localities. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES The parties to this Agreement intend that the relation between them created by this Agreement is that of employer - independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of the Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No Civil Service status or other right of employment will be acquired by virtue of the Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers' compensation insurance, retirement and deferred compensation plans, vacation and sick leave, are available from the City to the Consultant, its employees or agents. From any fees due the Consultant, deductions shall not be made for any State or Federal taxes, FICA payments, PERS payments, or other purposes no associated with an employer - employee relationship. Payment of the above items, if required, are the responsibility of the Consultant. 6. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, servants and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses, whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from the negligent performance or omission of any services or work conducted pursuant to this Agreement. -2- 7. INSURANCE On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and dates of expiration of insurance policies. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain substantially the following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate will not be cancelled, except after ten (10) days written notice has been given to the City." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate policies of insurance, and that said policies of insurance shall be secured from a good and responsible company or companies, doing insurance busines's in the State of California. Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage: A. Errors and Omissions. Errors and omissions insurance which includes coverage for professional malpractice, in the amount of $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate. B. Liability Insurance. in the following minimum limits: Bodily injury Property Damage General liability coverage $250,000 each person $500,000 each occurrence $500,000 aggregate $100,000 each occurrence $250,000 aggregate A combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amount of $1,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits. C. Subrogation Waiver. Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide insurance, that Consultant shall look solely to its workers' compensation insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing insurance to either Consultant or the City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. -3- 0 D. Failure to Secure. If Consultant at any time during the term hereof, should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing insurance, City shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name or as an agent of the Consultant and shall be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law computed from the date written notice is received that the premiums have been paid. E. Additional Insured. The City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, and employees shall be named as an additional insured on general liability policy of insurance required by this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured and an additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy. 8. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint venturer or syndicate or contenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power of the corporation. 9. PERMITS AND LICENSES Consultant, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate -4- permits, licenses and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services hereunder. 10. REPORTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of the City. No report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization by the Consultant without pr-ior approval by the City. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as the City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 11. RECORDS Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records on services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of the City or its designees at all proper times to such books and records, and gives the City the right to examine and audit same, and to make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. -5- 12. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement, shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Chris Gu-stin, Planning Department All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Boyle Engineering Corporation 1501 Quail Street Post Office Box 3030 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 13- TERMINATION In the event Consultant hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by Consultant from City of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, City may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the Consultant written notice thereof. The City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 14. COST OF LITIGATION If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for damages by reason for an alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party all costs and expenses in such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys' fees. 15. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, State or Federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by the City. 16. WAIVER A waiver by the City of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. 17. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. -7- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ad 6 0,_ City Attor ey CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Mu;i-i-cipal Corporation CONSULTANT: BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION BY: AND: BY: Managing Engineer AND: Corporate Administrator am Exhibit "A" 1.00 2.00 CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE City of Newport Beach SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT ORGANIZATION PARKING STRUCTURE. CANNERY VILLAGE 2.10 Working with the City staff, Boyle will prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for a three level parking structure accommodating approximately 165 automobiles. Although a specific site has not been selected, sufficient information is available for the preparation of plans and cost estimates. 2.11 Identify typical site geometries of the proposed parking structure, including size of parcel, orientation, an-d access. Identify preliminary geometries of the building, building setbacks, building size and height, etc. 2.12 Prepare site concept plan showing preliminary building concepts including massing, scale, materials, and general method of construction. Review plan with City staff and revise to reflect City concerns. 2.13 Estimate total project design and construction cost, based on the approved preliminary building concept. 2.20 Working with City staff, Boyle will prepare all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund a portion of the costs associated with the construction of the parking structure. 2.21 Based on land use and benefit, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs to the parcels according to benefit. It is anticipated that City contributions to the project will offset the proposed assessments. 2.22 Prepare a 1931 ACT "Debit Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60-percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 2.23 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. Prepare mailers informing of the public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. 2.30 Conduct two public.meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 2.31 Attend an estimated two (2) public information workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 2.32 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 2.33 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 2.34 Following the formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. 2.40 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, and after a site is selected, prepare the final design and contract documents for the structure under separate contract. 2'.50 J Boyle will provide an analysis of the various funding mechanisms available to finance the construction of the facility (i.e., bond issue, sale of spaces through the "in -lieu" program, funding entirely by the City, etc.) 2.51 Research funding mechanisms used •by Newport Beach and other municipalities. 2.52 Analyze potential income from various funding sources, determining advantages/disadvantages, time frames, amount of money, rate of return, etc., compared to construction cost. 2.53 In conjunction with City staff, determine appropriate funding source breakdown, including share to be provided by assessment district, and amount of assessment. 3.00 CANNERY_ VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 3.10 In conjunction with the street improvement plans available from the Public Works Department (Norris-Repke project), Boyle will integrate an appropriate landscaping and streetscape program into the street improvement plan. The streetscape plan should follow a cohesive design theme, considering street furniture, signs, lighting, public areas, etc., all within the existing City -owned right-of-way. 3.11 Review the Specific Plan and street improvement plans previously prepared, and associated cost estimates. 0 0 3.20 3.30 3.12 Meet with City staff to discuss issues and priorities, including cost factors. 3.13 Prepare an "Existing Conditions" analysis map and photo inventory. 3.14 Formulate a conceptual streetscape plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian/street lighting, etc., within City right-of-way. 3.15 Review concept with City and refine plans. 3.16 Integrate concept plan with street improvement plans to create preliminary plans sufficient for detailed cost estimating. Review with City and refine. Prepare detailed cost estimates. 3.21 Prepare a detailed cost estimate. Identify potential contingency factors. Estimates of costs for improvements designed and engineered by others will be provided by the City. Prepare all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund all of the costs associated with this project. 3.31 Based on land use and benefit areas identified in the Cannery Village Specific Plan, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs. to the parcels according to benefit. 3.32 Prepare a 1931 Act "Debt Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60-percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 3.33 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. Prepare mailers informing of the public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. The entire cost of the project is anticipated to be assessed to benefiting property owners. • 3.40 Conduct two public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 3.41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informational workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvements. 3.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 3.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment 'district and assess costs. 3.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council., File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 3.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. 0 4.00 RESTROOM RELOCATION; MCFADDEN SQUARE PLAZA, PROMENADE, AND STREETSCAPE 4.10 Working with the City Planning and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department staffs, prepare schematic site designs for a new public restroom facility in the Newport Pier area. The site for this new facility is proposed to be in front of the City Lifeguard Headquarters to the east of the Newport Pier. 4.11 Using restroom footprint to be supplied by the City, locate the restroom and provide a site plan and elevations appropriate for its setting, in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 below). One meeting has been allocated to this item for purposes of the fee estimate. 4.20 While maintaining a cohesive design and landscaping theme, prepare preliminary design plans for the public areas of McFadden Square including the area at the foot of the Newport Pier, the public sidewalks, and •islands within the street right-of-way, and the area within and surrounding the West Ocean Front parking lot. 4.21 Review the Specific Plan, associated cost estimates, issues and priorities for McFadden Square with City staff. 4.22 Prepare "existing conditions" analysis map and photo inventory. 4.23 Formulate a concept plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian lighting, etc. Review concept approach with City and refine. 4.24 Apply concept approach to detailed base map to create a preliminary plan. Review with City and refine. 4.25 Prepare detailed cost estimates. Identify potential contingency factors/unknowns (e.g., interim traffic control, storm drain, etc.). 4 4.30 Integrate plans for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian walk through the McFadden Square area into the design of the public areas discussed above. The Public Works Department will provide the proposed alignment for the bicycle and pedestrian trail. 4.31 Using bicycle and pedestrian trail alignments to be provided by the Public Works Department, integrate trail design into the McFadden Square design. The work will be completed in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 above). One meeting has been allocated to this item for fee estimate purposes. _ 4.40 Conduct any necessary public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 and 1913 Acts). 4.41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informatignal workshops to discuss assessments• with affected property owners. Effort will include preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 4.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 4.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment district and assess costs. 4.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 4.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. 5.00 NEWPORT/B&A BOULEVARD GEOMETRIC 5.10 Working with City Public Works and Planning Department staffs, Boyle will prepare geometries and construction budget for the proposed realignment of the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard realignment. Two levels of treatment are currently being considered. One of the following two sections of this Scope is to be selected by the City to become part of the services provided by Boyle. 5.11 Utilizing the City conceptual design, refine a striping plan in conjunction with beautification designs. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates. (This option is reflected in the Fee Schedule of our proposal.) 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 6:1.0 In conjunction preparation o management plan approval. with the above projects, the f an area -wide public parking shall be prepared for City Council 6.11 Prepare. public parking management plan for the Cannery/McFadden Specific Plan area. Present the plan for City review and City Council approval. 6.20 At a minimum, this parking management plan shall include an analysis of potential revisions to the City's "in -lieu" fee program; installation of parking meters on all on -street and off-street public parking spaces; and an analysis of potential increases in the parking meter rates. 6.21 The plan will review existing parking studies for the subject area and similar studies for adjacent beach intensive areas. The plan shall include a determination of public parking requirements based on potential specific plan land use. The plan will indicate alternative parking arrangements, including limited time parking areas, all day employee parking needs, impact of residential parking, seasonal beach parking, out of area shuttle parking, etc. The plan will analyze revisions to the existing City parking fee structure to determine the cost needs and fee structure. Fees for use of metered areas, parking structures, and residential commercial usage will be reviewed. The final recommendation, based on City and public input, will be presented to the City Council for resolution. . i TASK COST REPORT BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION CANNERY AND MCFADDEN 50-713 Project Mgr: JOHN WIENERS run time > >10:03:16 tt 09-06-1980 page I - - - --------------- - -- - — C 0 S T •I N D O L L A R S D A T B PBBSONNBL-HOURS TOTAL OTHER ACTIVITY / TASK START FINISH A B C D B F HOURS LABOR DIRECT TOTALS ------------------------------------ 1,00 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 09/01/86 09/07/86 3 5 0 0 0 4 12 664 0 664 2,00 PARKING STRUCTURE 2,10 Preliminary Plane and Estimates 09/07/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 11/01/86 2,20 Pre are Petitions 2.30 Conduct Meetings and Vote 11/01186 11/15/86 2.40 2,50 Contract Documents (NA) 09/07/86 11/15/86 SubtotalA-aTasks2.00 3,00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREBTSCAPE 3,10 Preliminary Plane Estimates 09/07/89 10/15/86 10/15/86 11/01/86 3 30 3,40 replareePetitions Conduct Meetings and Vote 11/01/86 11/15/86 3.50 Subtotaltriiask 3,00 09/07/86 12/01/86 4,00 MC FADDEN SQUARE 4.10 4,20 Preliminary Plane Estimates 09/07/86 10/01/86 10/15/86 10/15/86 4.30 4,40 Prepare Petitions Conduct Meetings and vote 10/15/86 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/15186 4.50 SubtotaltriTask 4.00 09/07/86 12/01/86 5,00 NRWPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD 5,10 10/01/86 11/15/86 Subtonative Task 5.00 6,00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 09/15/86 10/30/86 7,00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL 10/01/86 12/01/86 -------------------------------------------------------- Sur TOTALS ttt: Resource code Average Rate A = PROJECT MANAGER 70,00 B = ASSESSMENT BNOR, 70,00 C e TRAFFIC ENGINEER 70,00 D _ BNGR,/ARCH, 60.00 F = OLBEICALBCN 26�00 6 40 36 80 80 8 Z50 13548 0 13548 2 32 0 20 32 8 94 4908 0 4908 4 24 2 4 0 2 36 2392 0 2392 6 16 3 8 0 2 35 2282 0 2282 18 112 41 112 112 20 415 23130 0 23130 6 8 8 70 40 4 136 7244 0 7244 4 16 2 24 16 4 66 3644 0 3644 2 16 0 16 8 8 50 2108 0 2708 2 12 2 8 0 2 26 1651 0 1652 1 24 0 0 0 4 29 1854 0 1854 15 76 12 118 64 22 307 17102 0 17102 4 16 16 100 60 4 200 10124 0 10724 4 24 2 32 20 4 86 4824 0 4824 2 24 0 16 8 8 58 3268 0 3268 4 12 2 16 0 2 36 2272 0 2272 1 24 0 0 0 4 29 1854 0 1854 15 100 20 164 88 22 409 22942 0 22942 4 0 40 90 60 8 202 10788 0 10788 4 0 40 90 60 B 202 10788 0 10788 4 0 100 80 56 40 280 15080 0 15080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10000 10000 ----------------- 59 293 213 ----------------------------------------------------- 564 380 116 1625 89706 10000 99706 PROJECT SCHEDULE BOTLB ENGINBIRING CORPORATION run time ) )10:03:22 is 09-06-19s0 DO 1 IT 86 1.00 PROJECT OICANIZATION 2.00 PARKING STRUCTURE 2.10 Preliminary Plans and Estimates 2.20 Prepare Petitions 2.30 Conduct Meetings and V to 2:10 Contract Documents (NA� 2.50 Funding Analysis Subtotal - Task 2.00 3.00 UNREST VILLAGE STIRSISCAPR 3.10 Preliminary Plane 3.20 Bstimates 1.30 Prepare Petitions 3.A0 Conduct Meetings and Vote 3.50 Form District Subtotal - Task 3.00 4.00 MC FADDEN SQUARE, t.10 Preliminary Plans A.20 Estimates A.30 Prepare Petitions A.AO Conduct Meetings and Vote 4.50 Form District Subtotal - Task 4.00 5.00 NSVPORT/9ALBOA BOULEVARD 5.16 Alteraitive A subtotal - Task 5.00 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 7.00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL CINVIRT AND MCFADDIN 50-713 Project Nit: JONR VIENBIS 10 11 12 86 86 86 . ....................... . ....................... ... .................... . ............. ......... page I r 87 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 12, 1986 Boyle Engineering Corporation 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 Newport Beach, CA 92650-9020 Attn: John C. Wieneke, ASCA Gentlemen: Enclosed is one executed original of the Consultant Agreement and Scope of Services between Boyle Engineering Corp. and the City of Newport Beach for the implementation of public improvements in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Also enclosed for your information are the following: 1. "Newport Beach Traffic Planning, Parking, and Operations Study" by Wilbur Smith & Associates, March 1968. 2. "Central Newport Beach Parking Study" by Wilbur Smith & Associates, November 1977. 3. "Newport Beach R/UDAT", Orange County A.I.A., June 1983. 4. Draft EIR for the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, January 31, 1986. 5. "Cannery Village/McFadden Square Traffic Analysis" by Austin -Foust Associates, January 1986. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By .+�. CHRTS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG4/jm Attachments 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date September 11, 1986 Demand Of: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Address: 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa Ana, California 92701 In the amount of $ 630.00 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT Professional services rendered re "Mix Master Matrix" AFA Project No. 017.011 022797260 TOTAL $630.00 Approved For Payment: Q Department Head Audi and Approved: Finance Director 6 AM MMM UNO AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. I TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING September 5, 1986 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Invoice No: Subject: AFA Project No: Period: Chris Bustin INVOICE 1116 Mix Master Matrix 017.011 August 1 - 31, 1986 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 667-0496 S- p 3.11986 r CI'v CALIF. rtEvvF CA CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT Principal (JEF) 8.00 $70.00 $560.00 Sr. Technical 2.00 $35.00 $70.00 SUBTOTAL 10.00 $630.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $630.00 APT %E EI OR :.)AY llENT °v -- Planni g Dire01:;, ACCOUNT PLO.: d2 � 2 / -Y-ao i 0 Boyle Enoneerim Corl.70ration 1501 aua11 Street consultlnci engineers / architects P.O. Box 3030 7141476-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Telex 686561 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 5, 1986 Attention Chris Gustin Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Cannary Village/McFadden Square Enclosed please find two (2) Consultant Agreements and two (2) Scopes of Work for the subject project. Please return one (1) of each upon execution. G CORPORATION i. ,7olin-C-Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager dhs enclosure OC-B 99-197- 00 P 50- 713R 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 5, 1986 TO: Jim Hewicker Bob Lenard Ben Nolan Don Webb Rich Edmonston Dick Hoffstadt FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Orientation Meeting with Boyle Engineering September 17, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. Boyle Engineering has requested a meeting with appropriate City staff to introduce all the participants in the process. In addition, this meeting will also be an opportunity for staff to provide Boyle with any further information or insight prior to them beginning their work. Your attendance at this meeting is requested to insure a successful product from Boyle. CG4/jm &rY OF NEWPORT B K "OH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \rAL `G�ROLL G�y�P August 25, 1986 INDEX 1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25) �BA-006 - $262,040 Decrease in Unappropriated Surplus and Increase in B dget Appropriations for three projects an icipated being awarded on June 23, 198 but were held over to 1986-87 and one nadvertently omitted during the budge process for carry-overs; General Fund. BA-007 - 1,115 Increase in Budget Appropriat ons to purchase cypher lock and safe fo narcotics office (Funds are provided fro the Federal Adopted Forfeiture Fu al Fund. BA-008 - $2,80r in Budget Appropriationsallation of air conditioning uorporation Yard; \Trans General ServicMaintenance Fund. BA-009 - $3,25r in Budget Appropriationsof two filingcabinets to storrofiche in jackets; Building Fund. BA-010 - $800 Transfer dget Appropriations to purcht o safes (one for Corona del Mari Booth and one for Marine Depant Headquarters); Marine Dtmen Fund. BA-011 - $2,500 IncreasBudgetAppropriations to proviorenhancements of the exig narcoti sinformation system; GenFund.BA-012 - $1,750 TransfeBudgetAppropriations to provior repair offence located on Pacifiast Highway;General Services -Field tenance Fund. BA-013 - $100,000 Decrease in_ Unappropriated Surplus and Transfer in Budget Appropriations to provide for_ consultants for the implementation of public improvemenis (priorities I and II) for Cannery Village/McFadden Square and es tab lisfiment of assessment districts; General Fund. ---- -- ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Repo from the Business License Permit/ Supervis regarding street closure for Special Dimo Cycling t Back Bay Drive on Events Septembdr 21, 1 6 was presented. (65) Volume 40 - Page 363 *TY OF NEWPORT OA►CH COUNCIL MEMBERS c ��f S��q <<'�y 1igG� Y9A.� s0q� qF August 25, 1986 MINUTES INDEX x Council Member Agee indicated he felt #86-167 Motion that keeping Back Bay Drive closed from Dimo Cyclg All Ayes 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a "weekend" day, was too long a period of time, and an inconvenience to the people who use the rest and tberefore, moved to deny pplication No. 86-167 for street c osure. 2. Pr osed resolution prohibiting Skateboards) ska ebgarding on certain City streets Vehicles & was resented with report from the Traffic Traf c Engineer. (85) Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 86-71 Motion x 86-71 p ohibiting skateboarding on various idewalks and streets in the vicinity f the Balboa business area, and that taff also be directed to prepare a imilar resolution for the Newport Pie area for consideration on September 8, 1986. in addition, that the Parl:r., B aches .end Recreation Commission be requested to investigate the £easibilit of a site for a skateboard fac City and report back. John Shea, 2214 Oceanfront, addressed the Council ;end s ated that the side of his house is so b ly "dinged up" due to skateboarders that c will not repair it again until some ac ion is taken by the City Council. The motion was voted n and carried. All Ayes 3. Report from Public Work Department Permit/ recommending denial for V-onstruction of Encroachmer a fence and gate across Public (65) right-of-way between #1 C nal Circle and 447 Canal Street, was pre s nted. Following comments by Counc li. Member Motion x Plummer, motion was made to kiefer action All Ayes nn this item to Uctober 271 1�86, at which time the utaff is to re on alternatives for the public right-of-way. H. ORDINANCLS FOR ADOPTION: None. \tn I. CONTINUED B1ISINESS: 1. Report from Public Works Depar PW/Beach dated August 11, 1986, regardi Restroom RESTROOM REPLACLUFNT PROGRAM was Rplem presented. (74) 1 Volume: 40 - Page 3b4 , 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUESTS FOR FUNDS TO: Finance Director FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FUNDS Request for additional funds, $ loo,000.00 Funds are not available in the current budget. Additional appropriation to Account No. Additional funds are needed for: Date August 18, 1986 is requested. Implementation of Public Improvements .(Priorities I and II)'for cannery Village/MacFadden Square and establishment of assessment . districts. These funds should be assigned -a capital Improvemennts. account number. Request for transfer of funds, $ Transfer from Account No. to No. Funds are available in the current budget. Transfer of funds is needed for: Approved: City Manager Finance Director ' STY COUNCIL MEMBERS s -o � y y v o� � !G yG 9P� �91 c�F .P�� y�y onl I PAI OF NEWPORT BOACH August 25, 1986 MINUTES INDEX Hugh Milligan, President of Brookview Resub 808/ Homeowners Association, addressed the Npt Sea Council and stated that they are only Crest asking that one trash enclosure be removed, that being the one located closest to their development, and stated no parking spaces would be lost as athat result of relocating the trash c� tainer. Lar Campeau, representing Mesa Deve opment, owners and builders of the Newpo'rt Sea Crest Apartments (originally owneAy Wale Development), addressed the Cou�cil and stated that when they submitte� their plans to the City Council ver a year ago, they met with the'Brook\iew Homeowners Association adjacent heir property, and did agree to the trash enclosure, subject trking requirements. After the project ��s approved by the Council, it was discovered that they would be losing five paring spaces because of Fire Department\\regulations, etc., and therefore, the trash enclosure was not moved. They do n�t view the trash enclosure issue to be a problem, but because there is a `oncern, they have redesigned it so that iL looks more like a garage and is selftcontained with a roof on it. They feel: it is good planning to leave the rash enclosure where it is presently located, especially since 15 to 1 tenants will have to carry their trash 280 to 320 feet if it is relocated. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made to take no further action -at th s time, but All Ayes that the applicant take whate er steps are necessary to assure that t�e trash enclosure will not impact the a`�djacent be neighbors, and that all trash wRl confined to the container. