HomeMy WebLinkAboutBALBOA_PIER_PARKING_LOT*NEW FILE*
BALBOA PIER_PARKING_LOT
r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
��EWPORr COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC Hearing Date: February 8, 2000
° DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.:
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Daniel R. Trimble
c��FO r NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(9�49) 644-3230
(949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan. FILE C O W 7
SUGGESTED
ACTIONS: 1. Approve the following options and direct staff to implement as soon
as possible:
Option 1— Increase Meter Fees
Option 2 — Modify Meter Time Limits
Option 5 — Create Visitor Parking Guide
Option 9 — Implement Bus Layover Area
Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility
Option 16 — Develop Pier Lot Validation Program
Option 17 — Implement Electronic Meter Pilot Program
2. Direct staff to review and further develop the following options for
later implementation:
Option 4 — Implement Business Parking Permit Program
Option 6 — Develop Shared Valet Parking Program
Option 7 — Implement Shared Use Parking Program
Option 11— Chalk Mark Tires to Enforce Time Limits
Option 12 — Monitor Lot Utilization
BACKGROUND
The Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan, including recommended implementation options,
was presented to the City Council Study Session on September 13, 1999. At that time the City
Council requested that the Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP) Committee review the
options and recommend which options should be implemented and which options should have
priority. The Council also requested that more information be included on the costs and benefits of
the recommended options.
The objectives of the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan were to assess the effectiveness
of current parking management strategies and to develop strategies to address existing and future
parking needs. The plan's study area covers the entire Peninsula from 47" Street to Peninsula
Point. The study area is divided into four sub -areas: McFadden/Lido, Central Balboa Residential,
Central Balboa Commercial, and Peninsula Point. The planning effort included extensive public
outreach, a panting supply inventory, a parking occupancy and duration study, an analysis of city
parking requirements, and recommendations and implementation actions.
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan
February 8, 2000
Page I
At their November 19, 1999 meeting the PROP Committee discussed the Parking Management
Report and reviewed staff recommendations for implementation. In addition to discussing which
options should be recommended, the committee discussed which options should be given pnonty.
Seven options, including one that was not in the original report, were recommended for priority
implementation. Six options were recommended for further staff development. No action was
recommended for the remaining options.
Priority Implementation
The PROP Committee has recommended the following options for priority implementation:
Option 1— Increase the Meter Fees in Balboa Village ($0.25 to $1, $0.50 to $1) and Lido ($0.25 to
$0.50) commercial areas for both on -street and lot parking.
■ Benefits — Increases the turnover of prime spaces in Balboa Village and Lido commercial areas.
Discourages beach users and employees from using prime shopping spaces. Brings rates in line
with other local beach cities.
■ Costs — Minimal amount of staff time to change meter hours and signs. Five minutes per meter
plus $2.50 for a new rate card for each and approximately $100 for each posted sign.
Customer/resident complaints about new rates.
Option 2 — Modify the Meter Time Limits in the Balboa Village and McFadden areas.
■ Benefits — More effective use of high demand spaces throughout the peninsula. Should increase
the number of available spaces for customers in high demand areas.
■ Costs — Minimal amount of staff time to change meter hours and signs. Five minutes per meter
plus $2.50 for a new rate card for each and approximately $100 for each posted sign (can be
done in conjunction with Option 1). Limited increase in enforcement for a month or two
following change to ensure that new hours are being observed.
Option 5 — Create a Visitor Parking Guide for the entire peninsula.
■ Benefits — Helps visitors identify and use public parking lots. Would also serve as a public
information piece about the new rates and time limits.
■ Costs — Moderate amount of staff time to create brochure. Printing and possible distribution
and mailing costs, which may be offset through a partnership with local businesses.
Option 9 — Implement a Bus Layover Area in the Balboa Pier Parking Lot.
■ Benefits — Providing a convenient and accessible private bus layover will encourage private
buses to use layover area rather than nearby residential or commercial streets.
■ Costs —Already included in the redesign of Balboa Pier Parking Lot.
Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility along Balboa and Bay Avenue.
■ Benefits — Improves traffic safety by enhancing the visibility of motorists on side streets turning
onto Bay Avenue and Balboa Boulevard.
• Costs — Minimal amount of staff time to re -stripe parking spaces, paint additional red curb area,
and change signage where necessary. May nominally reduce the number of on -street parking
spaces.
Page 2
Option 16 — Develop a Pier Lot Validation Program.
■ Benefits — Provides an incentive for residents and visitors to use the Balboa Pier Lot when
shopping or dining in Balboa Village. Would encourage increased patronage of uses such as
restaurants or the soon to reopen Balboa Theater.
■ Costs — Staff training and administration of validation program, or outsourcing to a private firm
to administer. Some direct cost to participating businesses, an offset to existing City parking
revenues, or a combination of both, depending on the way the program is structured. The total
cost will ultimately depend on how many businesses are involved with the program, how much
time is validated, and how many customers use the program.
Option 17 — (NEW OPTION) Implement an Electronic Meter Pilot Program.
The Electronic Meter Pilot Program would be developed with a private company that has
developed a new technology that allows for parking duration control. The manufacturer would pay
for the installation of the equipment and be reimbursed through a five-year revenue -sharing
agreement. Funding for the agreement would come from splitting 50150 any increase in revenue
from current levels.
The system would include a new electronic control panel in the meter head that would be connected
to a wire loop that would be installed just under the surface of the parking space. By sending an
electronic pulse through the wire loop the system is able to monitor when a vehicle has entered a
space, how long it has been there, and when it leaves.
The equipment has an estimated ten-year life span with an estimated three-year battery life. The
meters can be programmed for any amount of time and are easily reprogrammed. The test areas for
the pilot program are proposed to be one full row in the Pahn Street lot in the Balboa Village area,
one row of meters on Ocean Front West closest to the businesses in the McFadden area, and one
row of meters on the south side of 32" d Street in the Lido/Cannery area.
■ Benefits — Meters can be programmed to give a limited amount of free time when a vehicle
pulls into a space. They prevent meter feeding beyond set time limits with out chalk marking or
additional parking enforcement staff by requiring the vehicle to exit the space before additional
coins can be used. The meters also automatically collect data on utilization and duration.
■ Costs — The electronic meter manufacturer is a startup company and long-term maintenance
costs and actual durability of equipment is undetermined. Firm cost estimates for installation of
these meters in additional areas are not currently available.