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from Public Works Department Bayside Dr/ regarding BAYSIDE DRIVE -JASMINE AVENU Jasmine PARKING LOT AND METERS (C-2485) was Prkg Lot presented. C-2485 (38) Motion x Motion was made to direct the staff to Ayes x x x x x abandon the project, except for needed Noes x x pavement maintenance work. 2. Report from Planning Deartment Cannery Vlg/ concerning im lementation of Priorities_ McFdn Sq SAP I andI_o Village/Mc Qden (68) _If_the_Cannery Square_ Specific_ Plan Area Public Improvements Component was presented. Volume 40 - Page 366 ITY OF NEWPORT RACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES cn August 25, 1986O RQLL ss\OP INDEX Motion x Motion was made to direct the staff to All Ayes proceed with plans for the Newport Pier Restroom Replacement at a new location easterly of the pier and northerly of the Marine Department Building; direct the staff to proceed with the program on he basis of Conventional design; and in dition, that the staff proceed with t hiring of an architect for the re esign of of the 15th Street restroom an the Newport Pier restroom. And fur er, that staff proceed immediately with he refurbishing of the Washington Stree restroom, independently of the other estroom facilities. 2. HARBOR ALITY CITIZENS ADVISORY Harbor COMMITTE : Quality/CAC Motion x Motion was made to confirm the following All Ayes appointmen for terms ending December 31, 1987: District 3 - Bill Harris District - Robert Hopkins District 7 Mark Gaughan 3. Report from the P nning Department Resub 808 regarding review o the location of the Npt Sea trash containers fo the NEWPORT SEA Crest CREST APARTMENTS ( UBDIVISION NO. 808, (84) DENSITY BONUS, TRAFF STUDY AND MODIFICATION NO. 3056 was presented. Council Member Plummer rated that she placed this item on the genda, inasmuch as there seemed to be a isunderstanding as to what the City Coune 1 approved on June 10, 1985s regarding t e location of the trash enclosure. She ated that at the subject meeting, the Ci Council was given a letter from the ale Development Corporation to Hu h Milligan of Brookview Homeowners Assoc tion, outlining specific concerns of the Homeowners Association, which w re felt to be resolved. One of the majo concerns was that Wale Developme did agree to move the trash enclosure to the rear of the property and expand th planter areas designated between ca a, subject to parking requirements. However) she stated that this concer was never discussed at the meeting no acted upon by the City Council. The Homeowners Association feel their concern, as set forth in the subject letter, should be honored. Volume 40 - Page 365 *Y OF NEWPORT B*CH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL ROLL Motion MINUTES August 25, 1986 INDEX The City Manager advised that at its Cannery Vlg, meeting of May 27, 1986, the City McFdn Sq SA Council reviewed a Request for Proposal, (RFP) and directed staff to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to implement Priority I and II of the Specific Plan. The RFP was distributed to approximately 30 firms, including architects landscape architects, engineering firms, and traffic engineers. Staff received eight proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed all of the responding firms and consultant teams. Based upon these interviews, it is the staff's recommendation that the City Council enter into an agreement with Boyle Engineering to perform the tasks necessary to implement Priority I and II, as set forth in the staff report. x Motion was made to direct staff to proceed with implementation of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, including Realignment of the existing confalboa iguration of the Newport Boulevard Bintersection with minor modifications; and authorize the Mayor and Cif Clerk to execute an Agreement w _tt_llo�1_ Engineeging-as_consultant for the implementation of Priorities_ I_ and II oof the_Cannery Village/McFadden_ Square Specific _Plan Area Public Improvements Component. In response to questions from Council Member Plummer regarding the "Mix -Master," the Public Works Director reviewed studies to date, including alternative plans prepared by a traffic engineering consultant retained by the City. He stated that included in the staff report are drawings showing the existing configuration and Alternatives I and II, together with a matrix showing the advantages and disadvantages of each. The analysis shows that neither alternative has significant overall benefits compared to the existing configuration, but that there are individual advantages and disadvantages associated with specific alternatives. However, Alternative I and II each cost 3/4 of a million dollars or more, and do not provide any significant advantages in overall traffic service over the existing design. The staff recommendation, based on the analysis of the alternatives which has been made, is Volume 40 - Page 367 OITY OF NEWPORT MACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES n s o ?s ti 9 qG+ °�,� ��, � y�� August 25, 1986 ROLL CAL INDEX that a concept be developed which would Cannery Vlg/ include only minor modifications to the McFdn Sq SAP existing "Mix -Master." Discussion ensued, wherein Council Member Plummer indicated that she felt the so-called "minor modifications" were not going to correct the traffic circulation problem in the Newport Pier area. The Public Works Director, in response to Council Member Plummer, referred to the Evaluation Matrix included in the staff report and discussed access to the Oceanfront parking lot at Newport Pier, as set forth in Alternatives I and Il. The City Manager pointed out that the Council would have an opportunity for further input prior to any final decisions. Ayes x x x x x x Following discussion, the motion o_n the Noes x floor was voted on_7nd carried. 3.^ Oral Report From the City Clerk Election/ regarding sufficiency of signatures on Referendum m Petitions was presented. (39) Clerk advised that the of Voters had certified the m Petitions regarding General dment No. 85-1(B) - Newport s follows: I er o£ signatures fled: 6,824 e of signatures nd ' ufficient:" 5,856 Number of pignatures found "not `@efficient:" 968 Number of duplicate signatures found "not suti.�cicnt" because of being duplicate signatures: 143 Motion x Motion was made to ado Resolution No. Res 86-72 86-72 calling and giving ,Notice of a Special Election to be held on Tuesday. November 25, 1986 for submiApion of the Newport Center and Perlpheral.,Sites General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Amendments (Resolution Nos. 8b-55 and 86-56) to the qualified voters of,`the City of Newport Bench for their approval; and adopt Resolution No.86-73 Res 86-73 directing the City Attorney to prepakg an ImpartiaJ Analysis of the Newport Volume 40 - Page 368 City Council Meeting August 25, 1986 Agenda Item No. _ J-2 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Consultant Selection for Implementation of Public Area Suggested Action a) if desired, direct staff to proceed with implementation of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area, • including 1) Realignment of the existing configuration of the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard intersection with minor modifications; or 2) Prepare plans and specifications for the realignment of this intersection. b) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an agree- ment with the consultant for the implementation of Priority I and II of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Public Improvement Component. Background The City Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1986, approved the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. Included within the Specific Area Plan is a public improvement component describing a variety of projects with an implementation schedule based upon their priority. • At its meeting of May 27, 1986, the City Council reviewed a Request for Proposal (RFP) and directed staff to solicit proposals from qualified consultants to implement Priority I and II of the Specific Plan. TO: City Council - 2. l Consultant Selection • The RFP was distributed to approximately 30 firms, including archi- tects, landscape architects, engineering firms, and traffic engineers. Staff received eight proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed all of the responding firms and consultant teams. Based upon these interviews, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council enter into an agreement with Boyle Engineering to perform the tasks necessary to implement Priority I and II as set forth in the attached Scope of Services. Boyle Engineering has extensive experi- ence in preparing landscape and streetscape plans, the formation of assessment districts, and other related engineering tasks. In addi- tion, Boyle Engineering is capable of providing all of the necessary services in-house, where the majority of other firms interviewed were to be joint ventures consisting of several consultants. scope of Services The attached Scope of Services closely follows the Request for Pro- posal with two minor yet noticeable exceptions, as discussed below. McFadden Square Restroom Relocation. It is proposed that this consul- tant will prepare plans for the exterior of the facility, based upon input from City staff, and integrate the building into the landscape and streetscape theme of McFadden Square. Staff is recommending that the restroom facility be located to the east of the base of the Newport Pier, in front of the Lifeguard Headquarters building. The Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department will then contract separate- ly for the actual design and specifications of the facility, incor- porating the input from this consultant. Newport Blvd./Balboa Blvd. Realignment. The intersection of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, referred to as the 'mixmaster', has been the subject of considerable discussion over the past several years. In analyzing the circulation patterns of the peninsula area, various alternative alignments have been proposed. In conjunction with the preparation of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, the City retained the services of Austin -Foust Associates, a traffic engineering firm, to review the intersection and recommend a new alignment that resolved the existing problems related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation, vehicular parking, and capacity. while three alternative alignments were prepared, only two were considered feasible by staff. In order to determine the advantages or disadvan- tages of the existing alignment and the two alternatives, Austin -Foust • was again retained to prepare a matrix (copy attached) comparing a variety of elements including capacity, bicycle and pedestrian circu- lation, the amount of vehicular parking, costs, bus circulation and patron waiting areas, potential for "cruising," through traffic circu- lation, and other categories as shown. The result of this analysis indicates that there are some advantages and disadvantages for each of the three alignments. However, in the two most important categories. --roadway capacity and parking, neither r 0 TO: City Council - 3. of the two alternatives results in an appreciable improvement over the existing alignment. other elements of the intersection such as • pedestrian and bicycle access and bus access and circulation, could be improved somewhat by either alternative alignment, but the level of improvement is not considered significant. There would also be a deterioration in some aspects of the circulation system by implement- ing either of the alternatives. Specifically, there would be an increase from one existing signalized intersection to three, which would also hinder through -traffic to and from Peninsula Point. Also, because of the improved access to the West ocean Front parking lot, and the improved access/egress from the side streets (22nd and 23rd Streets), there will be greater difficulty in controlling cruising through the parking areas. Another major factor to be considered is the cost of constructing either of the two alternatives. Including signalization, it is estimated that Alternative No. 1 would cost $800,000, and Alternative No. 2 would cost $750,000. Staff is of the opinion that the estimated 5% increase in capacity and other minor improvements to the existing circulation system does not warrant an expenditure of $750,000 or more. In addition, in other categories there would be a reduction in service that is not offset by • improvements in other areas. Based upon City Council consideration of this matrix, two options are available. The consultant can prepare plans and cost estimates for minor modifications to the existing alignment that include the creation of a third outbound travel lane for peak hour use that would serve as a bike lane and parking lane in non -peak hours. This may result in the loss of on -street parking in some areas. In addition to the minor changes to the lane configuration, the consultant would integrate the landscape and streetscape theme of the McFadden Square area into the intersection and right-of-way area. The other alternative would be to direct the consultant to prepare the plans and specifications for the complete realignment of the inter- section, and incorporate the landscape and streetscape theme of McFadden Square into the islands and parking areas. Staff recommends that the consultant be directed to prepare plans and cost estimates for the minor modifications to the existing alignment, providing for a third outbound travel lane where feasible and appro- priate, and incorporate the McFadden Square landscape and streetscape theme into this plan. • It is important to note that prior to implementing any changes to the intersection alignment, both the City Council and public will have ample opportunity to review and comment on any changes. The consultant has indicated that public participation in the develop- ment of landscape and streetscape plans is an integral part of this process. Public meetings and discussions with property owners, businessmen, residents, and the City Council will insure that all concerns and desires of the community are addressed in the final project design. TO: City Council - 4. • Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By SAPS Atta • n 1 ...� ...n.. x......x w.x.r r.`nwn•....r�x...+... .....n�.�x�.r.x.n...�..�... ...n • . ...... nn...n..n-- .x...... ..x..n —.� CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE City of Newport Beach SCOPE OF WORK 1.00 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 2.00 PARKING STRUCTURE, CANNERY VILLAGE 2.10 Working with the City staff, Boyle will prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for a three level parking structure accommodating approximately 165 automobiles. Although a specific site has not been selected, sufficient information is available • for the preparation of plans and cost estimates. 2.11 Identify typical site geometries of the proposed parking structure. including size of parcel, orientation, and access. Identify preliminary geometries of the building, building setbacks, building size and height, etc. 2.12 Prepare site concept plan showing preliminary building concepts including massing, scale, materials, and general method of construction. Review plan with City staff and revise to reflect City concerns. 2.13 Estimate total project design and construction cost, based on the approved preliminary building concept. 2.20 Working with City staff, Boyle will prepare all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund a portion of the costs associated with the construction of the parking structure. i aowia Englnctxnnq Co�:J :'•:]CIC �, e l 2.21 Based on land use and benefit, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs to the parcels according to benefit. ! It is anticipated that City contributions to the project will offset the proposed assessments. 611 2.22 Prepare a 1931 ACT "Debit Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60-percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 2.23 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. Prepare mailers informing of the public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. 2.30 Conduct two public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 2.31 Attend an estimated two (2) public information workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 2.32 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 2.33 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. Soule Eng1nc!e0f1C Ccr crUCn 2.q,4 Following the formation of the District, i prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the • County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. 2.40 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners and after a site is selected, prepare the final design and contract documents for the structure under separate contract. 2.50 Boyle will provide an analysis of the various funding mechanisms available to finance the construction of the facility (i.e. , bond issue, sale of spaces through the "in -lieu" program, funding entirely by the City, etc.) 2.51 Research funding mechanisms used by • Newport Beach and other municipalities. 2.52 Analyze potential income from various funding sources, determining advantages/disadvantages, time frames, amount of money, rate of return, etc., compared to construction cost. 2.53 In conjunction with City staff, determine appropriate funding source breakdown, including share to be provided by assessment district, and amount of assessment. 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 3. 10 In conjunction with the street improvement plans available from the Public Works Department (Norris-Repke project), Boyle will integrate an appropriate landscaping and streetscape program into the street improvement plan The streetscape plan should follow a cohesive design theme, considering street furniture, signs, lighting, public areas, etc., all within the existing City -owned right-of-way. ?. i1 Review the Specific Plan and street improvement plans previously prepared. and associated cost estimates. 1 I i ,....._. aouteenp�r,r>enngca•arrnuan _� 1 3.12 Meet with City staff to discuss issues and priorities, including cost factors. 3.13 Prepare an "Existing Conditions" analysis map- and photo inventory. 3.14 Formulate a conceptual streetscape plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian/street lighting, etc., within City right -.of -way. 3.15 Review concept with City and refine plans. 3. 16 Integrate concept plan with street improvement plans to create preliminary plans sufficient for detailed cost estimating. Review with City and refine. 3.20 Prepare detailed cost estimates. 3.21 Prepare a detailed cost estimate. Identify potential contingency factors. Estimates of costs for improvements designed and engineered by others will be provided by the, City. 3.30 Prepare all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund all of the costs associated with this project. 3.31 Based on land use and benefit areas identified in the Cannery Village Specific Plan, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs to the parcels according to benefit. 3.32 Prepare a 1931 Act "Debt Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60—percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 3.33 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. • Prepare mailers informing of the public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. The entire cost of the project is anticipated to be assessed to benefiting property owners. I30UIO EncinewInp ccrpotatlon 4 3 40 Conduct two public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 3.41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informational workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and i elevations of the proposed improvements. 3.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. I Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that i the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 3.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment district and assess costs. 3.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of I Streets for recordation with the County. .; A 3.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. BoUle Enolnoerino CofoGraNGn 01, 4.00 RESTROOM RELOCATION; MCFADDEN SQUARE PLAZA, PROMENADE, AND STREETSCAPE 4. 10 Working with the City Planning and Parks, Peaches, and Recreation Department staffs, prepare schematic site designs for a new public restroom facility in the Newport Pier area. The site for this new facility is proposed to be in front of the City Lifeguard headquarters to the east of the- Newport Pier. 4.11 Using restroom footprint to be supplied by the City, locate the restroom and provide a site plan and elevations appropriate for its setting, in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 below). One meeting has been allocated to this item for purposes of the fee estimate. 4.20 While maintaining a cohesive design and landscaping theme, prepare preliminary design plans for the public areas of McFadden Square including the area at the foot of the Newport Pier, the public sidewalks, and islands within the street right-of-way, and the area within and surrounding the West Ocean Front parking lot. 4.21 Review the Specific Plan, associated cost estimates, issues and priorities for McFadden Square with City staff. 4.22 Prepare "existing conditions" analysis map and photo inventory. 4.23 Formulate a concept plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian lighting, etc. Review concept approach with City and refine. 4.24 Apply concept approach to detailed base ma-p to create a preliminary plan. Review with City and refine. 4.25 Prepare detailed cost estimates. Identify potential contingency factors/unknowns (e.g., interim traffic control, storm drain, etc.). ,3oUle EnQInE0r1n0 Corporation 101 4.30 Integrate plans for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian walk through the McFadden Square area into the design of the public areas discussed above. The Public Works Department will provide the proposed alignment for the bicycle and pedestrian trail. 4. 31 Using bicycle and pedestrian trail alignments to be provided by the Public Works Department, integrate trail design into the McFadden Square design. The work will be completed in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 above). One meeting has been allocated to this item for fee estimate purposes. 4.40 Conduct any necessary public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 and 1913 Acts). ..4. 41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informational workshops to discuss assessments with affected property owners. Effort will include preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 4.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 4.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment district and assess costs. 4.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 4.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. Ho4Je Enoineeffno ca/palavor, 5.00 NEWPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD GEOMETRIC 5.10 Working with City Public Works and Planning Department staffs, Boyle will prepare geometries and construction budget for the proposed realignment of the Newport Boulevard/Balboa Boulevard realignment. Two levels of treatment are currently being considered. One of the following two sections of this Scope is to be selected by the City to become part of the services provided by Boyle. 5.11 Utilizing the City conceptual design, refine a striping plan in conjunction with beautification designs. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates. (This option is reflected in the Fee Schedule of our proposal.) 5. ,2 Utilizing the City conceptual plan, prepare geometries and approved plans at 40-foot scale for the Newport/Balboa intersection. The geometric plan will indicate traffic parking, bicycle lane widths, curb and gutter, striping, signing, and traffic control devices. Plan will also indicate existing and proposed right-of-way lines. Prepare preliminary estimate of construction costs. (This option is not -reflected in the Fee Schedule of our proposal.) 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 6. 10 In conjunction with the above projects, the preparation of an area -wide public parking management plan shall be prepared for City Council approval. 6.11 Prepare public parking management plan for the Cannery/McFadden Specific Plan area. Present the plan for City review and City Council approval. r3oUfe•EnO1neer1no Carporacion m •j� i 6.20 At a minimum, this parking management plan shall include an analysis of potential revisions to the City's "in -lieu" fee program; installation of parking meters on all on -street and off-street public parking spaces; and an analysis of potential increases in the parking meter rates. 6.21 The plan will review existing parking studies for the subject area and similar studies for adjacent beach intensive areas. The plan shall include a determination of public parking requirements based on potential specific plan land use. The plan will indicate alternative parking arrangements, including limited time parking areas, all day employee parking needs, impact of residential parking, seasonal beach parking, out of area shuttle parking, etc. The plan will analyze revisions to the existing City parking fee structure to determine the cost needs and fee structure. Fees for use of metered areas, parking structures, and residential commercial usage will be reviewed. The. final recommendation, based on City and public input, will be presented to the City Council for resolution. 1 l3oUte Enoineenrto Cnr;�oraUon J •TASK COST EFFORT ORE ENGINEE914S COAPGRAf IC4 CAMERf AND OCFADDEN 50-713 Project Pon JONR NIBEKE run tile 5 IiOr 6:19 n OB•I9.1936 •._.__--_-• gage I .._._ .....................................................................................................•...."" C O.S T 1 4 D 0 L L A R S 0 A T E PERSC,NNEL•HCUBS' E F TOTAL NOCR5 L49CR OTHER DIRECT TOTALS ACTIVITY I TASK START FI41SN A B C 0 .......................................................... ...................................._...._....-.•......_..._...__...__•.. 1.00 FCCJECT C;5AN12ATICN 07/01/,36 01,071E6 3 5 0 0 0 4 12 664 0 664 2.,0 F;RKINS STRU S'S ' 2.to R•elutn.r Plans and E9tta+tea 04/OM 10/15I26 6 40 36 80 80 9 8 259 91 I354B 4408 0 0 1•St3 690A 1..0 Frejjrs Peuttons 10113136 111,11186 2 N 0 2 20 4 f0 2 36 2392 0 —M 1.•0 CenJuct hellgs and Vote I.101/26 11/15;36 4 Lag L:ntr ltl DOa:erls IN41 1..) F•.rdlic R+allns 10/01,46 10IIS786 6 15 3 8 0 2 •5 2182 NOD 0 0 2182 231A ivAtt:tal _ Task 2.00 J7ATM 11/15/66 18 112 41 112 112 20 415 3.0 CANNERY VILLAIE STRIUSCAh •, 1O lrelnnary Plans "9/57126 10/15/B6 6 6 8 TO 4D 4 4 136 66 T2Q 3644 0 0 7244 3644 3.20 Estimates 10l01/A6 I0I15/96 1 16 2 0 24 16 16 8 8 50 2708 0 2708 3.30 PreOare Petitions 10/;5ldd 11/01186 2 2 16 12 2 8 0 2 26 1652 0 1652 3J0 Conduct +e2tings and Vote 11101/86 I1/15/86 1 24 0 0 0 4 9 1854 0 1354 5.50 Pon District 11/15/36 Siltotal - Task 3.00 09/07/86 121AUB6 12101/A6 15 76 12 118 64 22 307 17102 0 17102 4.0 t[ FRJOEA SCUARE ii • 4.10 ?r?lmmary Plans 09/07/66 ID/111h 1 16 16 TOO 60 4 1 200 86 10724 4014 0 0 l0724 4824 6.0 :-AM as 10101186 1016IA6 4 E4 2 0 32 16 1J A 8 58 •3268 0 3168 4.30 ?ra2are Petitions I0/15166 ItIOUS6 2 4 24 12 2 16 0 2 76 227E 0 227E 4,10 Ccaluct Ceetings and Vote II/01/E6 11115/85 1..0 Saoutaltn Task 4.00 07107186 12/01/86 l/26 i 100 20 idf BA 12 109 114/1 0 2241E 5.00 ;ENEGRi/8;LE0A BGLREVARD •.19 ;llcfnatt,e A 10/01185 11/15lE6 4 0 40 90 60 8 202 10788 0 0 D 10128 0 5.20 Allunalve 8 10/01196 WIVES 0 4 0 0 D 40 0 40 0 60 0 8 0 292 10708 0 I01E8 S .total - Taek 5.�'D IO10i186 11/15136 6.00 Mx:-42 PzN E-PJ FUN 94115195 10//0186 4 0 I00 80 56 40 290 15080 0 ISOBO 7.00 R1.5RNEY AID E:AO M-4:1. 10/01/96 !2101i26 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 10000 10000 -------------•-____--_.-.-____----____-_----_---_-_--__-_-_-._-•-....._-----_.....___. 59 393 213 561 SAO 116 I125 84706 IOJ90 99106 man .S;U uar Sesa.rce tole A,•ra;e 'rat? ............... .................... A : FrC:::i "'i DER ' M , SE: .P - :iC ENG:NEE9 •0.00 7 = EtCR,. Ai:d U.:O r v cCN. 00 = ELER:^;L 15.G0 • N I 141 0 is • 0 • AM O,i mom AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES August 1, 1986 Mr. Chris Gustin City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ` 1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE, SUITE 108 .._ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: (714) 667-0496 SUBJECT: Mix -Master Alternative Design Concept Evaluation Matrix Dear Chris: Austin -Foust Associates has prepared an evaluation matrix comparing existing conditions in the mix -master area with the two alternative design concepts under consideration. These alternative concepts are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 attached herein. The matrix is a combination of quantitative and qualitative comparisons including a subjective evaluation. For example, a quantitative comparison of the proposed alternatives on street capacity and construction cost is provided. A computerized traffic simulation of the existing system compared with the two alternative proposals was conducted to determine the impact on capacity. However, the impact of the alternative proposal on such considerations as pedestrian and bus access and circulation is not easily quantifiable. Therefore, a subjective analysis involving relative evaluation and comparison with existing conditions is provided. The 'bottom line' of this evaluation is that there' are relative advantages and disadvantages for each alternative compared to existing conditions, but neither provides an appreciable increase in either roadway capacity or parking. To their credit, each of the two proposals do provide improvements to the existing system such as standard lane widths, new bicycle lanes, and relocation of on -street curbside parking into parking lots. On the down side, the cost of these improvements exceeds $750,000 and the net increase in roadway capacity and/or parking is nominal. If you have any questions regarding the evaluation matrix or the basis for our subjective conclusions, please call. We have purposely made this simple, hoping to allow City Council to look at each consideration and compare the two proposals with the existing situation, and arrive at an overall conclusion regarding the 'best' alternative. Footnotes are provided in the matrix to convey our thoughts in arriving at those conclusions which are subjective. Sincer y, e E. ou t, PE Attachments fo5_ 0 0 Table 1 MIX -MASTER EVALUATION MATRIX CONSIDERATION EXISTING ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Capacity: A. Net Gain 0% +5% +5% B. Lanes Inbound 4-►23g (a) 4k-►2'h 4;-►A C. Lanes Outbound 3�4 3-4 3-4 Parking Spaces: 201 202 211 No. of Signals to 1 (Avg) 3 A (Avg) transverse Bus Parking Adequate Adequate Good Bus Circulation Adequate Better Poor Ped Access to Buses Marginal Better Good Pedestrian Circulation Marginal Good (b) Better (c) • Access to Local Property Good Poor Marginal (d) Frontage (Bayside of Newport) Access to Pier Poor Good Better Parking Lot Circulation within Pier Same Same Same Parking Lot Bicycle Circulation None Provided Bike Lane Bike Lanes Provided Provided Thru Traffic to/from Same Somewhat Somewhat Peninsula Point Area Deteriorated (e) Deteriorated (a) Impact on Cruising Same Harder to Prevent Harder to Prevent (f) (f) Costs: A. Signalization + $300000 $350,000 B. Roadway Constr. - $500:000 $400,000 Total Estimated Cost i None $800,000 $750,000 • Footnotes: (a) Four lanes become 2'k lanes; k lane is equivalent to turn lane. (b) New signals improve ped flow and parking, all on ocean side; peds do not cross Newport Blvd. (c) Signals improve ped crossing, but are disincentive to motor vehicle flow. (d) Requires U-turns. (a) Increased number of signals hinders thru movement, but improves access to/from side streets. (f) New signals improve access to/from pier parking lot and thereby further 'Promotes' cruising. Ite CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH ADVANCE PLANNING Z H� ARC pDE NEWPORT BLVD. 6 BALBOA BLVO, INTERSECTION AREA 0 AM ®® ,". AUSTIN-FOUZT ASSOCIATES, INC. C Figure 2 ALTERNATE I MIX -MASTER REALIGNMENT 0 01 m AM EE3'C= WHO O AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. • `e, Figure 3 s ALTERNATE II MIX —MASTER REALIGNMENT •I C*Y OF NEWPORT BE6CH COUNCIL MEMBERS 10 August 25, 1986 MINUTES INDEX KULL GAL Council Member Agee indicated he felt #86-167 Motion x that keeping Back Bay Drive closed from Dimo Cyclg All Ayes y 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a "weekend" day, was too long a period of time, and an nconvenience to the people who use the rea, and therefore, moved to deny Ap lication No. 86-167 for street clsu re. 2. Prop sed resolution prohibiting Skateboardsi skateboarding on certain City streets Vehicles & was presented with report from the Traffic Traffic Engineer. (85) Motion wa made to adopt Resolution No. Res 86-71 Motion x 86-71 prohai.biting skateboarding on various sidewalks and streets in the alboa business area, vicinity of\6. and that stso be directed to prepare a sresolution for the Newport Piefor consideration on September 8. In addition, that the Parks, s and Recreation Commission ested to investigate the feasibia site for a skateboard ty and report back. John Shea, . Oc anfront, addressed the Counciltate \that the side of his house is so badly ' inged up" due to skateboarders that he w 1 not repair it again until some action by the City Council. The motion was voted on ed. All Ayes \Depatment 3. Report from Public Works Permit/ recommending denial for ion of Encroachmer a fence and gate across (65) right-of-way between #1 cle and 447 Canal Street, was presented. Following comments by Council Memb Motion x Plummer, motion was made to defer a tion All Ayes on this item to October 2.7, 1986, at which time the staff is to report bac on alternatives for the public right-of-way. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: None. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Report from Public Works DeQartment, PW/Beach dated August 11, 1986, regarding BEACH Restroom RESTROOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM_ was Rplcm presented. (74) Volume 40 - Page 364 0ITY OF NEWPORT AACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \A1 \�a ani 1 GStp � August 25, 1986 INDEX BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25) BA-006 - $262,040 Decrease in Unappropriated Surplus and Increase in Budget Appropriations for three projects anticipated being awarded on June 23, 986, but were held over to 1986-87 and o e inadvertently omitted during the b get process for carry-overs; General Fu d. BA-0 7 - $1,115 Increase in Budget Appr riations to purchase cypher lock and a fe for narcotics office (Funds are provid d from the Federal Adopted Forfeit re Fund); General Fund'. BA-008 - $2,800 Transfer in Budget Appropria ions for installation of air conditioni g unit for Corporation Yard; General Se ices -Field Maintenance Fund. BA-009 - $3, 50 Transfer in Budget Appropriation for purchase of two filing cabinet to store microfiche in jackets; Build g Fund. BA-010 - $800 Tr nsfer in Budget Appropriations t purchase two safes (one for Corona d I Mar Parking Booth and one for Marine Department Headquarters); Mari a Department Fund. BA-011 - $2,500 Iner as in Budget Appropriations to pro ide for enhancements of the ex sting narcotics information system; Cc ral Fund. BA-012 - $1,750 Transfer in Budget Appropriations to provide for repair of fence located on Pacific ast Highway; General Services -Field Mai tenance Fund. BA-013 - $100,000 Decrease i Unappropriated Surplus and T nsfer in Budget Appropriations to prov de for consultants for the implements ion of public improvements (priorities I and II) for Cannery Village/McFadde Square and establishment of assessment districts; General Fund. G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CAL DAR: 1. Report from the Business License Permit/ Supervisor regarding street closure r Special Dimo Cycling at Back Bay Drive on Events September 21, 1986, was presented. (65) Volume 40 - Page 363 XTY OF NEWPORT BPACH COUNCIL MEMBERS O ROLL 9 i CAL August 25, 1986 MINUTES INDEX Motion x Motion was made to direct the staff to proceed with p ans or t e ewort Pier All Ayes Restroom Replacement at a new location easterly of the Hier and northers of the Marine Department Building; direct the staff to proceed with the program on the basis of Conventional design; and in addition, that the staff proceed with the hiring_of anyarEE:If ct fo'r the redesign of of the f5th Street restroom and the_Newport Pier restroom. An further, that staff proceed immediately with the refurbishing of the Washington Street restroom, independently of the other restroom facilities. QUALITY CITIZENS ADVISORY Harbor TEE: Quality/CAC Motion x was made to confirm the following All Ayes tments for terms ending December 87: istrict 3 - Bill Harris istrict 6 - Robert Hopkins \Report istrict 7 - Mark Gaughan t om the Planning Department Resub 808 din review of the location of the Npt Sea con iners for the NEWPORT SEA Crest APAR ENTS (RESUBDIVISION NO. 808, (84) TY BO TRAFFIC STUDY AND MODIFICATION 0. 3056) was presented. Council Member lummer stated that she placed this ite on the agenda, inasmuch as there seemed t be a misunderstanding as to what the Cit Council approved on June 10, 1985, rega ding the location of the trash enclosure. She stated that at the subject meeting, he City Council was given a letter fro the Wale Development Corporation to Hugh Milligan of Brookview Homeowners ssociation, outlining specific concer s of the Homeowners Association, wh ch were felt to be resolved. One of the major concerns was that Wale Devel pment did agree to move the trash enclo ure to the rear of the property and expan the planter areas designated betwee cars, subject to parking requirements. However, she stated that this con ern was never discussed at the meeting or acted upon by the City Council. Th Homeowners Association feel their concern, as set forth in the subject letter, should be honored. Volume 40 - Page 365 OTY OF NEWPORT ENACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \CAL .oROLL Gud c�`p �P yip August 25, 1986 INDEX \Hugh Milligan, President of Erookview Resub 808/ Homeowners Association, addressed the Npt Sea Council and stated that they are only Crest asking that one trash enclosure be removed, that being the one located closest to their development, and stated that no parking spaces would be lost as result of relocating the trash ontainer. La ry Campeau, representing Mesa De lopment, owners and builders of the Ne ort Sex Crest Apartments (originally owne by Wale Development), addressed the Council and stated that when they submit ed their plans to the City Councilover a year ago, they met with the BroNkview Homeowners Association adjacent\to their property, and did agree to ve the trash enclosure, subject to parking; requirements. After the projec was approved by the Council, it was disc ercd that they would be losing five asking spaces because of Fire Dcpartme�t regulations, etc., and therefore, the trash enclosure was not moved. They do not view the trash enclosure issue to be a problem, but because there is n concern, they have redesigned it so Nhat it looks more like a garage and is se�f-contained with a roof on it. They eel it is good planning to leave t e trash enclosure where it is present\ located, especially since 15 t 18 tenants will have to carry their t� sh 280 to 320 fact if it is relocate Motion x Following discussion, m\ion was made to All Ayes take no further action at` this time, but that the applicant take wh tm,cr steps are necessary to assure th.t the trash enclosure will out impact t c adjacent neighbors, and that all trash will be confined to the container. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from Public Works Depart at Sayside Dr/ regarding RAYSIDL DRIVE -JASMINE t1VENUE Jasmine PARKING LOT AND MFTRRS (C-2485) wXs Prkg I.uL presented. `\\ C-2485 (38) Motion x Motion was made to direct the staff {to Ayes X x x x abandon the project, except ¢ur need d Noes x x pavement maintenance work. 2. Report £rota Planning Department Cannery Vlg concerning implementation of Priorities McFdn Sq SA I and II of the Cannery Village/McFadden (68) Square Specific Plan Area Public Improvements Component was presented. Volume 40 - Page 361,, August 11, 1986 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. —4-9—� . TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEW.PORT BEACH SUBJECT: BEACH RESTROOM PROGRAM AUG 111986 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Direct the staff to proceed with plans for the Newport Pier restroom replacement at a new location easterly of the pier and northerly of the Marine Department building. 2. Direct the staff to proceed with the overall program on the basis of: a. Conventional design, or b. Unisex design DISCUSSION: • In an effort to minimize further delays in the beach restroom program, Council direction on basic parameters is requested. A. Newport Pier With regard to the Newport Pier (McFadden Square) restroom, the speci- fic area plan studies contemplated a relocation of the facility to a site easterly of the pier lying between the Marine Department building and the Ocean Front walkway. As some controversy could be anticipated over such a relocation, Council concurrence in the proposal is sought. Relocation offers at least two significant advantages: 1) ease of maintaining the existing restroom in service during the construction period; and 2) less visual intrusion on the "entrance to the pier." This relocation was considered and recommended during the specific area plan process. A copy of a memo from the Planning Department regarding this restroom is attached for reference. The Quality of Life Advisory Committee in its July 11 letter to the Council has also recommended the new location easterly of the pier. It is proposed that the restroom construction contract would include only the basic restroom building, and that the architectural and landscaping amenities around the building would be a part of the specific • area plan implementation program. B. Conventional or Unisex Design With regard to basic design concepts for the overall program, a review of the unisex design is appropriate after a period of experience with the Balboa Pier restroom. The unisex design has been used with apparent suc- cess by the State beach parks system and by the Orange County park system, thus it was considered for use in the Newport Beach program. However, experience to date with the Balboa Pier facility has not been good. Some of the more significant problems may be summarized as follows: August 11, 1986 Subject: Beach Restroom Program Page 2 1. Excessive vandalism. is2. Excessive man-hours required for routine maintenance. 3. Inadequate capacity and long waits required for use during peak periods. (This problem relates to overall size of the facility as well as to the unisex design.) 4. Anti -social behavior. 5. Some women object to using stalls which have recently been used by men. A copy of a memo from the General Services Department regarding van- dalism and routine maintenance problems is attached for reference. The Police Department has commented verbally about problems of anti -social behavior which have been experienced. The consensus of staff opinion is that conventional restroom design rather than unisex is better suited to beach restroom applica- tions in Newport Beach. However it should be pointed out with respect to the 15th Street . restroom that a change to conventional design will require preparation of a new set of plans and specifications, as the existing plans are based on unisex design. This would delay the project. C. 1986-87 Program The proposed program for F.Y. 1986-87 consists of the folowing projects: 1. Washington Street at Bay Avenue. Complete refurbishment of existing restroom in its present configuration. 2. 15th Street beach. Replacement of existing restroom. 3. Newport Pier --McFadden Square. Replace existing restroom in new location. 4. Orange Street between Coast Highway and Seashore Drive. New restroom as part of West Newport park project. This project may be delayed if problems with the Coastal Commission regarding parking and the park concept cannot be resolved in .a timely manner. 5. Balboa Boulevard at 38th Street. This restroom will be replaced in conjunction with the Balboa Boulevard widening project. The work is separately funded, and will not be funded out of the restroom replacement program appropriation. .2 August 11, 1986 Subject: Beach Restroom Program Page 3 • If portions of the above program are significantly delayed, other restroom locations which could be substituted include 56th Street at Seashore Drive, and Buck Gully above Little Corona Beach. D. Alternate Modular Design In a letter received by the Council at the July 28 meeting, the Quality of Life Advisory Committee expressed concern about the progress of the restroom program. If conventional restrooms rather than unisex are approved, the staff has recently learned of a type of high quality modular restroom which may offer several advantages, including the ability to speed up the progress of the program. Some of these advantages are: 1. Faster overall construction. 2. Less "on -site" construction time needed. This characteristic is especially beneficial for the types of locations involved in the City's program. 3. Significantly reduced overall maintenance requirements. • 4. Special vandal resistant design features. 5. Reduced construction cost. The staffs of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation; General Services; and Public Works Departments are researching the modular concept. If the above potential advantages prove to be achievable and the concept appears worth pursuing, a further report to the Council will be made. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Department Att. • 4P 40 10 July 24, 1986 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO- Ben Nolan, Public Works Directory, FROM: Chris Gustin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: McFadden Square Public Restroom Facility During the course of preparing the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan, staff received considerable input from- local residents and businessmen, the Quality of Life Committee (formerly C.E.Q.A.C.), the Citizens Ad Hoc Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Committee, and the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the condition and location of the McFadden Square public restroom facility. The majority of comments were directed toward its dilapidated appearanc& and its location at the base of the pier. Not only is this structure considered 'unsightly due to its physical condition, it is located in a visually prominent area at the entrance to the McFadden Square area. Replacing the existing structure a� its present location would require the demolition of the facility and construction of a new building. This could conceivably take in excess of four months, during which time there would be nc public restroom facilities available in McFadden Square. This was considered unacceptable by staff and all other -participants in the planning process. In addition, there would again be a public restroom facility occupying a visually prominent place in the area. Relocating the facility to the west of its present location would result in an adverse impact on the dory fleet and would require the installation of a new concrete pad and sidewalks on the sand of the public beach or the loss of parking spaces in the munici- pal lot. Both of these alternatives were also considered unaccept- able. Staff then directed its attention to the area to the east of the Newport Pier between Lifeguard Headquarters and the West Ocean Front sidewalk. There are several advantages to this location. Con- struction of a new restroom facility can be done in conjunction with the remodelling of the lifeguard building, minimizing the disruption of water, sewer, and electric service. Adequate space is available for the building while allowing sufficient room for lifeguard vehicles to circulate freely. No ocean views would be obstructed, and the facility would not be visually obtrusive. 9 • • Ben Nolan July 24, 1986 Page 2 Staff is in the process of retaining the services of a consulting firm to prepare the landscape and streetscape plans for the Cannery Village and McFadden Square areas. It is staffs intention to provide the consultant with sufficient information regarding the restroom facility pertaining to its physical size and general location so that it may be incorporated into the detailed plans for the McFadden Square Improve- ments. Specific details such as the utilization of the "uni-sex" concept and other operational characteristics as well as its architec- tural style can be resolved prior to construction, but it is important that staff provide the consultant with, at a minimum, the general size of the structure. At the July 24, 1986 meeting with Ron_Whitley, Wade Heyeler and John Raggio, we discussed increasing the size of any new building to accommodate more facilities for women. The existing structure' is approximately 30' x 40'. It was suggested that the new building be approximately the same depth (30' ) and add an additional 25' for an overall length of approximately 65'. As shown on the attached aerial photo, adequate space exists within the suggested area for a facility of this size. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at anytime. i CG4/jg Attachment 5" 16 b • L k . VOW6, LOW tl "` 3'� � l-.,, t . � RAC" �,7• .�xz,� • 1 1 � 11 • • � u July 25, 1986 • TO: BEN NOLAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: General Services Director SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON NEW RESTROOMS In response to your request in our meeting with Ron Whitley on Thursday, July 24th, the following comments/suggestions/recommendations are offered for future consideration during the planning and pre -construction phases of our beach and park restroom replacement program. 1) One of the most critical items to be faced by the "planning" group is the continued use, or non use, of unisex facilities. While being some- what skeptical about the planned conversion to that type of restroom during the design stages of the new Balboa restrooms, I was certainly willing to try it, and with a very hopeful attitude. However, in the short time that we have been "open for business" in Balboa, I think the unisex idea has not been totally acceptable. They are used, cer- tainly, because there are no other alternatives nearby, other than . some commercial establishments; or, they make the long trip over to Washington Ave. One problem that arose immediately was the length of cleaning time needed. We have determined that it now takes approximately twice as long to clean and service the unisex stalls as it did the old men -women facility. Plus, the customary one-man winter crew will have to close off half the restroom (one at a time) in order to thoroughly clean the facility. Also, the many wall partitions hinder the service by impeding the flow of both wash and rinse water. Another problem has been the increased vandalism on the many door locks, doors, door closers, stools, basins, etc. We find we are replacing many more fixtures there now than we used to when it was the old men -women type. For example, we have had to replace all the door locks that were part of the initial installation with simple push plates on the outside and dead bolts on the inside. Also, out of nine original door closers, we now have three left that are still operating. On the other six, we have replaced the original hinges with "spring -loaded" hinges so that a closer will no longer be nec- essary. As the remaining three are vandalized, we will replace them with the new hinges as well. 7 page 2 One of the biggest drawbacks to the new Balboa restroom was the lack of urinals. Female patrons were observed to refuse to use a stall, just vacated by a male, and would wait until another female came out of one, so that they knew the seat had been "down" during the last use. • We are presently remedying that situation by converting the original changing rooms to one large room with two large trough urinals and two wash basins. We are hopeful that when this conversion becomes opera- tional, it will go a long ways towards easing the male -female user situation. 2) In general, we have found that the present Balboa design does not serve the beach goers as well as the old one did. The new design has very minimal venting in the stalls, so that odors linger noticeably; it offers too much privacy in the separate stalls, and promotes undesirable and anti -social activities (same as in the old dressing room stalls); Also, we have had children locked inside the stalls, who then couldn't work the mechanism to get out, panicked, screaming etc.; luckily, one of the Building Maintenance Division employees just happened to arrive, and opened the door with his key. These incidents contributed greatly to the decision to switch to dead bolts. 3) We believe that strong consideration should be given to a return to one large building, but men -women facilities; two large spaces with all the necessary toilets, basins, urinals and change space in each facility; • probably more change space and toilets should be a part of the women's side. We also recommend few, if any, doors on the toilet stalls. When everyone inside can see everyone else, we believe that much of the van- dalism will be discouraged, if not actually reduced. We also need to increase the ventilation - preferrably around the eaves and roof line. We also need more "graffiti -proof" materials, in the doors, especially There's no need to continue. I believe this gives you some food for thought. If you need any more information, just give me a call. Wade S. Beyeler WSB/ib • xc: Building Maintenance Supervisor E Soyle Engineerinq 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 Newport Beech, CA 92658-9020 � CITy CTI y�`p A�� TTGlldr'Y NF%yPpR�Y 0 '986i x 0q;V1il Msuo engineers ( arcnitects 714 / 476-3300 Telex 685561 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 21, 1986 Attention Carol Korade 3300 West Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach California 92658-8915 Review of City's Agreement McFadden Plaza/Cannery Village Improvement Chris Gustin gave me a copy of the City's Standard Agreement in anticipation of City Council approval of Boyle Engineering Corporation for the subject• project at the August 25, 1986 meeting. We would appreciate your consideration of proposed revisions as marked on the enclosed copy. If you disagree, or want more information, 1 would appreciate your calling Susan Menkes as she will be glad to meet with you at your convenience (phone (714) 476-3400). BOYLE ENGINEERING Victora_m� r pi car, Jr Managing En ineerr jgb Enclosure cc: Chris Gustin Advance Planning RPORATION OC-1399-197-00 P50-713 r 0 13oc410 EnL7/n0erir7Q Corp0r0tion 1501 aua11 Street consuitinq engineers 1 arcnitects P.O. Box 3030 714 / 476-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 Telex 685561 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 5, 1986 Attention Chris Gustin 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Attached are the Scope, Fees, and Schedule revised to reflect our meeting of August 2, 1986. z EN/GIN�EER�IN�G CORPORATION C. - John C. Wieneke, ASLA Landscape Architect jgb Enclosure OC-B99-197-00 P50-713scry 1.00 2.00 CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE City of Newport Beach SCOPE OF WORK PROJECT ORGANIZATION PARKING STRUCTURE. CANNERY VILLAGE 2.10 Working with the City staff, Boyle will prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates for a three level parking structure accommodating approximately 165 automobiles. Although a specific site has not been selected, sufficient information is available for the preparation of plans and cost estimates. 2.11 Identify typical site geometries of the proposed parking structure, including size of parcel, orientation, and access. Identify preliminary geometries of the building, building setbacks, building size and height, etc. 2.12 Prepare site concept plan showing preliminary building concepts including massing, scale, materials, and general method of construction. Review plan with City staff and revise to reflect City concerns. 2 13 Estimate total project design and construction cost, based on the approved preliminary building concept. 2.20 Working with City staff, Boyle will prepare all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund a portion of the costs associated with the construction of the parking structure. Boyle Enq/neerinq Corporation I 2.21 Based on land use and benefit, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs to the parcels according to benefit. It is anticipated that City contributions to the project will offset the proposed assessments. 2.22 Prepare a 1931 ACT "Debit Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60-percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 2.23 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. Prepare mailers informing of the- public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. 2.30 Conduct two public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 2.31 Attend an estimated two (2) public information workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 2.32 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 2.33 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. Boyle Enq/neerino Corporation 2.34 Following the formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. 2.40 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, and after a site is selected, prepare the final design and contract documents for the structure under separate contract. 2.50 Boyle will provide an analysis of the various funding mechanisms available to finance the construction of the facility (i.e., bond issue, sale of spaces through the "in -lieu" program, funding entirely by the City, etc.) 2.51 Research funding mechanisms used by Newport Beach and Qther municipalities. 2.52 Analyze potential income from various funding sources, determining advantages/disadvantages, time frames, amount of money, rate of return, etc., compared to construction cost. 2.53 In conjunction with City staff, determine appropriate funding source breakdown, including share to be provided by assessment district, and amount of assessment. 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 3.10 In conjunction with the street improvement plans available from the Public Works Department (Norris-Repke project), Boyle will integrate an appropriate landscaping and streetscape program into the street improvement plan. The streetscape plan should follow a cohesive design theme, considering street furniture, signs, lighting, public areas, etc., all within the existing City -owned right-of-way. 3.11 Review the Specific Plan and street improvement plans previously prepared, and associated cost estimates. BOLJIe Enolneerino Corporation 3.12 Meet with City staff to discuss issues and priorities, including cost factors. 3.13 Prepare an "Existing Conditions" analysis map and photo inventory. 3.14 Formulate a conceptual streetscape plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian/street lighting, etc., within City right-of-way. 3.15 Review concept with City and refine plans. 3.16 Integrate concept plan with street improvement plans to create preliminary plans sufficient for detailed cost estimating. Review with City and refine. 3.20 Prepare detailed cost estimates. 3.21 Prepare a detailed cost estimate. Identify potential contingency factors. Estimates of costs for improvements designed and engineered by others will be provided by the City. 3.30 Prepare -all required petitions and documentation necessary to establish an assessment district to fund all of the costs associated with this project. 