Secondary Implementation
The PROP Committee has recommended that the following options be implemented following
further staff preparation:
Option 4 —Implement a Business Parking Permit Program.
■ Benefits — Increases parking available for customers by encouraging employees not to park in
prime spaces.
■ Costs — Staff time for program administration. Some periodic promotion to new merchants.
■ Additional Staff Work — Determine actual level of demand from the business community.
Determine specific long-term employee parking locations in the Lido, McFadden, and Balboa
Village commercial areas.
Page
Option 6 — Develop a Shared Valet Parking Program.
■ Benefits — Increases convenience for customers during high demand times. Valet parking is a
more efficient use of space than self -parking.
■ Costs — Staff time to request and review bids from private operators. Minor staff time to
administer contract.
■ Additional Staff Work —Analyze potential sites available. Identify high peak demand times to
ensure valet program is available at the right times. Determine level of interest by private valet
parking operators.
Option 7 — Implement a Shared Use Parking Program.
■ Benefits — Better utilizes parking spaces available in private parking lots.
■ Costs — Staff time to negotiate agreements with lot owners. May require payments to lot
owners to cover the costs of additional insurance coverage. Additional public signage may be
required for private lots
■ Additional Staff Mork — Survey private lot owners regarding interest in the program. Research
additional enforcement costs of adding lots to the public inventory. Research insurance and
liability issues.
Option I I — Chalk Mark Tires to Enforce Time Limits.
■ Benefits — Reduces amount of meter feeding by most users. Increases turnover of high demand
parking spaces.
■ Costs — Can be easily circumvented. Would require additional funding for at least one and a
half officers and new equipment for year round enforcement ($100,000), or one full-time part -
year officer and new equipment for seasonal enforcement ($72,000).
■ Additional Staff Work — Determine effectiveness of Electronic Meter Pilot Program alternative
(Option 17). Determine where and when peak demand occurs and whether year round or
seasonal enforcement would be appropriate. Review effectiveness of existing chalk marking
enforcement.
Option 12 — Monitor Lot Utilization on the Peninsula.
■ Benefits — Provides staff with a more complete picture of actual demand and utilization
allowing them to make more informed recommendations regarding appropriate hours, rates, and
enforcement requirements.
■ Costs — Staff time to conduct surveys of lots on a quarterly basis. Staff time to maintain a
database of the information collected.
■ Additional Staff Work — Determine how best to conduct regular surveys and maintain the
information collected. Determine actual member of staff hours needed to support program.
Implementation Process
The options that are recommended for Priority Implementation should be assigned to staff during
the current fiscal year, brought back to the City Council in a relatively short time frame, and,
depending on cost, be implemented as soon as possible after approval. There is currently $50,000
available in the budget for implementation of the parking management options. If the costs for an
option are deemed significant, then the option could be considered for inclusion in next year's
budget.
Page 4
After completion of the priority options, the Secondary Implementation options, which require
some additional development and analysis, should be assigned to staff to complete and bring back
to Council with a recommendation to implement or reject. Regular progress reports on the various
options would be made to the PROP committee. . A%.
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
Daniel R. Trimble
Associate Planner
A ents: I. September 13, 1999 Staff Report
F:\Users\PLMShared\BPRP\STAFFDOC\pmpstaff-2.doc
Page
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
Hearing Date:
September 13, 1999
o��'EW'ORr
DEVELOPMENT
Study Session
3
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Agenda Item No.:
o
o�"POar`r
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Staff Person:
Daniel R. Trimble
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-3230
(949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan.
SUGGESTED
ACTIONS: 1. Approve the following options for priority implementation:
Option 2 — Modify Meter Time Limits
Option 5 — Create Visitor Parking Guide
-Option 9 — Implement Bus Layover Area
Option 11— Chalk Mark Tires to Enforce Time Limits
.,Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility
2. Approve the following options for later implementation following
minor staff preparation:
Option 1— Increase Meter Fees
Option 4 — Implement Business Parking Permit Program
Option 7 — Implement Shared Use Parking Program
Option 12 — Monitor Lot Utilization
Option 16 — Develop Pier Lot Validation Program
3. Approve the following options for further staff review and
development:
Option 6 — Develop Shared Valet Parking Program
Option 8 — Implement Resident Parking Permit Program
Option 10 — Develop Charter/Sport Fishing Permit System
Option 13 — Develop Off -Peninsula Lot and Shuttle
Option 14 — Install Real Time Parking Information Signage
4. Direct staff not to pursue the following option:
Option 3 - Extend Enforcement Time to 8PM
BACKGROUND
The need for a Peninsula -wide parking management plan has been identified during several recent
and not so recent planning efforts. The 1993 Balboa Peninsula Planning Study/Balboa Village
RUDAT discussed the need for improved management as a way to deal with the shortage of
parking in the commercial area.
In 1997 the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) report, Project 2000: A
Planning Vision for the Balboa Peninsula, identified additional problems in the village as well as
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report
September 13. 1999
Page I
other parts of the peninsula. The conflict between residential demands and business and visitor
demands was one of the most apparent problems. A Parking Management Plan was established as
a priority after City Council review of the plan.
-Recent- revitalization efforts in the Balboa Village area, including the Balboa Theater renogation,
the Balboa Village Pedestrian Design Plan, and the Balboa Pier Parking Lot Redesign, have also
raised additional parking management issues that need to be addressed.
The objectives of the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan are to assess the effectiveness of
current parking management strategies and to develop strategies to address existing and future
parking needs. The plan's study area covers the entire Peninsula from 47a' Street to Peninsula
Point. The study area is divided into four sub -areas: McFaddenUdo, Central Balboa Residential,
Central Balboa Commercial, and Peninsula Point. The planning effort included extensive public
outreach, a parking supply inventory, a parking occupancy and duration study, an analysis of city
parking requirements, and recommendations and implementation actions. The complete report
prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. is attached in the City Council packets. Following
is a brief summary of the major findings.
Parking Inventory, Utilization and Duration
A detailed parking space inventory was conducted by the consultants. The inventory provides a
detailed breakdown of the spaces between public, private, metered, un-metered, parking lot, and on -
street spaces. The inventory is broken down further by comparing the time limits for each space by
lot or location. Figures 2 through 15 in the report graphically display toe location, time limit, fee
amounts, and number of spaces throughout the study area.
The following findings were developed from the parking inventory analysis:
• There are a total of 10,469 parking spaces on the Peninsula.
• Approximately 71 percent are public spaces, and 29 percent are privately owned lots and structures.