3.31 Based on land use and benefit areas identified in the Cannery Village Specific Plan, determine the proposed assessment costs and allocate the costs to the parcels according to benefit. 3.32 Prepare a 1931 Act "Debt Limit" investigation report, unless waived by petition of 60-percent of the assessed area. Prepare a boundary map, assessment diagram, and engineer's report as required by the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act. 3.33 Assist in the preparation of legal and council resolutions and petitions, as required by the City Attorney. Prepare mailers informing of the public hearing and public workshops for City distribution to affected property owners. The entire cost of the project is anticipated to be assessed to benefiting property owners. BOelle EMIneer/nq COMOratmn 3.40 Conduct two public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 or 1913 Acts). 3.41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informational workshops to discuss the proposed assessments with affected property owners. This effort will include the preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvements. 3.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 3.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment district and assess costs. 3.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 3.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of, final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. Boyle Eng/neerino Corporation 4.00 DE. A 690 4.10 Working with the City Planning and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department staffs, prepare schematic site designs for a new public restroom facility in the Newport Pier area. The site for this new facility is proposed to be in front of the City Lifeguard Headquarters to the east of the Newport Pier. 4.11 Using restroom footprint and elevations to be supplied by the City, locate the restroom and provide appropriate design (hardscape/softscape) for its setting, in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 below). One meeting has been allocated to this item for purposes of the fee estimate. 4.20 While maintaining a cohesive design and landscaping theme, prepare preliminary design plans for the public areas of McFadden Square including the area at the foot of the Newport Pier, the public sidewalks, and islands within the street right-of-way, and the area within and surrounding the West Ocean Front parking lot. 4.21 Review the Specific Plan, associated cost estimates, issues and priorities for McFadden Square with City staff. 4.22 Prepare "existing conditions" analysis map and photo inventory. 4.23 Formulate a concept plan, including street furniture, traffic control signs, special paving, pedestrian lighting, etc. Review concept approach with City and refine. 4.24 Apply concept approach to detailed base map to create a preliminary plan. Review with City and refine. 4.25 Prepare detailed cost estimates. Identify potential contingency factors/unknowns (e.g., interim traffic control, storm drain, etc.). Boyle Englnee(Ino Corporation 4.30 Integrate plans for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian walk through the McFadden Square area into the design of the public areas discussed above.- The Public Works Department will provide the proposed alignment for the bicycle and pedestrian trail. 4.31 Using bicycle and pedestrian trail alignments to be provided by the Public Works Department, integrate trail design into the McFadden Square design. The work will be completed in conjunction with preliminaries for McFadden Square (see 4.20 above). One meeting has been allocated to this item for fee estimate purposes. 4.40 Conduct any necessary public meetings to discuss this program with the affected property owners and conduct the required vote in conformance with state law (1911 and 1913 Acts). 4.41 Attend an estimated two (2) public informational workshops to discuss assessments with affected property owners. Effort will include preparation of graphics, plans, and elevations of the proposed improvement. 4.42 Attend the public hearing with the City Council and participate in the discussion of details of the proposed assessment district. Tabulate and testify to the percentage of protests by area. It is anticipated that the 1931 Act and 1911 or 1913 Act hearings will be held at the same meeting. 4.50 If a favorable vote is cast by a majority of the benefiting property owners, form the assessment district and assess costs. 4.51 Modify the engineer's report as directed by the City Council. File the finalized engineer's report, assessment diagram, and boundary report with the Superintendent of Streets for recordation with the County. 4.52 Following formation of the District, prepare notices of final assessment and cash collection period for bond retirement. Prepare lien list for filing with the County. Prepare initial Auditor's Record for yearly payments of principal, interest, and service charges on the bonds. It is anticipated that bonds will be sold under the 1915 Bond Act. Soule Englneerinq Corporation 5.00 NEWPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD GEOMETRIC 5.10 Working with City Public Department staffs, Boyle will and construction budget realignment of the Newport Boulevard realignment. Three are currently being considered only, to a complete redesign. three sections of this Scope the City to become part of the Boyle. Works and Planning prepare geometries for the proposed Boulevard/Balboa levels of treatment from beautification One of the following is to be selected by services provided by 5.11 Prepare beautification designs in conjunction with the adjacent Cannery Village and McFadden Square plans, including preliminary cost estimates. 5.12 Utilizing the City conceptual design, refine a striping plan in conjunction with beautification designs. Prepare preliminary construction cost estimates. 5.13 Utilizing the City conceptual plan, prepare geometries and approved plans at 40-foot scale for the Newport/Balboa intersection. The geometric plan will indicate traffic parking, bicycle lane widths, curb and gutter, striping, signing, and traffic control devices. Plan will also indicate existing and proposed right-of-way lines. Prepare preliminary estimate of construction costs. 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 6.10 In conjunction with the above projects, the preparation of an area -wide public parking management plan shall be prepared for City Council approval. 6.11 Prepare public parking management plan for the Cannery/McFadden Specific Plan area. Present the plan for City review and City Council approval. Boyle Enq/neetlnq CWPOMUCM 6.20 At a minimum, this parking management plan shall include an analysis of potential revisions to the City's "in -lieu" fee program; installation of parking meters on all on -street and off-street public parking spaces; and an analysis of potential increases in the parking meter rates. 6.21 The plan will review existing parking studies for the subject area and similar studies for adjacent beach intensive areas. The plan shall include a determination of public parking requirements based on potential specific plan land use. The plan will indicate alternative parking arrangements, including limited time parking areas, all day employee parking needs, impact of residential parking, seasonal beach parking, out of area shuttle parking, etc. The plan will analyze revisions to the existing City parking fee structure to determine the cost needs and fee structure. Fees for use of metered areas, parking structures, and residential commercial usage will be reviewed. The final recommendation, based on City and public input, will be presented to the City Council for resolution. Boyle Englneeflnq COfPO/at/On TASK. COST REPORT BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION CANNERY AND MCFADDEN 50-713 Project Mgr: JOHN YIENEKE run time > >13:52:42 +a OB-05-19B6 -- ------------------------------------------------ Page------- -- -- -- -------- ------------- --------- ------ --- -- --- - C O S T I N D O L L A R S D A T E PERSONNEL -HOURS TOTAL OTHER ACTIVITY / TASK START FINISH A B C D E F HOURS LABOR DIRECT TOTALS 1.D0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT URBANIZATION 09/01/86 09/07/86 3 5 0 0 0 4 12 664 0 664 2.00 PARKING STRUCTURE 2.10 Preliminary Plans and Estimates 07/07/96 10115/B6 6 24 40 120 80 B 8 278 94 1510E 4908 0 0 15108 4908 2,20 Prepare Petitions 10/15/86 11/01/06 2 32 0 2 20 4 32 0 2 36 2392 0 2392 2.30 Conduct Meetings and Vote 11/01/B6 it/15/86 4 24 2.40 2.50 Contract Documents (NA) Funding Analysis 10/01/96 10/15/86 6 16 3 8 0 2 35 22B2 0 0 2282 24690 Subtotal - Task 2.00 09/07/96 11/15/86 18 96 45 152 112 20 443 24690 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 3.10 Preliminary Plans 09/07/86 10/15/Bb 6 B B 90 40 16 4 4 156 66 B444 3644 0 0 8444 3644 3.20 3.30 Estimates Prepare Petitions 10/01/96 10/15/86 10/15/86 11/01/86 4 2 16 16 2 0 24 16 B B 50 2708 0 0 2708 1652 3.40 Conduct Meetings and Vote 11/01/86 11/15/86 2 12 2 8 0 0 0 2 4 26 24 1652 1854 0 1854 3,50 Form District Subtotal - Task 3.00 11/15/86 09/07/Bb 12/01/86 12101/B6 1 15 24 76 0 12 13B 64 22 327 1B302 0 18302 4.00 MC FADDEN SQUARE 4,10 Preliminary Plans 09/07/86 10/15/86 4 16 16 100 60 20 4 4 200 06 10724 4B24 0 0 10724 4B24 4.20 4.30 Estimates Prepare Petitions 10/01/86 10/15/86 10/151B6 11/01/86 4 2 24 24 2 0 32 16 B B 5B 326B 0 3260 4,40 Conduct Meetings and Vote 11/01/B6 11/I5/86 4 12 2 16 0 2 36 2272 0 2272 4.50 Form District Task 4.00 Q9/07/Bb 12/01/86 15 100 20 164 88 22 409 22942 0 22942 5,00 NENPORT/BALBOA BOULEVARD 5.10 Alternative A 10/01/B6 11/01/86 2 0 16 24 40 60 24 40 8 B 90 136 470B 7168 0 0 470B 7169 5.20 Alternative B • C 10/01/86 10/01/86 11/15/Bb 11/15/86 4 6 0 0 48 110 80 8 252 133BB 0 133BB 5.30 Alternative Subtotal - Task SAO 10/01/96 11/15/86 12 0 88 210 144 24 47B 25264 0 25264 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 09/15/86 10/30/B6 4 0 112 108 56 40 320 17600 0 17600 7.00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL 10/O1/B6 12/011B6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------- 0 ------ 10000 ------ 10000 -------------------------------------------------- ftaa TOTALS a+fr ------------------------------------------------------------- 67 277 277 772 464 132 1989 109462 10000 119462 Resource code Average Rate A = PROJECT MANAGER 70.00 B = ASSESSMENT ENBR, 70.00 C = TRAFFIC ENGINEER 70.00 D = ENGR./ARCH. 60.00 E = DRAFT./TECH. 35.00 F = CLERICAL 26.00 7-1. PROJECT SCHEDULE BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION CANNERY AND MCFAD➢EN 50-713 Project Mgr: JOHN NIENEKE run time > >13:52:44 at 08-05-19B6 1.00 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 2.00 PARKINS STRUCTURE 2.10 Preliminary Plans and Estimates 2.20 Prepare Petitions 2.30 Conduct Meetings and Vote 2.40 Contract Documents (NA) 2.50 Funding Analysis Subtotal - Task 2.00 3.00 CANNERY VILLAGE STREETSCAPE 3.10 Preliminary Plans 3.20 Estimates 3.30 Prepare Petitions 3.40 Conduct Meetings and Vote 3.50 Form District Subtotal - Task 3.00 4.00 MC FA➢DEN SQUARE 4.10 Preliminary Plans 4.20 Estimates 4.30 Prepare Petitions 4.40 Conduct Meetings and Vote 4.50 Form District Subtotal - Task 4.00 5.00 NENPORTlBALBOA BOULEVARD 5.10 Alternative A 5.20 Alternative B 5.30 Alternative C Subtotal - Task 5.00 6.00 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 7.00 ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNCIL page 1 MM 9 10 11 12 DO I 1 1 I Yy B6 B6 96 Bb ..................�....-......... ................. ......................... {........................ I...................... .. .................... .....{........................}........................ .... j.......... ..:..........{........ .. .....I ........................ (...........{ ..............'..........}..... ........}..................... ..................................... 4..................E........................, .............................}....................... 1,111,11, �.............{..............I.........}........................ .............�............ {....... }......... ............... I ........ ......................... {............. }....... .............{........................j........................ , (..................................}........................ (......................................}......................... (...... ................... {........... ......................... ....................... .(......................... {............ .........}......................... ............ .........................{.............:�;........ }....... ............... .....................................{............. }........................ .........................{................... }....... .................. ............:...................,..................(.................................. ............._..........I........... ..............i...... }..................I... .................................................{—...{.........}........................ ................................................{........... ........................ ............. .........................{..............J.........}......................... .....................................{;.............;.........}...........6............. .........................{........................}......................... �......................{.......................,............ ...................... .�..............�........ I........................ .I . ........I.........................{..............:.........I......................... ................I.........................{..............1.........I......................... .. .4.......................}......................... ........................14..................1......................... i..:......................4.......................1....................I...I 0 0 Boyle Engineering Corr oration 1501 Quail Street consultlnq engineers / arcnitects P.O. Box 3030 7141476-3300 Newport Beech, CA 92658-9020 Telex 686661 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 29, 1986 Attention Chris Gustin 3300 Newport Boulevard Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Cannery Village/McFadden Square Proposal The purpose of this letter is to express our appreciation for the opportunity to be interviewed for this complex and interesting series of projects. However, as a result of the interview, we realized we did not give you, neither in our proposal nor at the interview, a clear picture of what products would be generated_ through our proposed work effort. Therefore, we have taken the liberty to prepare the following list of "deliverables." I Cannery Village Parking Structure Products will include: a report in 8-1/2" x 11" format showing location alternatives, traffic patterns, parking layouts, building envelopes; architectural treatments and construction cost estimates; supporting graphics for presentation use; the petition; and, a public information brochure briefly describing the project. II. Cannery Village Streetscape Products will include: a report in 8-1/2" x 11" format showing the streetscape design concept in terms of paving materials, street furniture, light standards, finishes and planting, and the location of these improvements within the district; supporting graphics for presentation use; the petition; and a public information brochure to briefly describe the project. 0 Newport Beach Planning Department Chris Gustin -2- July 29, 1986 III. McFadden Square Streetscape Products will include: a report in 8-1 /2" x 11" format showing the streetscape, square and plaza design concept in terms of paving materials, street furniture, light standards, finishes and planting, the location of these improvements within the district; supporting graphics for presentation use; the petition; and a public information brochure to briefly describe the project. IV. Newport/Balboa Boulevard Intersection The product for this project will be an 8-1/2" x 11" report documenting a City -approved intersection layout and design criteria with construction cost estimates. V. Parking Management Plan Product will consist of a report of suggested programs for implementation, including parking data, metering strategies, revenues, and enforcement procedures. Although it is impossible to identify the exact composition of each product it is our intent to produce realistic projects packaged in documents ready for implementation. We hope the Review Committee perceives the vast amount of technical expertise and quality experience Boyle can bring to your projects. 'LyIr)ENGINEERING CORPORATION �7��'ZL/�L._� John C. Wieneke, ASLA Project Manager j gb OC-B99-197-00 P713ADD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 3, 1989 TO: Participants in the City's In Lieu Parking Permit Program FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Revisions to the Program At the City Council meeting to be held January 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., the Council will be considering adoption of proposed Ordinance 88-47 (Agenda Item No. H-1) that will make changes to the fee structure for in lieu parking spaces. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach i F Balboa Inn Le Biarritz Beach Ball 105 Main Street 414 N. Newport Blvd. 2116 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Studio Cafe Red Onion Perry's Pizza 100 Main Street 2406 Newport Blvd. 2108 3/4 W. Ocean Front Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rick Lawrence E1 Ranchito Hemingway's Restaurant 2106 W. Ocean Front 2800 Newport Blvd. 2441 E. Coast Hwy. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Ava Lana (& Smith) Beachcomber's Seaview Gardens 112 McFadden Place 2633 W. Coast Hwy. 810 E. Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 B.J.'s Mamie VanDoren Bubbles Restaurant 106 Main Street 428 31st Street 111 Palm Street Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Stop -In Hermans Balboa Bakery 703 E. Balboa Blvd. 110 McFadden Place 301 Main Street Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Stuff'd Bun The Place Woody's Wharf 704 E. Balboa Blvd. 2920 E. Coast Highway 2318 Newport Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Landing China Palace Turnstone Corp. 503 E. Edgewater P1. 2800 W. Coast Hwy. 2431-2439 W. Coast Hwy. Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bangkok 3 The Grill Balboa Thai 101-103 Palm Street 105 Main Street 209b Palm Street Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa, CA 92661 Balboa, CA 92661 THE BEACHCOMBER RESTAURANT g�a^rt„Gnt 2633 W. Pacific Coast Hwy. 4Q`a1 Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ff N � cov. � December 2, 1985 / o ITl i Planning Department City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658-8915 Dear Sirs: I have just opened the notice sent to me regarding the November 28 meeting. It is post —marked November 22, but somewhere along the way it was held up. So unfortunately I was unable to attend the Study Session. I have been planning to drop you a note anyway, and perhaps this is the time to give you my input. For several years I have paid an annual fee for In Lieu parking, and have been given seven stickers for the seven slots I rent. However, since I don't have a specific seven slots, we have not had seven slots available to us at all times. In addition, the seven stickers don't begin to cover our parking needs. Most of our staff works a four —day week and the rest work five. We have a 24—hour operation, so that is three shifts a day. There is no way I can pick out which seven employees will use the parking, because there is so much uncovered time. The seven slots are fine, because I do not need more than that at a time, but I need for 3 shifts, or 21 per day. In addition, the stickers do just that — stick. What happens when we lose an employee — are we out one space for the rest of the year? Surely not. There is no way to pass the stickers around; the employees do not see each other until after they are parked! I respectfully request that a study be conducted of my parking situation. The clothing business in my building relys heavily on Beachcomber customers, and many walk.. This annual fee is a hardship, and combined with my landlord, it is getting harder and harder to stay in business. If he has his way I will be out in 1989 anyway. Do I have to pay for the whole year even if he does not renew our lease? (He'd like brand new offices only). I have loved working with the City of Newport Beach and have found you to always be fair. Yours truly, Bo Bentley, Proprietor City Council Meeting December 12. 1988 Agenda Item No. F-1(a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the In Lieu Parking Ordinance Request to amend Title 12 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to the City's In Lieu Parking Program. INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, introduce Ordinance No January 9, 1988. Application and set for public hearing on This is a request to amend Section 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code, Commer- cial In Lieu Parking Fees, as suggested by the City Council Off -Street Parking Committee. Background The City Council Off -Street Parking Committee has been discussing a variety of proposals pertaining to revisions to the City's In Lieu Parking Ordinance over the past 18 months. At its Study Session of November 28, 1988, the City Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance based upon the recommendation of the Off -Street Parking Committee, Discussion At the Study Session of November 28, 1988, the City Council directed staff to contact other coastal cities to determine how they have addressed this issue, and to address concerns raised by businessmen in the Central Balboa area and the Peninsula Point Association. Other Cities: The City of San Clemente currently has a program that permits the sale of in lieu spaces for commercial uses, bed and breakfasts, restaurants, and retail uses only. At this time, the cost for each space is a one time fee of $10,000, with revisions proposed that will raise the rate to approximately $14,000. This cost is directly related to the actual cost of land to provide a parking space. The City has procedures for arranging financing TO: City Council - 2. for over two spaces, with interest paid at the rate of 10% per year. Approval of a use permit by the City Council is required. In Laguna Beach, the sale of in lieu parking spaces is limited to the downtown area. The Planning Commission may approve the sale of up to five spaces, and the City Council may approve the sale of any number greater than five spaces. The cost of each space is a one-time fee of $8,500. In Huntington Beach, the in lieu program is administered by the City's Redevelopment Agency, and is treated on a case by case basis as a variance. No specific standards are used, nor is there a set fee. In Seal Beach the program is also limited to the downtown area of Main Street. An applicant may request any number of spaces, and the request is processed as an application for a variance. The annual fee for each space is $100. The Planning Director has indicated that Seal Beach Planning Staff is trying to have the program abolished, primarily as a result of the overselling of spaces and the inability of the City to acquire additional spaces to meet the demand resulting from the sale of too many in lieu spaces. The City of Long Beach is in the process of instituting an in lieu parking program in the Belmont Shores area only. At this time no fees have been established nor have procedures for the sale of the spaces been developed. Peninsula Point Association Concerns: The Peninsula Point Association has suggested that consideration of the revisions be tabled until work commences on the Central Balboa Specific Plan. Inasmuch as the sale of in lieu spaces is a city-wide program, staff is of the opinion that the City Council should go forward with consideration of the revisions at this time. A speaker at the Study Session of November 28, 1988, indicated that Mr. Charlie Bauman had in his possession a plan to increase the number of parking spaces in the Central Balboa area. To date staff has not seen this plan, nor has staff discussed any specific proposals to increase the number of public parking spaces in the area, although there have been several meetings where general concepts were discussed, including the idea of building a subterranean parking garage at the Balboa Pier. Central Balboa Businesses Concerns: The owner of Bubbles Balboa has indicated that many of the smaller busi- nesses in the Central Balboa area cannot pay any higher rate and remain in business. It is important to note that virtually all of the current users of the program were put on notice within the Conditions of Approval of their Use Permits that the fees were to be raised. Staff has also met with the owners of several of the small businesses in Central Balboa and indicated that the procedures for amending their Use Permits were available to them, TO: City Council - 3. if they desired to have a Condition of Approval changed or deleted. To date, staff has not received any applications to amend a Use Permit Condi- tion of Approval pertaining to in lieu parking spaces. Bubbles Balboa was required by the Coastal Commission to pay a higher in lieu fee as a condition of the Coastal Development Permit. At this time a fee of approximately $310 per space is required. This means that Bubbles will not be subject to the revised fees until 1991. It is important to recognize that the majority of the businesses currently benefitting from the program were put on notice at the time their use permit applications were approved that the rate would be increasing at some time in the future. These businesses have been granted approval to operate without having to provide the required amount of off-street parking. At this time a parking space in the Central Balboa area can cost as much as $19,500, assuming that 300 square feet of land is necessary at $65 per square foot for a parking space. By raising the annual $150 per space fee by $75 per year for the next five years as suggested, the businesses are still paying a small fraction of the actual cost of providing a parking space. The current and proposed rate structure is in fact a parking subsidy for these busi- nesses. Analysis The Off -Street Parking Committee considered several alternatives to the In Lieu program, including establishing a fee that was equal to the cost of actually purchasing land and providing additional public parking spaces. After considerable discussion it was determined that it was unlikely that the City would pursue the acquisition of more land for public parking lots. It was therefore determined that the appropriate course of action was to raise the rate $75 each year for five years, and every year thereafter raise the rate commensurate with the Consumers Price Index, with the fees col- lected to be used to improve public parking or transportation services or other public facilities. The following describes the major points of the proposed revisions to the In Lieu Fees Ordinance: 1. Discontinue the sale of any new in lieu parking spaces as of the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Raise the fees for the existing users of the program $75 per year as follows: a) 1989: $225 b) 1990: $300 c) 1991: $375 d) 1992: $450 e) 1993: $525 0 TO: City Council - 4. 3. At the sixth year, 1994, the fees shall be increased annually commen- surate with the annual increase in the Consumers Price Index. 4. All fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used for purposes of improving public parking or transportation services, or other public facilities Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By CHRIS GUSTIN Senior Planner CG:WP:CCSR12 �, /-?-67 61�. t4_) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 30, 1988 TO: Chris Gustin FROM: J. D. Hewicker SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the In Lieu Parking Ordinance At the City Council Study Session on November 28, 1988, the staff was directed to prepare an ordinance implementing the recommendations of the Off -Street Parking Committee as it pertains to the City's in lieu parking regulations. Bob Wynn has further directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare the proposed ordinance. Whether that ordinance is prepared by the City Attorney or by the Planning Department, I will leave that up to you to work it out with Bob Burnham. In the report which will accompany the ordinance I think we should respond to some issues which were raised at the Study Session. Specifically I believe there are four points which need to be covered. In each case I believe we already have the information and we may have given it to the City Council in past reports. 1. What do other coastal cities do in terms of providing parking in the beach front areas, and what do they charge? 2. It has been suggested by the Peninsula Point Association that no action be taken at the present time and that this issue be addressed as part of the specific area plan for Central Balboa. My preference would be to address the issue now inasmuch as it affects other parts of the City such as Corona del Mar, the area around City Hall, etc. Is there a way we can identify this as a city-wide issue and not just as a Central Balboa issue? 