• 56 percent of the parking spaces are on -street, and 44 percent are in lots.
• Of the on -street spaces, 24 percent are metered and 76 percent are un-metered.
• There are approximately 2,226 metered spaces, of which 794 are two hours or less and 1,432 are
four hours or more.
Summer utilization rates were determined using aerial photography. Figures 16 and Table 4 in the
report show peak demand times. The parking utilization findings include the following.
• Weekday public lot usage peaks at 80% on Tuesday at 2 PM and weekend public lot usage peaks at
96% on Saturday at 2 PM and on Sunday at 11 AM.
• Private lots have the lowest occupancy on both weekdays and weekends, peaking at 55%.
• Public parking (both lots and on -street) was fully occupied during the weekend.
• On the weekday, the Newport Pier, Elks, Balboa and Palm, and Washington and Bay lots reach full
occupancy.
Duration data was collected using hourly license plate surveys. Figures 18 through 21 in the report
display length of stay information. The parking duration findings include the following:
• Overall, most parkers in the 6-hour meters stay for fewer than 4 hours.
PaEe 2
• Many one -hour meters are occupied for several hours, indicating "meter feeding," particularly in
the Newport Pier lot.
• Approximately 65% of parkers stayed for one hour or more at the Newport Pier Area 1 hour meters,
and only 23% stayed for more than four hours at the 6 hour meters.
• Approximately 30% of parkers stayed for one hour or more at the Balboa Pier Area 1 hour*eters,
and only 15% stayed for more than four hours at the 6 hour meters.
• Between 5 to 17% of parkers at 6 hour meters in the A and B street lots and at the 6 hour on -street
meters stayed for more than four hours.
• Over 50% of the parkers in the un-metered residential areas stayed for more than four hours.
Parking Requirements and Enforcement
The parking requirements section of the report discusses parking code requirements in the context
of City parking guidelines. Table 9, on page 50, provides a breakdown of the number of spaces
required for the specific land uses on the Peninsula. It should be noted that the 448 spaces for
charter vessels and 230 spaces for sport fishing listed under Central Balboa Residential should
actually be listed under Central Balboa Commercial. This adjustment changes the total requirement
for the residential area to 1,033 resulting in a surplus of 1,414 spaces. The counter adjustment for
the commercial area changes the total requirement to 2,682 resulting in a deficit of 1,324 spaces.
These figures are similar to previous estimates made in the BPPAC Project 2000 report and the
Balboa Peninsula Planning Study. The McFadden/Lido area, including residential and commercial
areas, has a deficit of 1,062 spaces.
The section on parking enforcement reviews current operational procedures and relevant City
ordinances. The report specifically examines ways to encourage parking turnover through an
effective anti -meter feeding enforcement. Although the existing ordinance technically prohibits
meter feeding, it is not currently enforced on the Peninsula. The majority of Southern California
beach cities specifically prohibit meter feeding and enforce any violations. Examples of other
municipal codes for San Clemente and Laguna Beach can be found on page 56.
Revenue and Expenditures
Parking Revenues are derived mostly from meters, lots, and fines. Additional revenue is also
derived from parking permit sales and income from the commercial in -lieu parking program. For
FY 1998-99 total annual parking revenues for the City were approximately $3.5 million. Over half
of that amount, $1.9 million, was from parking fines. These revenues are distributed to the general
fund and three special parking reserve funds.
The Off -Street Parking Fund is no longer allocated revenues from the Peninsula meters, but, still has
a fund balance of $689,916. The Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve, established in 1995 and
expanded to the entire Peninsula beginning in FY 1998-99, receives approximately $240,000
annually, and has a fund balance of $479,509. The Commercial In -Lieu Parking Fund, which is
technically a sub -category of the Off -Street Parkins Fund, receives approximately $35,000
annually, and has a fund balance of $712,832. All of the remaining parking revenues are allocated
to the general fund.
Page 3
Community Workshops
A series of five community workshops were held to provide and solicit public input on parking
problems and potential strategies for parking management. The purposes of the community
workshops were to:
• Provide an overview of the process.
• Gather community input on parking issues, goals, and priorities.
• Review potential strategies and tools for parking management.
The first workshop held on May 4, 1998 focused on setting priorities. At this workshop four major
overall themes were developed:
• Give priority to residential parking.
• Improve signage throughout the Peninsula.
• Reduce traffic congestion.
• Redesign/reconfigure current parking.
The next three workshops were held in September and October 1998 and focused on specific
geographic areas. Participants were asked to rate various parking management tools. A summary
of the voting can be found on page 47 of the report.
The final workshop was held on May 3, 1999 and focused on receiving public comment on the draft
parking management actions and options. A detailed record of the voting can be found in Table 8
on page 47 of the report. Tabulations for support and non-support are also included in the Draft
Priority Rankings of Parking Management Options in Table 11 on pages 84 to 87.
Implementation Options
Discussion of each of the sixteen options suggested by the consultant can be found on pages 64 to
82 and in Table 11 starting on page 84. Most of the options listed in the report are recommended
for implementation. Community support, or lack of support, weighed heavily in detern fining
whether staff is recommending an option to be implemented, with a couple of exceptions.
The following options are recommended for priority implementation:
• Option 2 — Modify Meter Time Limits
• Option 5— Create Visitor ParkingGuide
• Option 9 — Implement Bus Layover Area
• Option I — Chalk Mark Tires to Enfoice Time Limits
• Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility
Options 2, 5, 9, 11, and 15 were given priority because of their moderate to strong community
support and low to moderate implementation costs. Option 2 would better match time limits to
actual duration of packers and open up parking for businesses. Option 5 would encourage and
make it easier to find existing public parking lots. Option 9, also part of the Balbda Pier Parking
Lot Redesign, would encourage use of the lot for bus layovers rather than residential areas. Option
11 should reduce meter feeding by employees and by all -day beach goers. Option 15 will improve
visibility and safety at key intersections, but may eliminate some parking spaces.
Page 4
The following options are recommended for later implementation following minor staff
preparation:
• Option I — Increase Meter Fees
• Option 4 — Implement Business Parking Permit Program
• Option 7 — Implement Shared Use Parking Program
• Option 12 — Monitor Lot Utilization
• Option 16 — Develop Balboa Pier Lot Validation Program
Option 1 is one of the exceptions where staff is recommending implementation of an option that did
not have community support. Raising parking fees is never popular and can be detrimental to a
commercial area if the rates are disproportionate to competing commercial areas. In this case, fees
on the Peninsula are generally lower than other beach cities. Moderate increases of no more than
$0.25 per year should also lessen the potential impact on packers. The increased meter fees together
with modified time limits should increase the amount of turnover of prime parking spaces.
Options 4, 7, and 12 were selected for implementation because of their moderate to high
community support. However, these options may take some minor staff time to prepare, and
further analysis of their true costs should be conducted. Implementation of Options 4 and 7 would
also require the support of affected business and property owners.
Option 16 was developed after the final workshop and was not voted on by the community.
However, the concept has been discussed during community presentations on the Balboa Pier
Parking Lot Redesign Plan and proposed fee increase for that lot. Both the resident and business
communities supported the concept. An effective validation program would encourage patronage
to existing commercial establishments including restaurants and the Balboa Theater when it reopens
next year.
The following options are recommended for further staff review:
• Option 6 — Develop Shared Valet Parking Program
• Option 8 —Implement Resident Parking Permit Program
• Option 10 —*Develop Charter/Sport Fishing Permit System
• Option 13 — Develop Off -Peninsula Lot and Shuttle
• Option 14 — Install Real Time Parking Information Signage
All five of these options are recommended for further staff review because of their high cost,
program complexity, and/or uncertain community support. Although Option 6 had very little
community support, staff believes it should be explored further because it could eventually be one
of the most effective parking management tools available. With the cooperation of business and
property owners it could also be an effective way to increase the utilization of private lots in some
areas. This type of program has been instituted in Manhattan Beach so we will have an example to
monitor.
Implementation of Option 8 would be a very complex process that would eventually involve review
by the California Coastal Commission. Given the moderate community support expressed for this
option during the later workshops, it is not clear whether there would be the requisite amount of
support to establish a permit area However, residents had expressed strong support for this option
earlier in the process. If Option 8 does go forward, Option 10 should be implemented at the same
time.
Page 5
Options 13 and 14 both have the potential to be highly effective parking management tools.
However, given their complexity and high implementation costs, it is recommended that staff be
directed to develop these options into specific proposals that include defined cost estimates for
future Council consideration.
Finally, Option 3, Extend Enforcerrlent Time to 8PM, was initially supported by the community in
early workshops. However, by the end of the process it was soundly opposed by the community
and would not have as significant an effect as other options. Therefore, staff is not recommending
it for implementation as a parking management tool.
Implementation Process
The options that are recommended for Priority Implementation should be assigned to staff during
the current year, brought back to the City Council in a relatively short time frame, and, depending
on cost, be implemented as soon as possible after approval. The non -priority options should be
researched by staff for possible implementation in FY 2000-01. The remaining options that need
significant staff work should also be initiated in FY 2000-01, but may need a longer timeline to be
fully developed.
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
Daniel R. Trimble
Associate Planner
A _ ents: 1. Final Draft, Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report
F:\UucsTLN\Sha MPRP\STAFFDOOpmpsmff.dx
Page 6
REPORT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
For Agenda December 13,1999
of:
Date: December 3, 1999
A. Title of report: Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Plan
B. Report initiated by:
City Council Date
City Manager Date
X Other Planning Dept. Date
C. Does the report include a resolution, ordinance, agreement or other legal matter?
Yes _
No X
D. Does the report recommend an expenditure: Were the funds budgeted in the approved budget?
Yes _
N/A X No
Has it been approved by the Finance Director?
N/A X Yes
No
E. List any other departments/divisions the report affects:
Administrative Services Fire & Marine X Traffic Engineering X
Building General Services X
City Attorney Police
City Clerk Public Works/Engineering, X None X
Community Services Public Works/Utilities X Other
Has it been discussed with each?
Yes X
No
F. List any attachments:
Balboa Village Pedestrian Improvement Plan
G. Evaluate the potential environmental impact of this Agenda Item:
1. No potential impact X
2. Categorically exempt
3. Negative declaration
4. Environmental Impact Report
Submitted by: Daniel Trimble
F:\users\pin\shmd\tmplts\congenda.doc
Class
Date: December 3,1999
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 13, 1999
PROPOSAL: Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Plan.
Daniel R. Trimble
(949)644-3230
SUMMARY: Review design alternatives as presented by the design consultant for the
Balboa Village Pedestrian Plan. Review phasing and funding plan
presented by staff.
SUGGESTED
ACTION: 1. Provide direction to staff on a design alternative to present for City
Council consideration at a regular meeting; and
2. Provide direction to staff on the phasing and funding plan.
Background
On April 30, 1999 the Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP) City Council Sub -
Committee recommended the development of a Balboa Village Pedestrian Plan. The objectives of
the Plan were to improve the pedestrian links between the Balboa Pier Lot (Beach front) and the
commercial uses in the village (Bay front), widen the sidewalks on Balboa Boulevard and
Washington Street, and maintain or improve the amount of parking close to the theater, restaurants
and stores.
Discussion
Staff has worked with Mr. Ron Baers of Planning and Urban Design Resources to develop an
improvement plan. Mr. Baers has presented his design recommendations to community
associations, business representatives, various city staff, and PROP. The PROP committee has
reviewed these plans and recommended that the full Council review them at a Study Session. In
response to some staff concerns regarding angled parking and turning movements, Mr. Baers has
developed a second design alternative. The Plans, a narrative summary, and budget estimates
prepared by Mr. Baers are attached.
Staff has prepared a list of funding opportunities for the three implementation phases recommended
by the consultant. The recommendation is that Phase One include the Balboa Boulevard Right of
Way and everything south (to the ocean front), Phase Two would include everything in between
Balboa village Pedestrian Plan
December 13, 1999
Page 1
Balboa Boulevard and Edgewater, and Phase Three would included all Edgewater improvements.
Total estimated funding for all phases of improvements is approximately $3,290, 000.
Funding Opportunities
Three sources of funding other then the general fund are available for this project — Community
Development Block Grants, the Off -Street Parking Fund, and the Neighborhood Enhancement
Reserve Fund. These are the same funding sources that were presented to the City Council with the
recommendations for the Balboa Peninsula Financing and Community. Outreach Program on April
28 1997. The Council passed several motions following the recommendations in the plan, the
major exception being the elimination of the redevelopment agency as a possible funding source.
The following table shows the cost estimates for each phase as well as identified funding
opportunities. The figures in the table assume that construction would begin in fall 2000 about the
same time as the Balboa Pier Lot.