3. Doug Cavanaugh has made an issue of the fact that businesses in Central Balboa seem to be on the downgrade and that the smaller businessmen cannot afford to pay the higher rates which the Committee has recommended. I feel that he is really speaking only for himself and I feel we need to point out that as a condition of his coastal permit, already he is required to pay a higher fee. I don't recall specifically what the fee is but if it is $225, he would already be paying the first year's increase so I don't 'know where the beef is. 4. I have been lead to believe that Charlie Bauman has submitted a plan to the City which provides a greater number of parking spaces than currently exist. I don't know what this has to do with the fee structure but if such a plan exists, perhaps we should dig it out and talk about it. JDH/kk INLIEU.ORD City Council Meeting November 28,1988 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OFF-STREET PARKING COMMITTEE SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE IN LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE Background The Off -Street Parking Committee has been discussing various alternatives to the City's In -lieu Parking Ordinance (Section 12.44.125) for the last 18 months. The following represents a summary of the alternatives discussed and analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each: Option 1. Abolish the program altogether. Advantages: The current fee of $150/space per year is essentially a subsidy to existing users in the form of parking at a cost significantly lower than the actual cost of providing parking. Those businesses that provide all of their required off-street parking do not receive the benefits of this subsidy, therefore an inequitable situation has been created by the City. The program has been used primarily to intensify the use of legal nonconforming buildings that do not provide the required amount of parking, and has created additional demand for the available parking spaces without increasing the number of spaces. Abolition of the program will not only terminate the inequities caused by the subsidy, but will also result in a reduction in the future demand on the limited parking resources by eliminating the potential for intensification of use without providing additional parking spaces. Disadvantages: There is some economic incentive for a property owner to convert an existing nonconforming building to a more intensive use such as a restaurant with the existing in lieu program available to provide all of the required parking at a cost that is significantly lower than the actual cost of providing those spaces. Given the high cost of land and buildings in the City, without some form of subsidized parking it is likely that there will be less intensification of legal non -conforming buildings in the older areas if property owners face the prospect of having to buy additional land to provide the required amount of off-street parking. Option 2. Raise the in lieu fees to fair market value. This option would establish the cost of an in lieu space at a level that is commensurate with the actual cost of providing a space. For example, if the cost of land on the peninsula is $65 per square foot and approximately 300 square feet of land is necessary to provide a parking space, the cost of creating that new parking space is approximately $19,500. This then becomes the cost of an in lieu parking space. Advantages: The City would generate sufficient funds to actually provide additional public parking, alleviating at least a portion of the existing and future deficiencies. Development on non -economic grounds will be inhibited. Development of higher intensity uses would be facilitated, increasing the sales tax revenue to the City. The overall quality of the older areas of the City would improve as a result of the redevelopment of older legal nonconforming buildings. The City's in lieu program would be more consistent with other beach cities. Disadvantages: There would be a significant financial hardship placed on the small user, which would probably force many out of business. It would force the City into purchasing additional public parking, which would be acceptable to the business community but may be considered undesirable by the residents. Option 3 Raise the in lieu fees for new participants in the program to fair market value and adjust the rate for existing users to a rate which is something less than fair market value. Under this option all new participants in the program would be required to pay full fair market value for each space, with the existing users paying a percentage of the full value. Advantages: The advantages of this option are essentially the same as those listed under Option 2. Disadvantages: A form of subsidy would still exist for the current users, inasmuch as they would not be paying fair market value for each space. Insufficient funds would be generated by the existing users to purchase additional public parking. Recommended Action Based on extensive discussions of the these three options with property owners and current participants in the existing program, the Off Street Parking Committee suggests that the following program be adopted as the basis for the in lieu parking program: 1. Discontinue the sale of additional in lieu spaces as of the effective date of adoption of the revised ordinance. 2. For all of the current participants in the existing program, the in lieu fees will be raised pursuant to the following schedule: a. The fees will be raised $75 each year for the first five years, as follows: current fee: $150 year 1: 225 year 2: 300 year 3: 375 year 4: 450 year 5: 525 b. At the sixth year from the date of adoption of the revised ordinance, the fees will be increased annually commensurate with the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, commencing with the sixth year after adoption. For example, should the C.P.I. increase in the sixth year be 5%, the base fee of $525 would be increased by 5% to $551.25. 3. All fees collected pursuant to this ordinance would be used only for purposes of improving public parking or transportation services, or other public facilities. Respectfully submitted, Ruthelyn Plummer Clarence J. Turner FILE: REVNL00: November 18, 1988 12.44.125-12.44.150 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC when affixed to the front windshield of the vehicle within a 7-inch square in the lower corner farthest removed from the driver's position. (Ord. 84-21 § 12.44.125 Commercial in Lieu Parking Fees. A. PERMIT REQUIRED. In lieu of providing the required off-street parking on -site pursuant to Section 20.30.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, a commercial business may provide all or a portion of its required commercial off-street parking in a municipal fee -owned lot by paying an annual fee of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) per parking space. Said municipal parking lot must be so located within reasonable proximity to the commercial business -as to be useful to said business. B. EXISTING USES. The requirements set forth in subsection A above shall not apply to those business establishments already in existence on the effective date of this ordinance; said businesses may be continued or changed to a use of the same or a more restricted nature without compliance with said requirements, provided that said use or building is not enlarged or extended to occupy a greater area than that occupied by such building or use on the effective date of•this ordinance; and further provided that said businesses shall continue to be subject to- the parking requirements under which they were established; and shall continue to pay the parking fees as required pursuant to. Section 12.44.120 of•the Newport Beach Municipal Code, where such fees are applicable. (Ord' IS78 § 1, 1974 Ord. 1433 § 1, 12.44.130 Use of Slugs Prohibited. No person shall deposit in any parking meter any slug, device or other substitute for lawful coin of the United States. (Ord. 850, 1958: 1949 Code § 3291.8). 12.44.140 Tampering with Parking Meters. No person, except an agent or employee of the City in the course of his agency or employment, shall deface, injure, tamper with, open, or wilfully break, destroy or impair the usefulness of any parking meter. (Ord. 850, 1958: 1949 Code § 3291.9). 12.44.150 Prohibited Parking. A. CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATION. The City Council shall by resolution designate streets or portions of streets on wluch the parking or standing of vehicles is to be prohibited, and shall designate in the resolution the days of the week and the exact hours during which such prohibition shall be in effect. B. SIGNS. The City Traffic Engineer shall place and maintain signs " giving notice of such prohibition. C. COMPLIANCE REQUIRED. When signs authorized by the provisions of this section are in place giving notice of the parking prohibition, no person shall park or stand any vehicle contrary to the directions and provisions of such signs. (Ord. 1085, 1964: 1949 Code § 3292.1). (Newport Beach 3.85) 232 lih R T0: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OFF-STREET PARKING COMMITTEE SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE IN LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE Back rg ound The Off -Street Parking Committee has been discussing'various alternatives to the City's In -lieu Parking Ordinance (Section 12.44.125) .for the last 18 months. The following represents a summary of the alternatives discussed and analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each: Ottion 1. Abolish the program altogether. Advantages: The current fee of $150/space per year is essentially a subsidy to existing users in the form of parking at a cost significantly lower than the actual cost of providing parking. Those businesses that provide all of their required off-street parking do not receive the benefits of this subsidy, therefore an inequitable situation has been created by the City. The program has been used primarily to intensify the use of legal nonconforming buildings that do not provide the required amount of parking, and has created additional demand for the available parking spaces without increasing the number of spaces. Abolition of the program will not only terminate the inequities caused by the subsidy, but will also result in a reduction in the future demand on the limited parking resources by eliminating the potential for intensification of use without providing additional parking spaces. Disadvantages: There is some economic incentive for a property owner to convert an existing nonconforming building to a more intensive use such as a restaurant with the existing in lieu program available to provide all of the required parking at a cost that is significantly lower than the actual cost of providing those spaces. Given the high cost of land and buildings in the City, without some form of subsidized parking it is likely that there will be less intensification of legal non -conforming buildings in the older areas if property owners face the prospect of having to buy additional land to provide the required amount of off-street parking. Option 2. Raise the in lieu fees to fair market value. This option would establish the cost of an in lieu space at a level that is commensurate with the actual cost of providing a space. For example, if the cost of land on the peninsula is $65 per square foot and approximately 300 square feet of land is necessary to provide a parking space, the cost of creating that new parking space is approximately $19,500. This then becomes the cost of an in lieu parking space. Advantages: The`City would generate sufficient funds to actually provide additional public parking, Alleviating at: least a portion of the existing and future deficiencies. Development on non -economic grounds will be inhibited. Development of higher intensity uses would be facilitated, increasing the.sales tax revenue to the City. The overall quality of the older areas of the City would improve as a result of the redevelopment of older legal nonconforming'buildings. The City's in lieu program would be more consistent with other beach cities. Disadvantages: There would be a significant financial hardship placed on the small user, which would probably force many out of business. It would force the City into purchasing additional public parking, which would be acceptable to the business community but may be considered undesirable by the residents. Option 3. Raise the in lieu fees for new participants in the program to fair market value, and adjust the rate for existing users to a rate which is something less than fair market value. Under this option all new participants in the program would be required to pay full fair market value for each space, with the existing users paying a percentage of the full value. Advantages: The advantages of this option are essentially the same as those listed under Option 2. Disadvantages: A form of subsidy would still exist for the current users, inasmuch as they would not be paying fair market value for each space. Insufficient funds would be generated by the existing users to purchase additional public parking. Recommended Action Based on extensive discussions of the these three options with property owners and current participants in the existing program, the Off Street I A, Parking Committee suggests that the following program be adopted as the -basis for the in lieu parking program: 1. Discontinue the sale of additional in lieu spaces as of the effective date of adoption of the revised ordinance. • 2. For all of the current participants in the existing program, the in lieu fees will be raised pursuant to the following schedule: a. The fees will be raised $75 each year for the first five years, as follows: current fee: $150 year 1: 225 year 2: 300 year 3: 375 year 4: 450 year 5: 525 b. At the sixth year from the date of adoption of the revised ordinance, the fees will be increased annually commensurate with the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, commencing with the sixth year after adoption. For example, should the C.P.I. increase in the sixth year be 5%, the base fee of $525 would be increased by 58 to $551.25. 3. All fees collected pursuant to this ordinance would be used only for purposes of improving public parking or transportation services, or other public facilities. Respectfully submitted, Ruthelyn Plummer Clarence J. Turner FILE: REVNL00: September 19, 1988 0/4-� PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 18, 1988 TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Agenda Item for City Council Study Session 'November 28 1988 1. Report from the Off -Street Parking Committee regarding proposed revisions to the IN LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE. (Copy attached) tng1an HEWICKER, Director JDH/k COUNCIL\11-28-88.ss CC: City Attorney J� �� r ,}! O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 18, 1988 TO: City Clerk FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Agenda Items for City Council Meeting of November 28: 1988 F. CONSENT CALENDAR: I. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: Schedule for public hearing on December 12, 1988: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 SO AS TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO GRANNY UNITS ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (Planning Commission Amendment No. 670) Report from the Planning Department. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: (a) Report to the City Manager regarding ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 9. 1988. (Copy attached) 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - Set for public hearing on December 12, 1988: (a) AMENDMENT N0. 672 - A request of ROBERT W. FORSTROM, Balboa, to amend the BLOCK 400 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN so as to establish restaurants as a permitted use within AREA ONE of the Planned Community, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Property bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Nicolas Drive, Newport Center. Report from the Planning Department. TO: City Clerk - 2. F. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 11. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 88-2 - Sustain the recommen- dation of the Planning Commission and initiate amendments to the General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan as follows: (a) Request of Piero Serra to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for property in the McFadden Square area from residential to commercial in order to allow the expansion of L the Portafino Hotel. The proposal will also require an amendment to the LCP Land Use Plan. (b) Request of Toyota Motor Sales to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the Toyota facility located at 2800 Jamboree Road (Area 1 of the North Ford Planned Community). The proposal consists of increasing the total allowable development on site by 24,150 square feet. (c) Housing Element Update to comply with State law. (d) Public Safety Element Update to make consistent with recent changes in State law. Report from the Planning Department. AME D. HEWICKER, ng Director JDH/k COUNCIL\11-28-88.AGD cc: City Attorney L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 2, 1988 TO: City Clerk FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Agenda Items for City Council Meeting - December 12, 1988 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public hearing regarding Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88-46, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 SO AS TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS PERTAINING O TO GRANNY UNITS ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH / (Planning Commission Amendment No. 670) Y�^I ,,^ 0 Report from the Planning Department. Action: Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, 1 P adopt Ordinance No. 88-46, establishing regulations pertaining to Granny Units 2, on residential lots in the City of New- port Beach. rk VL 2. Public hearing regarding AMENDMENT NO.•672, a request of'ROtERT W. FORSTROM, Balboa, to amend the BLOCK 400 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN so as to establish restaurants as a permitted use within AREA ONE of the Planned Community, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Property bounded by Newport Center Drive, San Miguel Drive, Avocado Avenue and San Nicolas Drive, G�L Newport Center. a Report from the Planning Department. Action: Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, adopt Resolution No. , amending the BLOCK 400 PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOP- MENT PLAN so as to establish restaurants as a permitted use within AREA ONE of the Planned Community, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. TO: City Clerk - 2. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued): 3. Public hearing and City Council review of USE PERMIT N0. 3330, approved by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1988, being a y request of UMBERTO AUTORE, Huntington Beach, to permit the GN expansion of existing living rooms in two dwelling units of a JGQ nonconforming fourplex on property located at 2204 West Ocean 1 Front between 22nd Street and 23rd Street n the Balboa Penin- sula; zoned ZP-6. Report from the Planning Department. Action: Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: Pass to second reading on January 9, 1989. C� (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. , being, (Note to Clerk: This in lieu parking ordinance will be submitted by the City Attorney) Report from the Planning Department. 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (a) Approve modification of the Subagent Agreement entered into At& by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and NEWPORT-COSTA C�QP, MESA YMCA with reference to the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 1� AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) funds. (Report from the Planning Department) 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: (a) Copy of the AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING .yam COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 8. 1988. (Attached) eeeS D. HEWICKER JDH/k lanDirector AGD12.12. cc: City Attorney City Council Meeting November 28,1988 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: OFF-STREET PARKING COMMITTEE SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE IN LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE Background The Off -Street Parking Committee has been discussing various alternatives to the City's In -lieu Parking Ordinance (Section 12.44.125) for the last 18 months. The following represents a summary of the alternatives discussed and analyzed and the advantages and disadvantages of each: Option 1 Abolish the program altogether. Advantages: The current fee of $150/space per year is essentially a subsidy to existing users in the form of parking at a cost significantly lower than the actual cost of providing parking. Those businesses that provide all of their required off-street parking do not receive the benefits of this subsidy, therefore an inequitable situation has been created by the City. The program has been used primarily to intensify the use of legal nonconforming buildings that do not provide the required amount of parking, and has created additional demand for the available parking spaces without increasing the number of spaces. Abolition of the program will not only terminate the inequities caused by the subsidy, but will also result in a •reduction in the future demand on the limited parking resources by eliminating the potential for intensification of use without providing additional parking spaces. Disadvantages: There is some economic incentive for a property owner to convert an existing nonconforming building to a more intensive use such as a restaurant with the existing in lieu program available to provide all of the required parking at a cost that is significantly lower than the actual cost of providing those spaces. Given the high cost of land and buildings in the City, without some form of subsidized parking it is likely that there will be less intensification of legal non -conforming buildings in the older areas if property owners face the prospect of having to buy additional land to provide the required amount of off-street parking. Option 2. Raise the in lieu fees to fair market value. This option would establish the cost of an in lieu space at a level that is commensurate with the actual cost of providing a space. For example, if the cost of land on the peninsula is $65 per square foot and approximately 300 square feet of land is necessary to provide a parking space, the cost of creating that new parking space is approximately $19,500. This then becomes the cost of an in lieu parking space. Advantages: The City would generate sufficient funds to actually provide additional public parking, alleviating at least a portion of the existing and future deficiencies. Development on non -economic grounds will be inhibited. Development of higher intensity uses would be facilitated, increasing the sales tax revenue to the City. The overall quality of the older areas of the City would improve as a result of the redevelopment of older legal nonconforming buildings. The City's in lieu program would be more consistent with other beach cities. Disadvantages: There would be a significant financial hardship placed on the small user, which would probably force many out of business. It would force the City into purchasing additional public parking, which would be acceptable to the business community but may be considered undesirable by the residents. Option 3 Raise the in lieu fees for new participants in the program to fair market value and adjust the rate for existing users to a rate which is something less than fair market value. Under this option all new participants in the program would be required to pay full fair market value for each space, with the existing users paying a percentage of the full value. Advantages: The advantages of this option are essentially the same as those listed under Option 2. Disadvantages: A form of subsidy would still exist for the current users, inasmuch as they would not be paying fair market value for each space. Insufficient funds would be generated by the existing users to purchase additional public parking. Recommended Action Based on extensive discussions of the these three options with property owners and current participants in the existing program, the Off Street Parking Committee suggests that the following program be adopted as the basis for the in lieu parking program: 1. Discontinue the sale of additional in lieu spaces as of the effective date of adoption of the revised ordinance. 2. For all of the current participants in the existing program, the in lieu fees will be raised pursuant to the following schedule: a. The fees will be raised $75 each year for the first five years, as follows: current fee: $150 year 1: 225 year 2: 300 year 3: 375 year 4: 450 year 5: 525 b. At the sixth year from the date of adoption of the revised ordinance, the fees will be increased annually commensurate with the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, commencing with the sixth year after adoption. For example, should the C.P.I. increase in the sixth year be 5%, the base fee of $525 would be increased by 58 to $551.25. 3. All fees collected pursuant to this ordinance would be used only for purposes of improving public parking or transportation services, or other public facilities. FILE: REVNL00: November 18, 1988 31 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 29, 1988 TO: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: PREPARATION OF ORDINANCE Please prepare an ordinance that implements the recommendations as contained on Page 3 of the attached report. This ordinance is to be -placed on the Council agenda of December 12th for first'reading and modifies Section 12.44.125 of the Municipal Code. - By copy of this memo I am requesting Jim Hewicker to prepare a cover letter for the ordinance specifically listing the fees in neighboring beach cities. ROB ERT L. IN RLW:kf P e� Sf@CC cc: J. Hewicker , w/ PC. ] litL7 yN� 0-2_- _ s poo J, TM .t' 6-{-C 0 /� ' Y1 ORDINANCE N0. -�! AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 12.44.125, COMMERCIAL IN LIEU PARKING FEES. WHEREAS, Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code current- ly provides for the sale of Commercial in Lieu Parking Permits at an annual fee of $150 per space; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach City Council Off -Street Parking Committee has discussed a wide variety of alternatives to the existing program and recommended the Council revise the current program WHEREAS, the current annual fee of $150 per space is significantly less than the actual cost of providing an off-street parking space; and WHEREAS, it is not feasible to raise the cost of an in lieu parking space to an amount that would generate sufficient funds to purchase addi- tional land to create new public parking lots; and WHEREAS, even if sufficient funds were to be generated through the sale of in lieu parking spaces to provide additional public parking, it is unlikely that adequate land could be purchased to construct parking lots with sufficient capacity to alleviate the existing shortage of parking; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to raise the cost of an in lieu parking space so as to generate additional revenues that would be used solely for the purposes of improving public parking, transportation facili- ties or other public facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to not issue new in lieu parking permits. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 12.44.125 Commercial in Lieu Parking Fees. A: -PERMIT -REQUIRED. -En -lieu of- providing- -the --required -off -street-parking- on-site-pursuant--t -Section 20.30.030 - of- -tgie -Newport- Zeechr-Hunleipal - Code , - -a - eemmereial - business- -may provide -all -er- a- portion- of- iris- -r-egt bred- -conmter-oisl-of-f--street-par-king -in -a munielpal-€ee-owned-let-by-paying-an-annual-€ee-o€-One-Hundred-Fifty-Dollars ($150} - per--par4i-ng - spaee -. - - -Said -munieipal- parking- -lot -must - be- -so--loeated within - reas enable- proxiimi-t-y -to -the- commerele-1- bus-iiiess -as - to- be- -useful -to said: -business: B: -EXISTING--USES: -The--requirements- set--€orth- in--subseetion - A- -above shall-not-apply-to-those-business-establishments-already-4n-existenee-on-the e€€eetive-dote•-ef--this - ordinance;--said--businesses - -may - be— -eontinued--or ehanged-to-a-use-o€-the-same-or-a-more-restrietive-nature-without-eomplianee with -said- requirements ;-prov-ided•-that -said-use-or-building -is-not-enlarged or -extended- to - eeeupy- a- greater- area the -that oeeupied -by -sueh -building -or use -ea- the -e€feetive- date- of- -th-is-ordiiianoee;- -and -f-ur-ther---provided-that-said businesses - shall- oontiime- -to -be- sub ject- -to -the - parking- -requi-repent-s- -under whieh -they-were- est-sb-lished-;- -and -shall-eeatinue- to- fay -tire -par-ki-ng -fees- -as required -pursuant -te-Seetien-i2:44.120-of- -the-Vewpo-r-t -Beach -Munic€pal-Gode; where-sueh-€ees-are-applieable.- A. As of the effective date of this ordinance, there shall be no new in lieu parking spaces sold. - 1 - ,, 7 B. Permits in effect as of the date of this ordinance may be reissued subject to the following: 1. Permits for the years 1989 through 1993 may be issued upon payment of the following annual fees: 1989: $225 1992: $450 1990: $300 1993: $525 1991: $375 2. In 1994 and each year thereafter, the fee for each in lieu parking space shall be changed to reflect the increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index during the previous year. The new fee shall be equal to the fee for the previous year (base fee) adjusted by an amount equal to the percentage increase or decrease in the CPI multiplied by the base fee. 3. All fees collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be used for purposes of improving public parking, transportation services, or other public facilities. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 9th day of January, 1988, and was adopted on the day of , 1989, by the following vote, to wit: ATTEST: CITY CLERK CC:WP:ORD1244 AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS - 2 - July 13, 1988 TO: OFF STREET PARKING COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM The information presented herein is a compilation of previously distributed information. The initial discussion outlines several policy questions that should be addressed prior to embarking on any course of action. The second part of this memo contains a brief analysis of the current use of the "in-lieu"program. In closing, other related issues such as aesthetics and the impact of meters in commercial districts adjacent to residential districs are presented in a very cursory discussion. POLICY ALTERNATIVES The primary issues to be resolved in order to formulate and implement policies pertaining to the "in -lieu" parking fee program are as follows: 1. Is it the desire of the City Council to provide additional public parking for those commercial areas where there is an existing and future shortage of available parking? 2. Is it the desire of the City Council to provide additional public parking to support the expansion of commercial business activity through the sale of "in -lieu" parking spaces? 3. Is it the desire of the City Council to provide additional parking for the beach users? 4. Is it the desire of the City Council to provide sufficient new public parking to meet the existing deficiencies in commercial areas, to provide additional spaces that could be sold through the "in -lieu" program to support or promote the expansion of commercial opportunities, and to provide for additional beach parking? 5. Is it the desire of the City Council to repeal the "in -lieu" program and require all new businesses to provide adequate off-street parking for the new use per the Municipal Code? 6. Is it the desire of the City Council to implement a program of waiving the required parking in conjunction with the establishment of a new commercial use on the basis that providing additional parking is a disincentive to business due to it's high cost? 7. Is the City Council willing to allocate a large amount of money for purposes of providing additional public parking in commercial districts without the concern of reimbursement? In those areas of the City where there is a definite shortage of public parking such as Mariner's Mile, Corona del Mar, Central Balboa, and the Cannery Village/McFadden Square areas, the "in -lieu" program can be used to generate funds to purchase land and construct public parking facilities. However, with the high cost of land and the lack of available sites in these areas, the cost per space can be approximately $20,000 ($65.00/sq.ft.x 300 sq.ft.—$19,500 + paving, striping, maintenance, and insurance). This indicates that the rates would have to raised dramatically, or the City would have to "subsidize" commercial uses through parking costs that were less than the actual cost of providing the space. CURRENT USE OF IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM Twenty-nine use permits have been approved with a condition of approval providing that all or a part of the off-street parking required for the proposed use be satisfied through the payment of "in -lieu" fees. As of February, 1987, a total of 342 parking spaces have been provided through the payment of an annual fee of between $35.00 (Balboa Inn) and $150.00. Of these 29 businesses and 342 parking spaces, restaurants and hotel uses account for 27 (93%) of the use permits and 326 (95%) of the parking spaces. A cusory review of the buildings and uses which utilize the "in -lieu" program indicate that there are two primary situations where this program is permitted: the conversion of an existing building with little or no on -site parking to a higher intensity use, and the construction of a new building or the expansion of an existing building or use where the fees are based upon the increased area only. For those buildings or uses that have been converted to a use of higher intensity, 261 spaces (76%) have been provided through the payment od fees. For new construction or the addition of new area to an existing use, 81 spaces (24%) are provided through the payment of fees. Regarding the spatial distribution of the buildings or uses where the "in - lieu" program is utilized, it is apparent that the majority of instances of the use of this program is on the Balboa Peninsula. The following chart sets forth the general distribution of the program: 1. Central Balboa: 12 locations; 221 spaces 2. McFadden Square: 9 locations; 67 spaces 3. Mariner's Mile: 2 locations; 18 spaces 4. Corona del Mar: 2 locations; 15 spaces 5. Old Newport: 2 locations; 11 spaces 6. Cannery Village: 2 locations; 10 spaces Totals: 29 locations; 342 spaces According to this chart, there is an existing deficiency of 221 parking spaces in the Central Balboa area to support the approved uses on 12 commercial sites. In McFadden Square, nine commercial uses account for a deficiency of 67 spaces. In these two areas alone, the City has approved through the use permit process 21 businesses with a combined shortage of 288 parking spaces. Carrying this analysis one step further to address the use of "in -lieu" parking for either the expansion or conversion of existing buildings or uses, in the Central Balboa area 196 spaces were permitted to facilitate the conversion of 11 existing nonconforming buildings to a higher intensity use, and 25 spaces were permitted to satisfy the expansion of one existing nonconforming use. In the McFadden Square area 50 "in -lieu" spaces were used to permit the conversion to a higher intensity use at six sites, and 17 spaces were permitted to be used to satisfy the parking requirement for the expansion of nonconforming uses at three sites. RELATED ISSUES If it is the desire of the City Council to provide additional public parking to satisfy existing deficiencies, land could be purchased and a facility constructed, with funds currently in the Off -Street Parking Fund used as a "down payment", and future meter revenues used to recoup the City's investment. If it is the desire of the City Council to provide additional public parking to support the expansion of commercial activity and to satisfy the existing deficiency, it will be necessary to construct larger facilities. This means that larger sites would have to be assembled and/or structures would have to be built. There are also aesthetic considerations that must be addressed. Surface parking lots, with the vast areas of black asphalt, are unattractive. In order to soften the visual impact of surface parking lots, extensive landscaping can be used. However this also serves to reduce the efficiency of parking, which adds to the cost per space. Multi -story parking structures increase the overall parking efficiency of a parcel, but are generally large, rectangular buildings with little or no visual relief. This is an important consideration, particularly in the areas near the water where tall, massive buildings and/or expanses of asphalt contrast dramatically with the bay and beaches. Parking facilities that provide space oriented toward the beach visitor may be underutilized during the majority of the year, thereby increasing the cost per space due to the reduced revenue from meters during non -peak season and inclement weather. PARKING METERS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS A related concern to the issue of locating public parking facilities is installing parking meters in commercial areas and the impact on adjoining residential districts where there are no meters. As meters are installed and or fee parking lots are established, those parkers accustomed to free on - street parking will generally try to park somewhere within a reasonable walking distance to avoid having to pay to park. This is more likely to occur in those cases where the parker is in the lower pay ranges (boat /industrial workers in Cannery Village & retail employees in Lido Village), and any cost involved with parking a vehicle has a greater financial impact on that individual. It is estimated that 276 new metered on -street parking spaces will be created in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area. The Off -Street Parking Committee has previously reviewed the recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department Staff regarding the meter rates in the area. We are of the opinion that the rates should be no mare than $.25 per hour in the Cannery Villlage industrial and commercial areas to reduce the potential for the parkers to use the Lido Isle or Ocean front residential areas where there are no parking restrictions. Should this become a problem, the Parking Management Plan recommends that some form of residen- tial permit parking program be developed. Staff suggests that this program be entirely different from the "blue meter" program. Regarding the "blue meter" parking permit program, it is suggested that these meters be limited to the lowest demand areas ( and generally the farthest away) in the commercial areas. By raising the meter rates in the McFadden Square area as previously discussed and eliminating the "blue meters" from the Ocean Front parking lot, significant additional revenues should be generated. These additional funds can and should be used to assist in the acquisition of additional public parking facilities in the area. CURRENT CITY POLICY PERTAINING TO PARKING FOR NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES In the Zoning Code, Section 20.30.030B., Nonconforming Uses, establishes the regulations controlling parking requirements for nonconforming buildings and uses. Subsection B.1, Existing Structures and Uses, states that an existing building or use may be continued or changed to a use requiring the same or less on -site parking without having to provide parking as required by the base zoning district. Subsection B.2, Remodeling, Repairs, or Alterations, states that any nonconforming building may be repaired, altered, or remodeled without complying with the parking requirements. Subsection B.3, Enlargement, requires that any nonconforming building or use that is enlarged by more than ten -percent (10%) of it's original gross area in any one year period, the property on which it is located shall be made to comply with the current parking requirements unless waived or otherwise reduced by approval of a use permit. When the enlargement is less than 10% of it's original gross area, the parking required shall be based upon the added gross area only. Subsections BAW have been interpreted to permit the granting of a "credit" for the existing uses under the premise that another commercial use could occupy the building without providing the required amount of parking. This is how establishments such as "Bubbles Balboa" operate without a single parking space or "in -lieu" contribution. "The Dorymen's Inn", with it's 10 hotel rooms, and "The Rex" restaurant has a requirement of 12 "in -lieu" spaces, even though there is a significant amount of "net public area" and this is definitely a "destination" restaurant. Perhaps the City Council may also wish to consider amending this Section of the Code. CG/WP/INLIEU July 13, 1988 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES The following provides four alternatives to the In Lieu Ordinance as it currently exists and as set forth in the proposed revised Ordinance. 1. Maintain the ordinance in its current status, which provides for an annual payment of $150.00 per year for any new business as a matter of right with no discretionary review. 2. Adopt the revised Ordinance, as proposed. The fee structure set forth in Section F would work as follows in the Cannery Village area: Appraised value of land: $65/sq.ft. Estimated amount of land: 1 space @ 300 sq.ft. Estimated cost of In Lieu space: $65 x 300 sq.ft. ® $19,500 10% annual fee— $1950 2. Adopt the revised ordinance with a reduced cost (proposed Section F). For example, the proposed Section F provides for the applicant to pay what amounts to fair market value for sufficient land to provide the required amount of off-street parking. Alternatives to this standard could provide for a payment of 50% of the fair market value of the land as opposed to the full value. 50% of $19,500/space — $9,750 Annual fee: 10% of $9750 a $975 3. Provide for some increase in the fees that is more than the current rate of $150 per year, but less than either what is proposed in the revised Ordinance or as proposed in Option 2 above. For example, this could be in the neighborhood of between $500 and $1,000 per year. 4. The last option provides for the abolition of the program altogether, with no new or additional In Lieu spaces sold. It is recommended that should this option be considered, that the current users be required to continue paying the annual fee of $150 per year so long as the use which required the purchase of the In lieu spaces exists on the property. CG:WP:NLOPTNS1:July 13, 1988 July 13, 1988 TO: OFF STREET PARKING COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM Staff was directed by the Off -Street Parking Committee to prepare a list of the "pro's and cons" of the various options available pertaining to the "in -lieu" parking fee program which were presented in a Planning Department memo dated August 6, 1987. Those alternatives have been grouped together into two categories. These categories are essentially whether the City continues with the "in -lieu" program or terminates it. POLICY ALTERNATIVES CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRAM 1. The City Council shall embark upon a course of action that will utilize the "in -lieu" program to provide additional public parking for the older commercial areas of the City where there is an existing and future shortage of available parking. 2. The City Council shall provide additional public parking to support the expansion of commercial business activity through the sale of "in -lieu" parking spaces. Advantages: 1. The "in -lieu" program provides the opportunity to re -use an existing legal nonconforming building by allowing the conversion to a higher intensity use without the property owner having to demolish all or a portion of the building to provide the additional parking required by the new use. 2. From an aesthetic standpoint the "in -lieu" program will allow all or a part of the existing buildings with their "charm and appeal" to be more productive, with all or a portion of the required parking provided in a central location. This also facilitates the enhancement of the pedestrian orientation of an area, particularly the older areas of the City. This will also reduce the "cruising" for parking space, the use of a private parking by the patrons of another business, and excess vehicular traffic. 3. An additional pool of non-exclusive parking is created that becomes available at other times during the day. For example, should the program permit only the use of "in -lieu" spaces at night for a restaurant and the fees paid were used to acquire a parking lot, the metered lot would be available 24 hrs. a day, with the restaurant only needing those spaces for a limited time in the evening. This would also justify a rate structure based upon a percentage of the actual cost of a parking space because of the limited time period and the non-exclusive use. 4. Some additional public parking is better than some private parking. 5. Meter revenues and "in -lieu" fees from the area can be used to service the debt for the acquisition of additional land without using money from the general fund. 6. A pool of public parking is created for all residents and visitors to use. Disadvantages: A. Parking should be provided on -site so that each business accommodates its patrons without the community having to bear the burden of the additional vehicles and traffic. B. Large parking lots are ugly. C. The City would be encouraging the demolition of the older buildings, and encouraging the construction of new structures with all of the required parking on -site. ABANDON THE "IN -LIEU" PROGRAM 1. The City Council should repeal the "in -lieu" program and require all new businesses to provide the required amount of parking on -site. Advantages: 1. Reduction in administration costs (i.e. Planning and Finance Staff and paperwork). 2. All required parking is provided on -site. 3. Legal non -conforming buildings are demolished instead of recycled, or at least some are to provide the required amount of parking. 4. There would be no need for the City to devote time and money towards providing additional public parking. 5. Without the "in -lieu" program or a similar alternative, perhaps there would be less of a chance that the older buildings would be converted to more intensive uses. Disadvantages: 1. Given the high cost of land and buildings, without the program it is possible that the area will decline rapidly if it is no longer financially feasible to convert to a higher intensity use. 2. It is likely that there would be no new public parking provided. 3. CG/WP/nluoptns:July 13, 1988 ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT REVISED IN LIEU ORDINANCE In order to determine the direction of the revised in lieu ordinance, the following list provides a series of alternatives for the various sections. 1. Locations Restricted. The proposed revised Ordinance would permit the use of this program on the Peninsula, Old Corona del Mar, and in Mariners Mile only. As an alternative, the revised Ordinance could permit the use of this program in other areas of the City. 2. Distance Standard. The proposed Ordinance would limit the distance from a Municipal lot to 350 feet from the development site. Alternatives; a. Do not have a distance standard, allowing the Planning Commission or City Council the flexibility to determine on a case by case basis the appropriate distance. b. Increase the distance to 500 feet, for example. c. Decrease the distance to 150 feet, for example. d. Provide for approval of deviation from the prescribed distance standard by simple majority rather than four -fifths vote. 3. Businesses Currently Using the In Lieu Fee Program. Alternatives: a. Allow the existing users to continue paying $150/yr. per space. b. Require existing users to pay the rate established by the revised ordinance. C. Establish some percentage, either higher or lower, than the 50% standard suggested. CG:WP:NLUALTS2:July 13, 1988 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE IN LIEU ORDINANCE A. Approval of a Use Permit is required in all cases. The Planning Commission will make the final determination, unless the appealed to the City Council or called for review by the C.C. B. Use of this program limited to where there are Municipal lots: Cannery Village; McFadden Square; Balboa Peninsula; Old Corona del Mar; Mariners Mile. C. New development or conversion to a more intensive use if more than 10% of existing floor area is added pays a one-time fee. D. No more than 350 feet unless approved by four -fifths majority. E. If the applicant requests in -lieu spaces, no more than 50% of the total required may be waived as a part of the use permit, unless approved by four - fifths vote. F. Annual fee based upon 10% of the cost of 300 sq. ft. of land in the area. G. No double selling. H. Fees collected may only be used for developing additional public parking. I. Current users will pay %0% of new rate. J. Recorded against property. CG:WP:nlusum CURRENT USE OF IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM Twenty-nine use permits have been approved with a condition of approval providing that all or a part of the off-street parking required for the proposed use be satisfied through the payment of "in -lieu" fees. As of February, 1987, a total of 342 parking spaces have been provided through the payment of an annual fee of between $35.00 (Balboa Inn) and $150.00 Of these 29 businesses and 342 parking spaces, restaurants and hotel uses account for 27 (93%) of the use permits and 326 (95%) of the parking spaces. A cursory review of the buildings and uses which utilize the "in -lieu" program indicate that there are two primary situations where this program is permitted: the conversion of an existing building with little or no on -site parking to a higher intensity use, and the construction of a new building or the expansion of an existing building or use where the fees are based upon the increased area only. For those buildings or uses that have been converted to a use of higher intensity, 261 spaces (76%) have been provided through the payment of fees. For new construction or the addition of new area to an existing building or use, 81 spaces (24%) are provided through the payment of fees. Regarding the spatial distribution of the buildings or uses where the "in - lieu" program is utilized, it is apparent that the majority of instances of the use of this program is on the Balboa Peninsula. The following chart sets forth the general distribution of the program: 1. Central Balboa: 12 locations; 221 spaces 2. McFadden Square: 9 locations; 67 spaces 3. Mariner's Mile: 2 locations; 18 spaces 4. Corona del Mar: 2 locations; 15 spaces 5. Newport Blvd.: 2 locations; 11 spaces 6. Cannery Village: 2 locations; 10 spaces Totals: 29 locations; 342 spaces According to this chart, there is an existing deficiency of 221 parking spaces in the Central Balboa area to support the approved uses on 12 commercial sites. In McFadden Square, nine commercial uses account for a deficiency of 67 spaces. In these two areas alone, the City has approved through the use permit process 21 businesses with a combined shortage of 288 parking spaces. Carrying this analysis one step further to address the use of "in -lieu" parking for either the expansion or conversion of existing buildings or uses, in the Central Balboa area 196 spaces were permitted to facilitate the conversion of 11 existing nonconforming buildings to a higher intensity use, and 25 spaces were permitted to satisfy the expansion of one existing nonconforming use. In the McFadden Square area 50 "in -lieu" spaces were used to permit the conversion to a higher intensity use at six sites, and 17 spaces were permitted to be used to satisfy the parking requirement for the expansion of nonconforming uses at three sites. LOSS OF PARKING DUE TO ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The Specific Area Plan Public Improvement Component includes several projects that will undoubtedly result in the loss of some existing on -street public parking spaces. The restriping of Newport Blvd. between 28th Street and 32nd Street will eliminate 27 parking spaces along the easterly side of the street to accommodate the proposed third outbound travel lane. The current proposal to widen the sidewalks on both sides of Villa Way and eliminate the on -street parking to provide sufficient roadway width will result in the loss of approximately 30 additional parking spaces. The combined total loss of parking spaces as a result of these programs is 57 spaces. One way to replace these lost spaces is to lease or purchase sufficient land in the Cannery Village area to construct a surface parking lot. Current land values in this area are approximately $65.00 per square foot. The Doan property on 30th Street is still available for purchase by the City. It is possible at this time for the City to submit an offer for between 7 and 13.5 lots. It is estimated that the purchase price for 7 lots would be in the neighborhood of $1,269,450.00. Improvement to the lot will cost approximately $1,000.00 per space. Assuming at least 53 spaces can be provided on this land, the total cost of land and improvement would be at least $1,322,450.00. With the debt service of this amount at approximately 10%, the annual cost would be $132,245. Income from the 53 metered parking spaces on the lot is estimated at $19,822.00 per year. Metering the entire Cannery Village area will result in approximately 246 spaces with an annual estimated income of $103,319.00. This scenario will result in an annual loss of $9104.00 to the City. Another method of purchasing the property is to use the approximately $500,000 in the Off -Street Parking Fund as a down payment. Assuming that all of the other information in the preceding paragraph is reasonable, the amount to be financed would be $769,450. Adding in the $53,000 improvement cost results in a cost of $822,450. It is estimated that bond service would add approximately $254,959.00 to the cost, for an overall total of $1,077,409. Ten percent of this figure, $107,441.00, less the previously discussed income figures result in a net profit to the City of nearly $15,400 per year. CG/WP/OFFSTRE2/ July 13, 1988 t February 4, 1988- TO: OFF STREET PARKING COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM Staff was directed by the Off -Street Parking Committee to prepare a list of the "pro's and cons" of the various options available pertaining to the "in -lieu" parking fee program which were presented in a Planning Department memo dated August 6, 1987. Those alternatives have been grouped together into two categories. These categories are essentially whether the City continues with the "in -lieu" program or terminates it. POLICY ALTERNATIVES CONTINUE WITH THE PROGRAM 1. The City Council shall embark upon a course of action that will utilize the "in -lieu" program to provide additional public parking for the older commercial areas of the City where there is an existing and future shortage of available parking. 2. The City Council shall provide additional public parking to support the expansion of commercial business activity through the sale of "in -lieu" parking spaces. Advantages: 1. The "in -lieu" program provides the opportunity to re- use an existing legal nonconforming building by allowing the conversion to a higher intensity use without the property owner having to demolish all or a portion of the building to provide the additional parking required by the new use. 2. From an aesthetic standpoint the "in -lieu" program will allow all or a part of the existing buildings with their "charm and appeal" to be more productive, with all or a portion of the required parking provided in a central location. This also facilitates the enhancement of the pedestrian orientation of an area, particularly the older areas of the City. This will also reduce the "cruising" for parking space, the use of a private parking by the patrons of another business, and excess vehicular •traffic. 3. An additional pool of non-exclusive parking is created that becomes available at other times during the day. For example, should the program permit only the use of "in -lieu" spaces at night for a restaurant and the fees paid were used to acquire a parking lot, the metered lot would be available 24 hrs. a day, with the restaurant only needing those spaces for a limited time in the evening. This would also justify a rate structure based upon a percentage of the actual cost of a parking space because of the limited time period and the non-exclusive use. 4. Some additional public parking is better than some private parking. 5. Meter revenues and "in -lieu" fees from the area can be used to service the debt for the acquisition of additional land without using money from the general fund. 6. A pool of public parking and visitors to use. Disadvantages: is created for all residents A. Parking should be provided on -site so that each business accommodates its patrons without the community having to bear the burden of the additional vehicles and traffic. B. Large parking lots are ugly. C. The City would be encouraging the demolition of the older buildings, and encouraging the construction of new structures with all of the required parking on -site. ABANDON THE "IN -LIEU" PROGRAM 1. The City Council should repeal the "in -lieu" program and require all new businesses to provide the required amount of parking on -site. Advantages: 1. Reduction in administration costs (i.e. Planning and Finance Staff and paperwork). 2. All required parking is provided on -site. 3. Legal non -conforming buildings are demolished instead of recycled, or at least some are to provide the required amount of parking. 4. There would be no need for the City to devote time and money towards providing additional public parking. 5. Without the "in -lieu" program or a similar alternative, perhaps there would be less of a chance that the older buildings would be converted to more intensive uses. Disadvantages: 1. Given the high cost of land and buildings, without the program it is possible that the area will decline rapidly if it is no longer financially feasible to convert to a higher intensity use. 2. It is likely that there would be no new public parking provided. 3. CG/WP/nluoptns:February 4, 1988 CURRENT USE OF IN -LIEU FEE PROGRAM Twenty-nine use permits have been approved with a condition of approval providing that all or a part of the off-street parking required for the proposed use be satisfied through the payment of "in -lieu" fees. As of February, 1987, a total of 342 parking spaces have been provided through the payment of an annual fee of between $35.00 (Balboa Inn) and $150.00 Of these 29 businesses and 342 parking spaces, restaurants and hotel uses account for 27 (93%) of the use permits and 326 (95%)•of the parking spaces. A cursory review of the buildings and uses which utilize the "in -lieu" program indicate that there are two primary situations where this program is permitted: the conversion of an existing building with little or no on -site parking to a higher intensity use, and the construction of a new building or the expansion of an existing building or use where the fees are based upon the increased area only. For those buildings or uses that have been converted to a use of higher intensity, 261 spaces (76%) have been provided through the payment of. fees. For new construction or the addition of new area to an existing building or use, 81 spaces (24%) are provided through the payment of fees. Regarding the spatial distribution of the buildings or uses where the "in -lieu" program is utilized, it is apparent that the majority of instances of the use of this program is on the Balboa Peninsula. The following chart sets forth the general distribution of the program: 1. Central Balboa: 12 locations; 221 spaces 2. McFadden Square: 9 locations; 67 spaces 3. Mariner's Mile: 2 locations; 18 spaces 4. Corona del Mar: 2 locations; 15 spaces 5. Newport Blvd.: 2 locations; 11 spaces 6. Cannery Village: 2 locations; 10 spaces Totals: 29 locations; 342 spaces According to this chart, there is an existing deficiency of 221 parking spaces in the Central Balboa area to support the approved uses on 12 commercial sites. In McFadden Square, nine commercial uses account for a deficiency of 67 spaces. In these two areas alone, the City has approved through the use permit process 21 businesses with a combined shortage of 288 parking spaces. Carrying this analysis one step further to address the use of "in -lieu" parking for either the expansion or conversion of existing buildings or uses, in the Central Balboa area 196 spaces were permitted to facilitate the conversion of 11 existing nonconforming buildings to a higher intensity use, and 25 spaces were permitted to satisfy the expansion of one existing nonconforming use. In the McFadden Square area 50 "in -lieu" spaces were used to permit the conversion to a higher intensity use at six sites, and 17 spaces were permitted to be used to satisfy the parking requirement for the expansion of nonconforming uses at three sites. LASS OF PARKING DUE TO ROADWAY The Specific Area Plan Public Improvement Component includes several projects that will undoubtedly result in the loss of some existing on -street public parking spaces. The restrip- ing of Newport Blvd. between 28th Street and 32nd Street will eliminate 27 parking spaces along the easterly side of the street to accommodate the proposed third outbound travel lane. The current proposal to widen the sidewalks on both sides of Villa Way and eliminate the on -street parking to provide sufficient roadway width will result in the loss of approximately 30 additional parking spaces. The combined total loss of parking spaces as a result of these programs is 57 spaces. One way to replace these lost spaces is to lease or purchase sufficient land in the Cannery Village area to construct a surface parking lot. Current land values in this area are approximately $65.00 per square foot. The Doan property on 30th Street is still available for purchase by the City. It is possible at this time for the City to submit an offer for between 7 and 13.5 lots. It is estimated that the purchase price for 7 lots would be in the neighborhood of 40—+ $1,269,450.00. Improvement to the lot will cost approximately $1,000.00 per space. Assuming at least 53 spaces can be provided on this land, the total cost of land and improvement would be at least $1,322,450.00. With the debt service of this amount at approximately 10%, the annual cost would be $132,245. Income from the 53 metered parking spaces on the lot is estimated at $19,822.00 per year. Metering the entire Cannery Village area will result in approximately 246 spaces with an annual estimated income of $103,319.00. This scenario will result in an annual loss of $9104.00 to the City. Another method of purchasing the property is to use the approximately $500,000 in the Off -Street Parking Fund as a down payment. Assuming that all of the other information in the preceding paragraph is reasonable, the amount to be financed would be $769,450. Adding in the $53,000 improvement cost results in a cost of $822,450. It is estimated that bond service would add approximately $254,959.00 to the cost, for an overall total of $1,077,409. Ten percent of this figure, $107,441.00, less the previously discussed income figures result in a net profit to the City of nearly $15,400 per year. CG/WP/OFFSTRE2/ February 4, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 6, 1988 TO: Bob Lenard FROM: Chris Gustin SUBJECT: Off -Street Parking Committee Meeting, April 15, 1988 The next Off -Street Parking Committee meeting is scheduled for April 15, 1988, at 8:00 A.M., in the Fire Department Conference Room. The topic of this meeting is the Proposed Revised Draft of the In lieu Parking Ordinance. I talked to Dan Daniels regarding this meeting and he indicated that he would contact the people in Mariners Mile and tell them of the time, place, and subject of the meeting. I also talked to Dee Dee Masters regarding this meeting. She indicated that she would be contacting you personally regarding the list of invitees. In the meantime, I have sent her a copy of the Proposed Revised Draft Ordinance. Please let me know what you want done next, including any verification with Ms. Plummer & Mr. Turner. 1 t 1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT REVISED IN LIEU ORDINANCE In order to determine the direction of the revised in lieu ordinance, the following list provides a series of alternatives for the various sections. A. Use permit required. Alternative: 1. No discretionary review by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. This alternative would have City Staff determine when it is appropriate to issue in -lieu parking spaces, with explicit criteria set forth in the ordinance. B. Locations Restricted. Alternative: 1. The areas listed are those areas where there are currently municipal lots. This allows use of the program only in those areas where a municipal lot exists. The only realistic alternative would be to include language that states that in the event an applicant desires to pay a one time fee to provide all of the required parking spaces, the City could use the funds to acquire a new public parking facility. This could result in the City having to use its power of eminent domain to acquire sufficient land. C. Use of Program. Alternatives: 1. Allow new development or conversion to a more intensive us to make annual payments. 2. Prohibit the use of the program by new development. D. Distance Standard. Alternatives; 1. Do not have a distance standard, allowing the Planning Commission or City Council the flexibility to determine on a case by case basis the appropriate distance. 2. Increase the distance. 3. Decrease the distance. 4. Provide for approval by simple majority. E. Waiver of Parking Spaces. Alternatives: 1. Delete this section. 2. Change the standard to either a higher or lower percentage. F. Fees. Alternatives: 1. Suggest alternative method of determining fees. 2. Suggest different percentage of land cost. 4. k I - G. Sale of Parking Spaces. Alternative: 1. Delete and permit selling existing spaces more than once. H. Use of Fees. Alternative: 1. Put fees collected into the General Fund. I. Businesses,Currently Using the In Lieu Fee Program. Alternatives: 1. Allow the existing users to continue paying $150/yr. 2. Require existing users to pay the rate established by the revised ordinance. 3. Establish some percentage, either higher or lower, than the 50% standard suggested. J. Recordation with the County Recorder. Alternative: 1. Do not require recordation. CG:WP:NLUALTS IN -LIEU PARKING REOUIREMENTS (as of_6/13/_88 APPLICATION NAME ADDRESS NO, OF SPACES UP 931 Balboa Inn 105 Main -Street 66 UP 1053 Le Biarritz 414 N. Newport Blvd. 3 UP 1460 Beach.Ball 2116,W. Ocean Front 11 UP 1476 (Amended) Studio Cafe 100 Main Street' 37 UP 1581 (Amended) Red Onion 2406 Newport Blvd. 3 UP 1606 Perry's Pizza 2108 3/4.W. Ocean Front 3 UP 1717 (Amended) Rick Lawrence 2106 W. Ocean Front 12 UP 1757 (Amended) E1 Ranchito 2800 Newport Blvd. 5 UP 1778 (Amended) Hemingway's Rest. 2441 E. Coast Hwy. 2 UP 1783 (Amended) Ava Lana (& Smith) 112 McFadden Place 18 UP 1816 Beachcomber's 2633 W. Coast Hwy. 7 UP 1832 Seaview Gardens 810 E. Balboa Blvd. 15 UP 1852 Hassan'.s 3325 Newport Blvd. 8 UP 1854 Andre's Take -Out 2119 W. Balboa Blvd. 2 UP 1865 B.J.'s 106 Main Street 22 UP 1872 Mamie Van Doren 428 31st Street 5 UP 2045 (Amended) Bubbles Rest. III Palm Street 231 UP 3031 Stop -In 703 E. Balboa Blvd. 4 UP 3034 (Amended)! Herman- 110 McFadden Place 4 UP 3042 -Balboa Bakery 301 Main Street 3 , UP 3046 Stuff'd Bun 764 E. Balboa Blvd. 4 1The City required 'that 23 in -lieu parking spaces be provided. However, the Coastal Commission required that $7,140.00 be deposited in the City!s In -Lieu Parking Fund on an annual basis. In -Lieu Parking Requirements Page 2 ; UP-3058 The Place 2920 E. Coast Highway 132 UP 3065 Woody's Wharf 2318 Newport Blvd. 10' UP 3076 Newport Landing 503 E. Edgewater P1. 253 UP•3095 China Palace 2800 W. Coast Hwy. 1:34 SPR 36 and 41 Turnstone Corp. 2431-2439 W. Coast Hwy. 14 + 45 UP 3129 Bangkok 3 101-103 Palm Street 12 UP 3158 (Amended) The Grill 105 Main Street 24 (in the Balboa Inn) UP 3188 Balboa Thai 209k Palm Street 3 *UP 3240 Blue Beet . 107 21si Street 4 *SPR 43 Commercial Bldg. 3519 E. Coast Hwy. 4 UP 3063 (Amended) Office Building 2800 Lafayette Ave. 10 UP 3287 Britta's Cafe 205 Main Street 3 * In -Lieu Parking fees are not required as of this date, since the commercial use is not in operation, or has not expanded. 2Eight additional in-lieVparking spaces will be required if the 8 off - site parking spaces on the abutting properties are not maintained. ?Required by th'e Coastal. Commission as long as tandem parking spaces are needed to.meet the parking requirements. 4Parking permits were requited on an annual basis and not in -lieu parking spaces'in this,particular case. 5The Coastal' Commission -required 4 additional in -lieu parking spaces for the development. However, the City .will permit said 4 spaces ,in the Mariner's Mile Municipal parking lot on a temporary basis only. The applicant will have to provide the parking spaces elsewhere at a later date. l; 216 1963; and 21I WHEREAS, Section 9104.31 of the Newport Beach Municipal 31I Code sets forth off-street parking requirements which are appli- 41 cable to said property; and i 5; WHEREAS, said section further provides that the City 61 Council may waive said off-street parking requirements when a 7I municipal parking lot is located so as to be useful in connection 81 with the proposed use on the building site; and 91 WHEREAS, the City Council at its meeting of April 22, 10I 1963, did waive such parking requirement on'condition that a 111 contract between City and owners be executed which would authorize 12 and require owners to provide off-street parking on the municipal 131 parking lot known as the Balboa Lot which is adjacent to the 14I Balboa Inn Property; 15I NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the action of the 161 City Council in waiving thri off-street parking requirements as 17I hereinbefore stated and the mutual covenants 'of the parties hereto, 181 it is agreed as follows: f 19 7. Owners agree to provide thirty-four (34) off-street 20 parking spaces on the Balboa Lot for the use of the occupants of 21 the apartments to be constructed on the Balboa Inn Property. In 22 addition, owners agree to provide thirty-two (32) off-street park- 23 ing spaces for use by employees whose place of employment is on the 241 Balboa Inn Property. 251 2. City agrees to permit owners to use Balboa Lot as 261 herein provided to the extent parking space is available therein 27I at the time use is sought for the compensation hereinafter stated 281 so long as said lot is maintained as a public parking lot by City 291 or its successors or assigns up to the full term of this agreement. 30I 3. Owners agree to pay City an annual fee of Fifteen 31I Dollars ($15) for the use of each off-street parking space I 321 required under this agreement. For the calendar year 1963, the I 1 3 :I 4'i 5.1 e 9 10 11 3.2 13 14 15 16I 171 18I 191 20� 21 221 23 24 25'' 26j 27 28 :I 29 I amount of said fee will be Seven Dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) i ,for ear.' off-street parking space. If the City in subsequent I years raises the annual fee charged generally for parking on City parking lots, the City increase the annual fee charged owners by an equivalent percentage. The annual fee for the calendar year 1963 shall be payable on July 1, 1963, and for years subsequent to i 1963 the fee shall be payable on December 1 of each preceding year I commencing December'1, 1963. 4. Por the calendar year-1963, the City will issue to owners a transferable parking pass for each`required parking space which will entitle the possessor thereof to occupy one parking space on the Balboa Lot without charge to the extent that parking space is available at the time use of the parking space is sought. Should City in years subsequent to 1963'discontinue the issuance of parking passes for the use of said lot, owners will continue to pay the annual fee for the privilege of occupying tha required parking spaces so long as City shall continue to makb sadd spaces 5. To the extent that owners provide the required off- street parking spaces or portion of them at a location approved by the City Council other than on the Ba3,boa Lot, the obligation hereby imposed to use the Balboa Lot and to pay an annual fee for such use shall be extinguished, or proportionately reduced. 6. By entering into this agreement, City does not became obligated to continua to maintain the Balboa Lot as a park- ing lot and reserves the right to alter the present size, shape, or method of operation of said lot; provided, however, that should City cease to make off-street parking spares available to owner on the Balboa Lot, a„mer has no further obligation for payment or I obligation to provide alternate off-street parking spaces. 30ij 7. It is understood that this contract will be executed 31!I by City only after preliminary building plans have been submitted I 32i� to and approved by the City Council. owners nprrp f-.n •^* 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 17I 18 19 20 21 22' 231 24 25 26I i 27 7.8 29 30 F material deviation from said plans without obtaining prior approval from the City Council or such parson to whom the City Council may delegate such power of approval. The right of owners to obtain parking space in the Balboa Lot shall not become binding and effective until completion of construction in accordance with the building plans submitted to and approved by the City Council. Construction shall be deemed compiete upon finai inspection by the Department of Building and Safaty of City. 8. The term of this contract shall begin upon the date of execution by City and end on April 150 1988. 9. Me agreement shall be binding upon the successors of City and owners: provided, however, that it is not transferable without the consent of the City Council"until it has become affect- ive as provided in Paragraph 7 hereof. 10. Upon execution by the partiess this agreement shall be recorded at the office of the Racordor of Orange County in the chain of title of the Balboa Inn Property. .IN WITNESS WHEREOFs the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY O8 NfW//WORT BEACH By _04-,g-4lauL yor Attests City uleric CITY June', 1984 ) MINUTES o x � r c �p • m r c it 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended), under the circumstances of this case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to proper- ty and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That dancing shall not be permitted on the subject property unless an amended Use Permit application is approved by the Planning Commission. 3. The proposed dance floor indicated on the approved plot plan shall be designated for "expanded dining or bar area" only. 4. That employees of the restaurant facility shall park in the Municipal parking lot at all times. 5. That the sound from the live entertainment shall be confined to the interior of the structure; and fur- ther that all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed when live entertainment is conducted on the site. 6. That three (3) in -lieu parking.spaces shall be purchased from the City on an annual basis for the duration of the restaurant use and that the annual fee for said parking shall be in accordance with Section 12.44.125 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Applicant is put on notice that the fees for in -lieu parking permits may be subject to change, and that change may increase substantially in the future. 4, -4- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF,':'RCH•-� Z }/fit MIN,TES \p\ ROLL CALL 1 �� r /9{J�7 August 17. 1972 There being none desiring to appear and be heard, ' the public hearing was declared closed. Parking requirements and the parking ordinance was i discussed by the Planning Commission. Motion X Following discussion, Use Permit Application No. Second X 1606 was approved subject to the following condition: Ayes X X X X X Abstain X 1. That three off-street parking spaces be provided Absent X for employees or that three commercial businessI parking permits be purchased for use in the I I Municipal Lot. —Item —� K \ i Request to amend portions of Districting Map 81l I AMEND. from a C-1 District to an R-2 District. � Location: A portion of Block 3, Newport Bay _ Tract, located on the north side of I CONT., -T-` Balboa Boulevard between Coronado Street and Cypress Street o, Balboa Peninsula. Initiated by: The City of Newport Beach Public ring was opened and Assistant Community DevelopmBat Director Hewicker reviewed the requests with the P nning Commission. Walter Lewis, ner of three duplexes in the affected area ap ared in opposition to the change' of zone to R-2. I Mrs. Walter Lewis also appeared in opposition to ! the R-2 zoning. Planning Commission discuss the effects other zoning would have on the prop ty. Following the Motion X' discussion, Planning Commission ontinued this Second I. X I matter to September 7, 1972, for a purpose of Ayes i X %X; X, re -advertising Amendment No. 332 to hange a portion Noes I� I of Districting Map No. 11 from a C-1 strict to Abstain X: I either an R-3 or an R-2 District. Absent I ;XI , I � , i � Page 3. I�iil I � COMMISAX'k S �(� • 1� January 21, 1982 � MINU\ •.: ;E `- m I n F u >City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing code. That this condition shall not apply to the Ritz Restaurant. 5. That a washout area for trash containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer syste9fl and not into the Bay or the storm drains. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule 50 of the Air Pollution Control District. 7. That there be no dancing in the new restaurant without amending this use permit. S. That the applicant shall obtain the services of an acoustical engineer and shall provide evidence of existing ambient outside noise levels. The building shall be insulated in such a manner as to maintain outside sound at the existing ambient level. 9. Applicant shall purchase annual permits from the City for twelve (12) parking spaces in the adjoining Municipal Lot in lieu of providing the required parking spaces in an approved off -site location. 10. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 11. That damaged and/or deteriorated portions of existing concrete sidewalk be reconstructed along the McFadden Place and West Ocean Front frontages, and that the work be completed under an encroachment permit issued 'by the Public Works Department. 12. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain an occupancy permit prior to completion of public improvements. _70_ 2Z To: 4.7 City Council - 3. l / CONDITIONS (Continued): 11. That at such time as the municip lly-owned parking lot commences operation in the vicinity of the restaurant, the applicant shall provide a portion of the required parking at the municipal lot. The number of spaces to be provided shall be determined• by the City Council when the subject use permit is reviewed by the Council. Condition No. 7 provides that the City Council shall review this request at the end of six months. Said review was required to determine if the restaurant is. being operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. Analysis The restaurant facility has not been open for business at lunch time during the week for several months. However, the applicant now proposes to open only the bar area for a small lunch time operation Tuesday through Friday, from 11:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The approved off -site parking agreement for thirty-two parking spaces, located on the northerly side of East Coast Highway, will expire on December 31, 1984 unless the applicant is able to extend the lease. Therefore only eight on -site parking spaces may be available for the restaurant use at lunch time. This number would provide only one parking space/59 sq.ft. of "net public area" in the bar area and adjoining foyer (see attached floor plan of the bar area). The City Council required one parking space/40 sq.ft. of "net public area" in conjunction with the approval of Use Permit No. 1778 (Amended). Based upon this calculation, twelve off-street parking spaces would be required for the bar and foyer areas (469i sq.ft. 1 40 sq.ft. = 11.7 or 12 spaces). The City Council may therefore wish to consider requiring that the applicant reduce the lunch time use of the restaurant during the week to the bar area only, and pay for four in -lieu parking spaces in the proposed adjacent municipal parking lot for the remainder of the required parking spaces. As approved by the Council, Condition No. 11 provides the following: "11. That at such time as the municipally -owned parking lot commences operation in the vicinity of the restaurant, the applicant shall provide a portion of the required parking at the municipal lot. The number of spaces to be provided shall be determined by the City Council when the subject use permit is reviewed by the C(o C-1.11 Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director byWILLIv` Current PlanningCAdministr G(jI�-— ' C X R. /kk Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of City Council Minutes of June 11, 1984 Floor Plan (Bar Area Only) City Council Staff Report dated June 11, 1984 with attachments Motion All Ayes COMMISSIONERS W_ KIN N i July 23, 1981 of Newport Beach the health or safety of persons residing in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. CONDITIONS 1. That there shall be a total of thirteen (13) on -site parking spaces provided for the subject restaurant. 2. That 'the proposed restaurant shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted floor plan and site plan. 3. That the applicant shall inform staff if the existing seven (7) off -site parking spaces are lost for any reason, at which time arrangements shall be made to provide the same number of off -site parking spaces at another location, or to purchase seven (7) in -lieu parking spaces in a Municipal parking lot. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Request, to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 28,000 ,�sq,ft.t marine related office/retail commercial Puilding. LOCATION: ��rtion of Lots G and M, Tract No. 919, located on the southerly side of West Coast ., ighway between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANTS: Richard V. and Rosanne M. Valdes, and M.V. Threinen, Irvine., OWNER: Same as applicants Planning Commission continued this item to the Regular Planning Commission meeting of 11 August 6, 1981. 17 INDEX (Item #12 TRAFFIC STUDY Continued to�Wslt 3, 1981 pOMMISSIONERS 9cF 9C Oo� P� S9'SG��`�,m Ci�y of Newport B ch ,....., 1r IQ77 u uuc .•, :BOLL CALL 5. All exterior lighting or other sroon the proposed restaurant shall be appvedthe Director of Community Development. 6. That there shall be not less than 15 trans- ferable parking permits purchased from the City on an annual basis in the Municipal parking lot for the proposed development. at a later Said requirement shall•be waived date if an offsite parking agreement for 15 parking spaces is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 7. That no dancing or live entertainment shall be in the restaurant facility unle permitted an amendment to this application is approved by the Planning Commission. 8. That this approval shall be for a period of extension shall be acted two years, and any upon by the Modifications Committee. t� t• , Request to establish a restaurant facility with she on -sale beer and wine in one of the new mall in Fashion Island. Location: A portion of Parcel No. 2, Parcel No. 499) O• Map 75-48 (Resubdivision ti �• located at 89 Fashion Island i•n new mall shops (under constructiol of Fashion Island. Zone: C 0-H / Applicants: Marro ,r rie Simon and Marsha Sands, • Los Angeles dba Bogey's Place, The Irvine�ft mpany, Newport Beach Owner: Public hearing was opened in cagnection with th ,�`�• matter. Pete Edmond with The Irvine Company 4peared withtthe before the Commission and concurred staff report and recommendations. ..� There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 5. INCI Iter USE ips PIRI 183 APP CON ie TIO 1) is r(ft COMMISSIONERS City of Newport oy January 19_ 197R (0% Beach - M F Com MINUTEg BLAI Ate DOLL CALL 4. Tha,t there shall be not less than 16 transfer able parking permits purchased from the City on an annual basis in the adjacent Municipal parking lot for the development. Said require ment for the in -lieu parking fee shall be waived at a later date if an offsite parking agreement for the required parking spaces is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 5. That this approval shall be for a period of ti years, and any extension shall be acted upon I the Modifications Committee. Commissioner Balalis commented on the operation o the business and availability of parking during the evening hours. He felt that the requirement for transferable parking permits should be reduce to 8 since there was ample unused parking in the Municipal Lot across the street and excessive in - lieu fees would create a hardship on this small business operation. Mofion X Following discussion of the circumstances surroun, ing this particular case and the findings which must be made to justify granting a variance waivii a portion of the required parking, the above motif was amended to provide that Conditions No. 4 and read as follows: 4. That there shall be not less than 8 transfer- able parking permits purchased from the City on an annual basis in the adjacent Municipal parking lot for the development. Said require ment for the in -lieu parking fee shall be waived at a later date if an offsite parking agreement for the required parking spaces is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Further that this shall be a reduction of 5 spaces from the 13 spaces that would normally be required at a ratio of one space for each 50 square feet of net public area. S. That this approval shall be for a period of one year, and any extension shall be acted upon by the Modifications Committee. f Page 6. INOSIX I E PIOLL CALL City of Newport Beach Febr 1978 MINUTES 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 1. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to circulation, walls, land- scaping, utilities, and a portion of the park- ing requirements will be of no.further detri- ment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed and the structure has been in existence for many years. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1854 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residin and working in the neighborhood or be detri- mental or injurious to property or improvement in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1854, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plan and elevation. and 2 That conformltoeChapterso20.06hand920.72sofnhall the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. 4. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee 5. That the development standards related to circulation, walls, landscaping, utilities and a portion of the parking requirements are wai4ed. 6. That an offsite parking agreement shall be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 2 parking spaces shall be provided in an approved offsite location for the duration of the restaurant use on the property in question MOLX ,4' Page 11. C1 J COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach Februar 19 MINUT However, the Planning Commission may wish to allow the applicant to purchase annual permits from the City for 2 parking spaces in the adjoining•Municipal lot in lieu of providing the required parking spaces in an approved offsite location if this application is approv Commissioner Haidinger opposed the motion as he felt the purchase of parking permits was not the t the arking problem in the area. answer o p Request to construct a fast food restaurant comple w th incidental retail shops in Koll Center Newpor Thheproposed development includes several food vendors, indoor and outdoor common dining areas, and on sale beer and wine. Parcel Nos. 1 and 2, Parcel Map 76-45 (Resubdivision No. 506) located at 4881 Birch Street, on the northwesterly corner of Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue in ,Koll Center Newport. Zone: Applicant: Thom�a A. White, Newport Beach Owner: Aetna L'fe Insurance Co., Hartford, Conn. Public hearing was opened in connection with this matter. Tom White, 1022 Bayside Cove,,\applicant, appeared before the Commission and commented on the type of operation proposed. He concurrb,d with the staff report and recommendations except for the placemen of sidewalk behind the curb because of the desire to retain the greenbelt, however, try realized there was nothing he could do about phis require- ment and would have to live with it. \ There being no others desiring to appeal- and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Page 12. INO1<X 14P Item #7 USE PERMI N 1855 APPROVED CNDI- - T fWLY COMMISSIONERS vc A OQ ^p S Y 9 �9 t City of Newport Beach May 18, 1978 MINUTES POLL CALL possible solutions to this problem and that this matter will be further discussed at a future Planning Commission Study Session. Motion X Motion was made that Planning Commission make Ayes X X X the following findings: Noes X Absent X 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1865 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health,'safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. and approve Use Permit No. 1865, subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance w.ith the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. All trash or storage shall be located within the building or be shielded from view by six foot high walls or fenceB. 