1999.00
2000.01
2001-02
2002.03
Totals
Phase One —Balboa to Pier Lot
CDBG —Section 108 Loan
$250,000
$1,311,000
Off -Street Parkina
100,000
Nei hborhood Enhancement
250,000
250,000
Total Phase One
$2,161,000
Phase Two — Balboa To Ed ewater
CDBG
$328,000
Off -Street Parkin
100,000
Nei hborhood Enhancement
400,000
Total Phase Two
$828,000
Phase Three — Ed ewater
CDBG
$100,000
Nei hborhood Enhancement
200,000
Total Phase Three
$300,000
Total
$3,289,000
The total CDBG commitment for the project would be $1,989,000 over the three years. In order to
accomplish this the City could borrow against future CDBG allocations by securing a Section 108
loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 108 program allows you to
borrow up to five times the amount of your annual entitlement. The City currently receives about
$500,000 annually, meaning that we could borrow up to $2,500,000. Repayment can be extended
up to 20 years. Of our $500,000 entitlement, there are approximately $250,000-275,000 available
to fund economic development projects annually. This would require a minimum ten to eleven year
commitment to repay the loan. A longer repayment term would leave some funds available for
annual allotment. These amounts do not include interest on the loan, but the fund does use below
market rates.
Page 2
The Off -Street Parking Fund could be used to fund additional improvements to the Balboa Pier Lot
as well as the A Street and Palm Street/Bay Avenue Lots for a total of $200,000. The fund had a
FY 98-99 balance of $690,000 of which $400,000 is committed to the Pier Lot. The total cost of
the Pier Lot project is estimated to be $663,000. This fund should be replenished, but with half the
amount as before. The other half is now going to the Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve Fund.
Finally, the Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve Fund could be used to fund the remaining costs,
approximately $1,100,000, including any portions that may not fit the requirements of the CDBG or
Off -Street Parking Fund guidelines. The fund had a FY 98-99 balance of $479,000 with anticipated
annual receipts of $240,000. This would leave the fund with an approximate balance of $339,000
after the 2002-03 fiscal year.
Submitted by:
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
DANIEL R. TREMBLE
Associate Planner
Attachments: Narrative Summary, Design Alternatives, and Budget Estimates
F:\Users\PLMShazed\BPRP\PROP\REPORTS\BeazsPlan 1213.doc
Page 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
��?gSVPoRT COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC Hearing Date: September 13, 1999
DEVELOPMENT
r�- n PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.:
u� 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Daniel R. Trimble
ct< Foal r NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949)644-3230
(949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FILE Cu P v
SUBJECT: Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan.
SUGGESTED
ACTIONS: 1. Approve the following options for priority implementation:
Option 2 — Modify Meter Time Limits
Option 5 — Create Visitor Parking Guide
Option 9 — Implement Bus Layover Area
Option 11— Chalk Mark Tires to Enforce Time Limits
Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility
2. Approve the following options for later implementation following
minor staff preparation:
Option 1— Increase Meter Fees
Option 4 — Implement Business Parking Permit Program
Option 7 — Implement Shared Use Parking Program
Option 12 — Monitor Lot Utilization
Option 16 — Develop Pier Lot Validation Program
3. Approve the following options for further staff review and
development:
Option 6 — Develop Shared Valet Parking Program
Option 8 — Implement Resident Parking Permit Program
Option 10 — Develop Charter/Sport Fishing Permit System
Option 13 — Develop Off -Peninsula Lot and Shuttle
Option 14 — Install Real Time Parking Information Signage
4. Direct staff not to pursue the following option:
Option 3 — Extend Enforcement Time to 8PM
BACKGROUND
The need for a Peninsula -wide parking management plan has been identified during several recent
and not so recent planning efforts. The 1993 Balboa Peninsula Planning Study/Balboa Village
RUDAT discussed the need for improved management as a way to deal with the shortage of
parking in the commercial area.
In 1997 the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) report, Project 2000: A
Planning Vision for the Balboa Peninsula, identified additional problems in the village as well as
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report
September 13, 1999
Page 1
other parts of the peninsula. The conflict between residential demands and business and visitor
demands was one of the most apparent problems. A Parking Management Plan was established as
a priority after City Council review of the plan.
Recent revitalization efforts in the Balboa Village area, including the Balboa Theater renovation,
the Balboa Village Pedestrian Design Plan, and the Balboa Pier Parking Lot Redesign, have also
raised additional parking management issues that need to be addressed.
DISCUSSION
The objectives of the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan are to assess the effectiveness of
current parking management strategies and to develop strategies to address existing and future
parking needs. The plan's study area covers the entire Peninsula from 47 h Street to Peninsula
Point. The study area is divided into four sub -areas: McFadden/Lido, Central Balboa Residential,
Central Balboa Commercial, and Peninsula Point. The planning effort included extensive public
outreach, a parking supply inventory, a parking occupancy and duration study, an analysis of city
parking requirements, and recommendations and implementation actions. The complete report
prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. is attached in the City Council packets. Following
is a brief summary of the major findings.
Parking Inventory, Utilization and Duration
A detailed parking space inventory was conducted by the consultants. The inventory provides a
detailed breakdown of the spaces between public, private, metered, un-metered, parking lot, and on -
street spaces. The inventory is broken down further by comparing the time limits for each space by
lot or location. Figures 2 through 15 in the report graphically display the location, time limit, fee
amounts, and number of spaces throughout the study area.
The following findings were developed from the parking inventory analysis:
• There are a total of 10,469 parking spaces on the Peninsula.
• Approximately 71 percent are public spaces, and 29 percent are privately owned lots and structures.
• 56 percent of the parking spaces are on -street, and 44 percent are in lots.
• Of the on -street spaces, 24 percent are metered and 76 percent are un-metered.
• There are approximately 2,226 metered spaces, of which 794 are two hours or less and 1,432 are
four hours or more.
Summer utilization rates were determined using aerial photography. Figures 16 and Table 4 in the
report show peak demand times. The parking utilization findings include the following:
• Weekday public lot usage peaks at 80% on Tuesday at 2 PM and weekend public lot usage peaks at
96% on Saturday at 2 PM and on Sunday at 11 AM.
• Private lots have the lowest occupancy on both weekdays and weekends, peaking at 55%.
• Public parking (both lots and on -street) was fully occupied during the weekend.
• On the weekday, the Newport Pier, Elks, Balboa and Palm, and Washington and Bay lots reach full
occupancy.