3. That all mechanical roof -top equipment shall be screened in a manner meeting the approval of the Department of Community Development. 4. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.0 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. That there shall be not less than 22 transferable parking permits purchased from the City on an annual basis in the adjacent Municipal Parking Lot for the development. Said requirement for the in -lieu parking Page 33 INCEX SS COMMIIONEFIS 9SS ; City of Newport Beach MINUTES a May 18, 1978 INOIX rloLL o^►.L fee shall be waived at a later date if an off -site parking agreement for the required parking spaces is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 6. That this approval shall be for a period of two years, and any extension shall be acted upon by the Modifications Committee. 7. That a resubdivision be approved by the Planning Commission and a parcel map be filed to establish one building site where portions of 3 lots now exist. (Note: The Code requires that a resubdivision is required when alterations to existing structures in excess of $5,000 are proposed in any one-year period). - Commissioner Cokas opposed the motion insofar as he felt that it would be unfair to not require the payment of in -lieu fees commensurate with that paid by other business owners. Item #13 Request to establish drive -up teller units in USE PERMIT conjunction with the construction of a NO. 189 permanent bank facility on the property in the A-P District, and the acceptance of an APPROVED, environmental document. The proposal also rypl= includes the relocation of the existing relocatabl I�'ONALLy building on the site on a temporary basis until the permanent structure is'completed. A dification to the Zoning Code is also requested, sin a portion of the proposed parking lot encroa es into the required 15 foot front yard setback ng Placentia Avenue. Location: arcel A, Parcel Map 9-19 ( ubdivision No. 237) located at 3 Placentia Avenue, on the sou easterly corner of Placentia enue and Superior Avenue, nor t ly of Versailles - on -the -Bluffs. Zone: A-P Applicant: California First Bank, San iego Owner: Same as Applicant Page 34 Beach 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odors and smoke in accordance with Rule So of the South coast Air Quality Management District if required by the Building Department. 7. That a washout area for the restaurant trash containers be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains if required by the Building Department. 8. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Department. Code if required by the Building Department. 9. That in consideration of the approval of this Permit for an "on -sale" beer and wine license, an "off -sale alcoholic license shall not be Permitted in the restaurant future. facility in the 10. That all trash containers shall be screened fr view from adjacent properties and from the publom ic alley or street. 1.1- That this approval shall be for a period of one Year, and any extension shall be subject to the approval of the Modifications Committee. That 12. the applicant shall be required to pay for three (3) in -lieu parking spaces based current City rate for upon the nin-lieu parking spaces for four (4d in future years, be required to pay for parking spaces. Request to Permit the construction of two, two residential condominium projects and related garage aces on adjoining lots located in the R-2 District. AND Request to create AND condominium o Parcels of land for residential developmen where two parcels Lp tem #16 exist. presently ci_- -30- Ch Y OF NEWPORT BEH%;H COUNCIL MEMBERS A� \A1 +0 � f 'APell I October 24, 1983 MINUTES INDEX City Council after a three-year period. The /P/1872(A)/ applicant is now requesting a further Vaia.Doren modification to Use Permit No. 1872(Amended) ` to substitute in -lieu parking in place of the previously -approved offsite parking. Report from the Planning Department dated October 11, 1983, was presented. Dolly Simpson, 409-31st Street, addressed the Council, and submitted a petition signed by approximately 100 residents in the area, endorsing the request to substitute in -lieu v parking in place of the previously -approved offsite parking. She stated they felt it was a sensible alternative to the parking problem in Cannery Village. Nancy Worrington, representing Mary Compton, stated that they are operating an art gallery on the applicant's property, and are in support of the request. Thomas Dixon, the applicant's husband, addressed the Council and stated that they have complied with the amended use permit they were given three years ago, and believe that offsite parking is a better solution. He also stated that he was aware of the possible increase in fees for in -lieu parking spaces. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. ; Motion x Motion was made to amend Use Permit No. _ - ... _—....._-.......-.............. _..... . All Ayes 1872(Amended), as rec(uested by the applicant, so as to allow the payment fees.in lieu of -of providing fiveparking spaces on site._ i _. 3.. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing i PA 82-1 regarding: (45) ,'r DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, the Drft EIR acceptance, approval and certification'of an Environmental Document for General Plan Amendment 82-1, Amendment No. 3 to/the Local Coastal Program, Amendment No, 42, and Amendment No. 593; AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 82-1, a request to amend the Land Use, Residential Growth, Recreation and OpenApace, Circulation and Noise Elements c0he Newport Beach General Plan for the North Ford Planned Community and the San Diego/creek South site; AND 0 -�t �Icwo(L. 0 Y RRRfI plannlr.- e 7 NOV1986 N�9PoBF CH McFadden Square Community !Lli Association The steering committee met in City Hall Conference Room with City Plan— ning Director Jim Hewicker, Planners Chris Gustin and Bob Lenard, Traffic Engineer Rick Edmundson, City Engineer Dan Webb and representatives of the Boyle Engineers, John Winke and one of his staff. Presentation was made by Boyle Engineers and four preliminary studies for McFadden Square area were shown. After discussion on each, the items of interest and variables of each were as follows. Two of the schemes connected the McFadden Square area with beach parking. Two did not. The issues evolved were as follows: 1. Connection of the two areas seemed necessary for both summer visitor use and other non —visitor (local business) use. 2. The group did not react favorably to a parking structure in McFadden Square area. However,.some surface parking is necessary and desired. 3. The toilet room location discussion centered around as much visual corridor as possible, close to or connected to Lifeguard building, etc. 4. "Theme" area includes character of buildings, landscape, pier entry, toilet rooms, lifeguard remodel, Dory.k'isherman area and plaza. 5.. Bus area in all schemes was agreed upon as a good location for pick up and drop off in McFadden Plaza but to keeping a low profile and as few "turn around" buses as possible. Could the consultant look into holdover somewhere else. 6. Entry to beach parking area being studied for change of direction i.e. 22nd and 23rd Streets reversed or partial one way. The group was very impressed with the Boyle Engineering studies and wait further development at our next meeting. Note Next meetin¢ will be Tuesday, November 11, 1986 at the Rex Restaurant Vs McFadden Square. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, ro"mor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA • wr 245 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 380 LONG BEACH, CA PD802 F (213) 590-5071 S Q OPo/rn COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CT1 br �lv°oR�OF9a �l1 No. 5-86-91 Page 1 of On .Iiay. 14, .1986 Ve California Coastal Commission ranted to TTKI ty' o ew Beac 9 this permit for the development described below, subject to the attached Standard and Special conditions. Demolition of the existing and construction of a 4,200 sq.ft. Fish Bait/ Restaurant with approximately 2125 sq.ft. customer service area and take out food facilities. The city proposes to charge in -lieu parking fee equivalent to 80 parking spaces. Site: The end of the Newport Pier., Newport Beach Issued on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director Title: Staff Ana ys ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned permittee acknowledges receipt of this permit and agrees to abide by all terms and conditions thereof. Date Signature of Permittee IMPORTANT: THIS PERMIT IS NOT VALID UNLESS AND UNTIL A COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS BEEN RETUR14ED TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE. 0 0 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. Page 2 Of Application No. 5-86-91 1. 1. yotice of Receipt and Acknowledoement. The permit is not valid and construction shalt not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, 1s returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If construction has not commenced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Construction shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extension of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Eomoliance. All construction must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition will be resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. 5, Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and the development during construction, subject to 24-hour advance notice. 6. 8sslonment. The permit may be assigned to any qualified person, provided assignee files with the Commission an affidavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. .Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual, and it 1s the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Prior to transmittal of this permit, the City shall submit a signed document which shall indemnify and hold harmless the California Coastal Commission, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence, or failure of the permitted project. 1 RF:0311 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Preliminary Summary of Available Financing Techniques 1. General Obligation Bonds General Obligation bonds (G.O. bonds) are sold by a public entity which has pledged its full faith and credit for the principal and interest on the bonds. The public entity is authorized to levy on all real property such ad valorem taxes as may be necessary to pay the bonds and interest thereon. The passage of Proposition 13 limited ad valorem taxation (other than for debt service on previously authorized debt) to 1% of full market value. Until recently, no additional ad valorem taxes could be levied and this has prevented the authorization of new G.O. bonds. However, on June 3, 1986, Proposition 46 was approved by the California voters. Proposition 46 amends Article XIII A of the California Constitution to effectively repeal those portions of Proposition 13 which prevented the issuance of G.O. bonds based on ad valorem taxation. Now, local governments can increase the property tax rate above 1% to pay off new G.O. bonds provided two things occur: a) two-thirds of those voting in a local election must approve the issuance of the bonds; and b) money raised through the sale of the bonds must be used to purchase or improve real property. 2. Mello -Roos Financing In 1982, the California Legislature enacted the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act (California Government Code §5311, et seq.) . The Mello -Roos Act authorizes local agencies to form Community Facilities Districts (CFD) in which special taxes may be levied for purposes of financing certain services or constructing facilities which the local agency is authorized to construct and operate. The Act also permits the issuance of bonds _supported by the special taxes. Proceedings for the establishment of a CFD may be initiated by the legislative body; the written request of two or more members of the legislative body; or a petition by not less than 10% of the registered voters residing within the proposed CFD or the owners of not less than 10% of the area of land within the proposed CFD. BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE. SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92880 (]14) 851-13W Pursuant to the Act, an election is held. If twelve (12) or more registered voters reside within the proposed CFD each registered voter will be entitled to one vote. If less than twelve (12) registered voters reside within the proposed CFD the election shall be by landowners and each landowner shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre that he or she owns within the proposed CFD. In either type of election the propositions to levy special tax and authorize bonds must pass by two-thirds of the votes cast. The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act has proven to be a useful financing mechanism which provides an alternative method of financing various public capital facilities and services. 3. Special Assessments An Assessment District is a financing tool which allows an agency to construct desired and authorized public improvements with the costs and expenses of the project being apportioned and spread against the benefited properties within the boundaries of the designated area (Assessment District). The costs and expenses are directly proportioned in accordance with the special and direct benefits that each parcel receives from the improvement. The assessment liens are financed through the issuance of bonds payable over a period of years;' thus providing the advantage to property owners of a loan or deferred funding for the improvements. Under the California Special Assessment Acts there are procedural acts and bond acts. Procedural acts specify a procedure for the formation of an assessment district, the ordering and making of an acquisition or improvement, and the levy and confirmation of an assessment secured by liens on land. A bond act provides a procedure for the issuance of bonds to represent liens resulting from proceedings taken under an assessment act: --The procedural acts are: "The Improvement Act of 1911 (California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 5000- 6794); the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code, Sections 10000-10609); and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code, Sections 8500-9493). The Improvement Act of 1911 is both an act for creation of liens against property and an act which provides for the issuance of bonds. a) Improvement Act of 1911 These proceedings are initiated either by petition of the property owners or by direct action of the governing body. Then engineering plans, specifications and cost estimates are made. The governing body then adopts a resolution of intention which includes a narrative of the project, identifies the area of benefit to be assessed for the project BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -2- (7141 801-1300 costs and specifies the maximum term and interest rate of bonds to be issued setting a time, date and place of a hearing on the proceedings. If the proceedings are approved, construction bids are called for and the construction contract is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The contractor is not paid in cash for his work. Upon completion of construction a second public hearing is noticed and upon conclusion of that public hearing and following a thirty day period where the property owners can discharge their assessments, the bonds are ordered and ultimately delivered to the contractor or his assigns to represent final payment. b) Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 ("1913 Act") This act is a procedural act which provides for the formation of an assessment district, the levy of an assessment and the creation of a lien against the property but does not, in itself, contain provisions for the issuance of bonds. Under this act, a proposed assessment and assessment diagram are prepared in the very beginning before any construction work is done. The amount of the assessment is based upon an engineers report accepted by the governing body of the entity and notices are sent to property owners. A public hearing is held, both upon the project and the amount of the.proposed assessment to be levied. Normally, construction bids are received prior to the public hearing so that assessments may be adjusted to conform to the actual construction bids. At the conclusion of the public hearing the governing body may confirm the assessments. If confirmed, a lien is created against each assessed parcel and the assessments are recorded. The property owners are mailed notices of each parcel's exact -confirmed assessment and they have thirty days to pay part or all of the assessments in cash. At the end of thirty days all unpaid assessments are accumulated, a bond issue is structured and bonds are sold. Bonds may be issued pursuant to either the Improvement Act of 1911 or the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. c) Improvement Bond Act of 1915 ("1915 Act") The 1915 Act provides a method of issuing bonds secured by assessments. It does not, in itself, provide the machinery for creating a special assessment lien. After the assessments have -been levied and --confirmed, and the cash collection period has expired, a list of all unpaid assessments is filed and bonds are issued for the total aggregate amount of unpaid assessments. Bonds are issued in even denominations, normally of $5,000, and a portion of the bonds are due each year over the life of the issue to result in approximately equal annual principal and interest payments. BOWIE, ARNESON. KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE. SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3 - (714) 051-1300 t, 4. Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 Most of the procedures contained in the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943 ("1943 Act") were repealed in 1974 and the special assessment acts have been adopted as part of the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. The effect of this change is to make it possible to use the assessment procedures of the 1911 or 1913 acts and to issue assessment bonds under the 1911 or 1915 Act. All of the preceeding discussion with regard to these acts is applicable. Section 31506 of the Streets and Highways Code in the 1943 Act specifically authorizes a city to improve any property by the construction of garages, buildings or other improvements necessary or convenient for parking purposes and to collect fees or charges to pay for the costs of improving, maintaining and operating parking places, and for acquiring and improving additional parking places. Furthermore, Section 31782 allows for preferential rates for property owners in the district. It provides as follows: "The providing of adequate public parking places in cities * * * may require the use of assessment districts as authorized by Section 31519. Such districts will be created and will be successful only if so operated as to serve adequately the property within the district. It is the intent of this part that the owners of real property in * * * an assessment district created pursuant to * * * Section 31519 to provide parking places to solve the ,parking problems of the district may receive preferential rates, charges, or rentals for themselves, their tenants, and the classes of persons who call upon or do business with them, all to the end that the property which bears the burden and provides a solution for the parking problem shall receive a special benefit." A feature of the 1943 Act is that it specifically permits a public agency to apply surplus parking revenues as a credit towards the unpaid assessments. When used in parking"operations, the 1943 Act allows for greater flexibility than any other assessment district procedure. The legislative body appoints a board of parking place commissioners to operate the parking facilities when they are completed. The commission sets the fees and rental rates for the use of the facilities and has the power to operate, manage and control parking places. 5. Parking Law of 1949 This chapter of the Streets and Highways Code, beginning with Section 32500, et seg., establishes in each city a public corporate body known as a "parking authority". It states that the parking authority does not transact any business or exercise BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE. SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -4- (714) 861-1300 r any powers until the legislative body of the city by resolution declares that there is a need for the authority to function in the city. The determination for the authority to function may be made by the city council on its own motion. The city council may either appoint five electors from the city to act as members of the authority or declare itself to be the parking authority. Chapter 3 of the 1949 parking law grants to the authority corporate powers such as, to sue and be sued and to purchase, lease or acquire any property, and to receive or expend any and all money and funds pertaining to parking facilities and related properties. The parking authority may raise money by issuing revenue bonds. However, bonds cannot be issued by the city until the city council, either at a general or special election, obtains a majority vote of the voters granting the city, or the authority, or both, the authority to adopt a revenue bond method of financing projects provided for within the parking law. The sources of payment for any revenue bonds which are issued may come from the income and revenue of parking facilities financed with the proceeds of the bonds, or from income and revenue of certain designated parking facilities whether or not they were financed with the proceeds of the bonds, or from the parking authority's revenues generally, or from parking meter revenue of the city, or from any combination of these sources. Revenue bonds are discussed under No. 7. 6. Parking District Law of 1951 ("1951 Act") This Act provides a method of financing parking facilities within a designate parking district under which payments on the debt service are met with revenues from offstreet parking facilities and from parking meters in the district. Proceedings under the 1951 Act may only be initiated by a petition from owners of the property representing at least 51% and of the assessed valuation and the land area in the proposed district. This act may not be initiated by the government entity. If the city council accepts the petition it causes estimates -to be made of the cost of the project, annual revenues and expenses of the parking spaces in the district, and the assessed valuation of the district. Following the preparation of estimates a hearing is held on the proposed project. At the conclusion of the hearing, if there is not a majority protest the council adopts an ordinance declaring the district formed and describing the improvements. When the cost of the project has been determined the council may provide for the issuance of revenue bonds, which are secured by estimated parking -and meter revenues. — Revenue - bonds are discussed under No. 7. 7. Revenue Act of 1941 Revenue bonds encompass a broad category of bonds which include general revenue, parking revenue, lease revenue, mortgage revenue, etc. The Revenue Bond Law of 1941 found in Chapter 6, BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 5_ (714) 851-13W r- commencing with Section 54300 of the Government Code, may be used to finance parking facilities. Debt service payments on the bond are met from charges placed exclusively on the users of the public facility. User charges may include service charges, connection fees, meter fees, leases and rents. Security on revenue bonds is provided in four ways: 1) The coverage ratio of net revenues to annual debt service requirements; 2) Establishment and maintenance of a reserve fund equal to average or maximum annual debt service, but not to exceed 15% of the bond proceeds. Federal tax law would now limit the reserve fund to 10%; 3) Additional covenants required of the issuer; 4) Majority vote of all the voters voting on the proposition at an election are required to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds; S. Certificates of Participation This financing technique provides long term financing through a lease (with an option to purchase or conditional sale agreement) that does not constitute indebtedness under the State constitutional debt limit and does not require voter approval. A review of financing methods used by other California finance parking facilities indicates that this is the most popular form of financing parking facilities. A listing of those recent issuances is attached hereto as Exhibit A. When a public sale of a lease, or certificates of participation in a lease is planned, the principal parties include: 1) the public entity (lessee); 2) the lessor, which may be a private leasing corporation, non-profit corporation or public agency, e.g. a parking authority; 3) a bank, financial institution or other investor (who may pay the lessor past or present value for future lease payments); 4) purchasers or investors (who purchase certificates of participation on a lease); 5) a trustee (who holds any security for payment of the lease in trust under a trust indenture between the lessee, lessor and the trustee); BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 - 6 - 17141 851-1300 6) and a paying agent or escrow agent (who collects lease payments and distributes them to the holders of certificates of participation). A trustee may also be the paying agent or escrow agent. The legal basis for this financing technique flows from basic laws allowing public entities to enter into lease agreements for one year at a time, on the ground that the governing body of a public entity cannot obligate future governing bodies to honor a lease agreement. Each certificate represents a proportionate interest in the lease payments to be made by the public entity under a lease agreement. The lessor, pursuant to an assignment agreement, assigns substantially all of its rights under the lease agreement, including its rights to receive lease payments from the public entity as well as its rights under the lease agreement to enforce lease payments, to the trustee for the benefit of the owners. The lease payments are designed to be sufficient to pay, when due, the annual principal and interest represented by the certificates. The obligation of the public entity to make lease payments is not an obligation for which the public entity is obligated to levy or pledge any form of taxation. Neither the certificates nor the obligations of the public entity to make lease payments constitute an indebtedness of the public agency. The trustee is appointed pursuant to the trust agreement to prepare, execute and deliver the certificates and to act as the depository of amounts held thereunder. Pursuant to the assignment agreement, the lessor assigns to the trustee all of its right, title and interest in the lease including all the lessor's rights to receive and collect all lease payments. An agency agreement provides for the irrevocable -appointment by the lessor of the public agency as its agent in connection with the construction, installation, and acquisition of the project. BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 �'7 (714) 051-1300 1 FINANCINGS USED FOR PARKING FACILITIES PER CALIFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION Date of Public Entity Type of the Issue Issuing Financing Used 9/17/84 City of Capitola Certificates of (Santa Cruz County) Participation 11/26/85 Redevelopment Agency of Certificates of (Proposed the City of West Covina Participation Issue) 11/12/85 City of Santa Clara Certificates of (Proposed Participation Issue) 12/12/85 City of Pasadena Certificates of (Proposed Participation Issue) 11/27/85 Redevelopment Agency of Certificates of the City of West Covina Participation 11/12/85 City of Modesto Certificates of (Stanislaus County) Participation 12/16/85 City of Pasadena Certificates of (Proposed Participation Issue) 12/17/85 City of Oakland Certificates of ------- -- Participation 12/19/85 Turlock Irrigation Certificates of District (Stanislaus Co.) Participation BOWIE, ARNESON. KADI IN DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE, SUITE A Exhibit 11A11 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 301-1300 Financings Used Page 2 12/31/85 City of Tulare 12/20/85 City of Pasadena Parking Authority 12/24/85 City of Pasadena 12/30/85 7/7/86 (Proposed Issue) City of Oxnard (Ventura County) Pasadena Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation Certificates of Participation BOWIE, ARNESON, KADI & DIXON 4920 CAMPUS DRIVE. SUITE A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 801-1300