Duration data was collected using hourly license plate surveys. Figures 18 through 21 in the report
display length of stay information. The parking duration findings include the following:
• Overall, most parkers in the 6-hour meters stay for fewer than 4 hours.
Page 2
• Many one -hour meters are occupied for several hours, indicating "meter feeding," particularly in
the Newport Pier lot.
• Approximately 65% of parkers stayed for one hour or more at the Newport Pier Area 1 hour meters,
and only 23% stayed for more than four hours at the 6 hour meters.
• Approximately 30% of parkers stayed for one hour or more at the Balboa Pier Area 1 hour meters,
and only 15% stayed for more than four hours at the 6 hour meters.
• Between 5 to 17% of parkers at 6 hour meters in the A and B street lots and at the 6 hour on -street
meters stayed for more than four hours.
• Over 50% of the parkers in the un-metered residential areas stayed for more than four hours.
Parking Requirements and Enforcement
The parking requirements section of the report discusses parking code requirements in the context
of City parking guidelines. Table 9, on page 50, provides a breakdown of the number of spaces
required for the specific land uses on the Peninsula. It should be noted that the 448 spaces for
charter vessels and 230 spaces for sport fishing listed under Central Balboa Residential should
actually be listed under Central Balboa Commercial. This adjustment changes the total requirement
for the residential area to 1,033 resulting in a surplus of 1,414 spaces. The counter adjustment for
the commercial area changes the total requirement to 2,682 resulting in a deficit of 1,324 spaces.
These figures are similar to previous estimates made in the BPPAC Project 2000 report and 'the
Balboa Peninsula Planning Study. The McFadden/Lido area, including residential and commercial
areas, has a deficit of 1,062 spaces.
The section on parking enforcement reviews current operational procedures and relevant City
ordinances. The report specifically examines ways to encourage parking turnover through an
effective anti -meter feeding enforcement. Although the existing ordinance technically prohibits
meter feeding, it is not currently enforced on the Peninsula. The majority of Southern California
beach cities specifically prohibit meter feeding and enforce any violations. Examples of other
municipal codes for San Clemente and Laguna Beach can be found on page 56.
Revenue and Expenditures
Parking Revenues are derived mostly from meters, lots, and fines. Additional revenue is also
derived from parking permit sales and income from the commercial in -lieu parking program. For
FY 1998-99 total annual parking revenues for the City were approximately $3.5 million. Over half
of that amount, $1.9 million, was from parking fines. These revenues are distributed to the general
fund and three special parking reserve funds.
The Off -Street Parking Fund is no longer allocated revenues from the Peninsula meters, but still has
a fund balance of $689,916. The Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve, established in 1995 and
expanded to the entire Peninsula beginning in FY 1998-99, receives approximately $240,000
annually, and has a fund balance of $479,509. The Commercial In -Lieu Parking Fund, which is
technically a sub -category of the Off -Street Parking Fund, receives approximately $35,000
annually, and has a fund balance of $712,832. All of the remaining parking revenues are allocated
to the general fund.
Page 3
Community Workshops
A series of five community workshops were held to provide and solicit public input on parking
problems and potential strategies for parking management. The purposes of the community
workshops were to:
• Provide an overview of the process.
• Gather community input on parking issues, goals, and priorities.
• Review potential strategies and tools for parking management.
The first workshop held on May 4, 1998 focused on setting priorities. At this workshop four major
overall themes were developed:
• Give priority to residential parking.
• Improve signage throughout the Peninsula.
• Reduce traffic congestion.
• Redesign/reconfigure current parking.
The next three workshops were held in September and October 1998 and focused on specific
geographic areas. Participants were asked to rate various parking management tools. A summary
of the voting can be found on page 47 of the report.
The final workshop was held on May 3, 1999 and focused on receiving public comment on the draft
parking management actions and options. A detailed record of the voting can be found in Table 8
on page 47 of the report. Tabulations for support and non-support are also included in the Draft
Priority Rankings of Parking Management Options in Table 11 on pages 84 to 87.
Implementation Options
Discussion of each of the sixteen options suggested by the consultant can be found on pages 64 to
82 and in Table 11 starting on page 84. Most of the options listed in the report are recommended
for implementation. Community support, or lack of support, weighed heavily in determining
whether staff is recommending an option to be implemented, with a couple of exceptions.
The following options are recommended for priority implementation:
• Option 2 — Modify Meter Time Limits
• Option 5 — Create Visitor Parking Guide
• Option 9 — Implement Bus Layover Area
• Option I I — Chalk Mark Tires to Enforce Time Limits
• Option 15 — Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility
Options 2, 5, 9, 11, and 15 were given priority because of their moderate to strong community
support and low to moderate implementation costs. Option 2 would better match time limits to
actual duration of parkers and open up parking for businesses. Option 5 would encourage and
make it easier to find existing public parking lots. Option 9, also part of the Balboa Pier Parking
Lot Redesign, would encourage use of the lot for bus layovers rather than residential areas. Option
11 should reduce meter feeding by employees and by all -day beach goers. Option 15 will improve
visibility and safety at key intersections, but may eliminate some parking spaces.
Page 4
The following options are recommended for later implementation following minor staff
preparation:
• Option 1— Increase Meter Fees
• Option 4 — Implement Business Parking Permit Program
• Option 7 — Implement Shared Use Parking Program
• Option 12— Monitor Lot Utilization
• Option 16 — Develop Balboa Pier Lot Validation Program
Option 1 is one of the exceptions where staff is recommending implementation of an option that did
not have community support. Raising parking fees is never popular and can be detrimental to a
commercial area if the rates are disproportionate to competing commercial areas. In this case, fees
on the Peninsula are generally lower than other beach cities. Moderate increases of no more than
$0.25 per year should also lessen the potential impact on parkers. The increased meter fees together
with modified time limits should increase the amount of turnover of prime parking spaces.
Options 4, 7, and 12 were selected for implementation because of their moderate to high
community support. However, these options may take some minor staff time to prepare, and
further analysis of their true costs should be conducted. Implementation of Options 4 and 7 would
also require the support of affected business and property owners.
Option 16 was developed after the final workshop and was not voted on by the community.
However, the concept has been discussed during community presentations on the Balboa Pier
Parking Lot Redesign Plan and proposed fee increase for that lot. Both the resident and business
communities supported the concept. An effective validation program would encourage patronage
to existing commercial establishments including restaurants and the Balboa Theater when it reopens
next year.
The following options are recommended for further staff review:
• Option 6 — Develop Shared Valet Parking Program
• Option 8 — Implement Resident Parking Permit Program
• Option 10 — Develop Charter/Sport Fishing Permit System
• Option 13 — Develop Off -Peninsula Lot and Shuttle
• Option 14 — Install Real Time Parking Information Signage
All five of these options are recommended for further staff review because of their high cost,
program complexity, and/or uncertain community support. Although Option 6 had very little
community support, staff believes it should be explored further because it could eventually be one
of the most effective parking management tools available. With the cooperation of business and
property owners it could also be an effective way to increase the utilization of private lots in some
areas. This type of program has been instituted in Manhattan Beach so we will have an example to
monitor.
Implementation of Option 8 would be a very complex process that would eventually involve review
by the California Coastal Commission. Given the moderate commpnity support expressed for this
option during the later workshops, it is not clear whether there would be the requisite amount of
support to establish a permit area. However, residents had expressed strong support for this option
earlier in the process. If Option 8 does go forward, Option 10 should be implemented at the same
""time.
Page 5
Options 13 and 14 both have the potential to be highly effective parking management tools.
However, given their complexity and high implementation costs, it is recommended that staff be
directed to develop these options into specific proposals that include defined cost estimates for
future Council consideration.
Finally, Option 3, Extend Enforcement Time to 8PM, was initially supported by the community in
early workshops. However, by the end of the process it was soundly opposed by the community
and would not have as significant an effect as other options. Therefore, staff is not recommending
it for implementation as a parking management tool.
Implementation Process
The options that are recommended for Priority Implementation should be assigned to staff during
the current year, brought back to the City Council in a relatively short time frame, and, depending
on cost, be implemented as soon as possible after approval. The non -priority options should be
researched by staff for possible implementation in FY 2000-01. The remaining options that need
significant staff work should also be initiated in FY 2000-01, but may need a longer timeline to be
fully developed.
Submitted by:
Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
Daniel R. Trimble
Associate Planner
A ments: 1. Final Draft, Balboa Peninsula Panting Management Plan Report
F:\Users\PLMShared\BPRP\STAFFDOOpmpsmff.dm
c
Page 6
4.
11
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Hearing Date:
April 28, 1997
�, PCWPORr
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Agenda Item No.:
15
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Person:
Sharon Z. Wood
35� NEWPORT BOULEVARD
(714) 644-3222
NENPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(714) 644.3200; FAX (714) 644'3250
REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Financing Program and
Community Outreach Program
SUGGESTED Approve the recommendations of the City Council Finance
ACTION: Committee and staff outlined in this report
Summary of Financing Program
As directed by the City Council on February 10, 1997, staff prepared a Balboa Peninsula
Revitalization Financing Program, which was reviewed by the Finance Committee on April 23,
1997. As recommended by staff and the Finance Committee, funding is available .for
approximately 70% of the estimated costs of the Peninsula revitalization recommendations. This
can be achieved with over half the funds being generated on the Peninsula, nearly a third coming
from the federal- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and relying on the General
Fund for only 4% of funds. The possibility of Redevelopment Agency funding was considered
and eliminated from the program at this time because of its limited potential and community
concern with an agency.
The following table summarizes the total program costs, the amount available from each funding
source, and the shortfall. The projected shortfall of approximately $2.5 million is not significant
given the magnitude of the total program. It could be made up through bonding against projected
revenue streams, extending the time for implementation, or if any one of three high -cost projects
(new parking structure, Via Lido/32nd Street, or Mixmaster) was delayed or eliminated as a
result of further study.
Summary of Costs and Funding Sources
Total Costs $8,642,500
Funding Sources
CDBG $1,870,000
Off -Street Parking Fund 1,777,169
N'hood Enhancement 1,500,000
Local Business 261,000
Tidelands Fund 472,500
General Fund 245,000
Total Funds Available $6,125,869 f -1
Shortfall $2,516,631
r
Analysis
Attachment 1 to this report is the BPPAC Implementation Schedule, which shows the estimated
cost, possible funding source and timing for each project recommended in the Balboa Peninsula
Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 report. Implementation of all the
recommendations is shown over a six year period for analysis purposes, although this could
change as a result of community input or changing needs and opportunities. The following
priorities set by the City Council on February 10, 1997, are reflected in the scheduling of these
projects for 1996-97 and 1997-98:
- Parking management plan
- Balboa Pier Parking Lot improvements
- Local Coastal Program amendment and certification
- Tenant marketing plan
- Alcohol policies
- Derelict boat ordinance _
- Sign ordinance revisions
- Feasibility studies for mixmaster and Via Lido/32nd Street
Staff initially identified seven funding sources, and made five-year revenue projections for each,
based on the assumptions shown in Attachment 2. Each funding source is discussed below.
CDBG
For the past few years, the City has allocated a significant portion of its CDBG funds for
remodeling and reconstruction of public facilities to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All required ADA work has now been budgeted;
therefore these funds may now be dedicated to other projects. The City Council, Economic
Development Committee and BPPAC have expressed interest in using CDBG for economic
development, which is a priority for HUD as well. The Peninsula is one of few areas in Newport
Beach that qualifies as a target area, and is therefore a good opportunity for use of these federal
funds.
HUD regulations allow communities to borrow against future allocations, since many
communities are slow to expend their grants and the funds are not used as quickly as they are
appropriated by Congress. The maximum loan amount is five times the current year's allocation.
It is repaid from future years' allocations, and is forgiven if the CDBG program is not
reauthorized. This program provides the City with the opportunity to accomplish some
Peninsula improvements more quickly than would be possible with waiting for each year's
allocation.
Page 2
Off -Street Parking and Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve
The Off -Street Parking Fund and Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve are funding sources that
are unique to Newport Beach as a charter city. They are sources of a steady revenue stream,
against which the City can bond to increase its ability to implement the Peninsula revitalization
projects. These funding sources fulfill BPPAC's objective that visitors to the Peninsula help to
pay for the services they receive and the impact they make on the area. Finally, these sources,
especially the Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve, present the City with the best opportunity to
raise significant new revenue that can be dedicated to revitalization of the Peninsula.
The Municipal Cbde provides that parking meter revenue be distributed equally between the Off -
Street Parking Fund (with use limited to off-street parking improvements) and the General Fund.
In areas serving recreation needs, all revenue is to be deposited in the General Fund. In any area,
the City Council may establish Neighborhood Enhancement Areas with reserves created by
contributions of 50% of parking meter revenues. The reserves may be used for enhancements to
the neighborhood in the general vicinity of the contributing parking meters, not only parking
improvements, but also other capital improvements, special services or extraordinary
maintenance. Should the Council choose to provide for the maximum flexibility in use of
parking revenue, the Code could be amended to allow a greater percent to be contributed to the
Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve and/or to provide that meter revenue be deposited into the
Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve instead of the Off -Street Parking Fund or General Fund.
Local Business
This source includes potential funding from future BIDS and from the golf tournament sponsored
by the Chamber of Commerce to benefit the City's economic development programs. These
funds raised from the local business community are programmed for a marketing study and
tenant recruitment services to strengthen the commercial areas on the Peninsula.
Tidelands Fund
This appears to be the most appropriate funding source for programs in the Bay Management
category. As with the Off -Street Parking Fund and Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve, there
is an opportunity to increase revenue to this fund by increasing parking fees and hours at the
Balboa Pier Parking Lot, which is located on tidelands.
General Fund
The General Fund was identified as the source for new sign regulations and possible formation of
a redevelopment agency.
Redevelopment Agency
Staffs projections for a redevelopment agency show that revenue generation would not be
significant until such time as there were a major new development that would increase assessed
Page 3
r.
values substantially,. The idea of redevelopment has raised considerable concern among property
owners who have not had positive experiences in other communities, and agency formation is a
time-consuming and expensive process. On the other hand, an agency's power of eminent
domain for economic development purposes might be a very valuable tool to help assemble a site
large enough for a major development, especially given the complex property ownership patterns
on the Peninsula.
The Finance Committee and staff believe that redevelopment is a tool the City should consider to
facilitate future revitalization projects on the Peninsula; however, it has been eliminated as a
funding source because of its uncertainty. All of the streetscape, parking and circulation projects,
new sign regulations, tenant recruitment, and public dock construction would be eligible projects.
Subcommittee Review
The co-chairmen of BPPAC requested a group of professionals in the field of municipal finance
to act as a subcommittee and review the financing program prepared by staff. This subcommittee
met on March 14, 1997, and indicated that the financing program is a reasonable one. The
subcommittee members advised staff that Newport Beach is in a good position to issue debt, and
a bond issue of approximately $3 million could be supported by projected revenue to the
Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve. They also advised against proceeding with a
redevelopment agency immediately, but recommended continuing consideration of that avenue
as well as a parking authority, especially for purposes of site assembly.
Financing Program Recommendations
After reviewing the financing program, the Finance Committee made the following specific
recommendations for feasibility studies or implementation of those projects given high priority
by the City Council during fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The total expenditure
recommended for the remainder of this fiscal year is $175,000, and $365,000 is recommended to
be incorporated in the 1997-98 City Budget.
1. Authorize staff to prepare a Budget Amendment for $125,000 to appropriate Off -Street
Parking Fund reserves to begin preparation of a Parking Management Plan in fiscal year
1996-97;
2. Authorize staff to prepare a Budget Amendment to appropriate donated'proceeds from the
Economic Development Golf Tournament for use in fiscal year 1996-97 in preparing a
Market Study on Tenant Mix and Recruitment Strategies;
3. Direct staff to incorporate Capital Project funding in the 1997-98 City Budget for:
a. Feasibility studies on the beautification of Balboa Boulevard, $100,000 from
CDBG; a: g,&" ,(��
V�wL�Jv 3�- apj&o, apR -
b. Design of entry statements/signs, $25,000 from CDBG;
Page 4
C. Preparation of plans, specifications and engineering estimates on the re -design of
the.Balboa Pier Parking Lot, $100,000 from Off -Street Parking Fund;
d. Implementation of Phase I of the Parking Management Plan, $50,000 from Off -
Street Parking Fund;
4. Direct staff to incorporate funding for the preparation of a new sign ordinance and sign
inventory for the Balboa Peninsula study areas in the 1997-98 City Budget;
5. Direct staff to prepare the necessary modifications to the Municipal Code to transfer
$250,000 from the General Fund to a Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve earmarked for
Balboa Peninsula revitalization improvements, rather than the Off -Street Parking Fund,
with the duration of the transfer to be determined after completion of all feasibility
studies and finalization of the full work program;
6. Direct staff to defer any consideration of formation of a Redevelopment Agency since
revenues derived would be small and other funding sources have been identified;
Direct staff to defer study on the feasibility of relocating moorings from 1997-98 until
further research and analysis is completed on the legal issues;
8. Direct staff to commence work to further alcohol regulation and enforcement, to amend
and certify the City's LCP, and to draft regulations to strengthen derelict boat
enforcement.
Staff is recommending the following additional action, which was not specifically considered by
the Finance Committee, because the revenue projections in the financing program assume the
extension of hours during which parking fees are charged:
9. Direct staff to prepare the necessary modifications to the Municipal Code to extend the
hours during which parking fees are charged to midnight.
Summary of Community Outreach Program
Since BPPAC's Project 2000 report was released in January, there has been considerable public
interest in it. Some groups are interested in the overall program, while other groups and
individuals are concerned with specific recommendations that may impact them. The City
Council, BPPAC and staff recognize there is a need to provide more information to the
community, and provide opportunities for public input on recommendations as we move forward
with implementation.
As directed by the Council on February 10, 1997, staff has prepared a community outreach
The program has three major components: (1) overall program
program (Attachment 3).
Page 5
outreach to residents and businesses, (2) overall program outreach to community groups, and (3)
project implementation outreach.
In spite of the considerable public interest generated by BPPAC's report, there are many people
who have little or no information on it, and people whose only source of information has been
hearsay. This is -the case to some extent on the Peninsula and more so Citywide. The Balboa
Peninsula is what many people, especially visitors, think of as Newport Beach, making it an
important part of the City's overall image. In addition, residents from throughout the City use the
Bay and beach for recreation. Finally, improvements on the Peninsula could reduce the amount
of City resources now required to manage activities there. For these reasons, there should be
citywide understanding of, participation in and support for revitalization efforts, and the outreach
program is not limited to the Peninsula.
The first component of the outreach program is intended to be the City's opportunity to provide
widespread information on what is and what is not involved in revitalization plans, what the
review process for implementing specific projects will be, and receive public input on the
program. For this component, staff is proposing to prepare a short, easy -to -read brochure with a
summary of the background, recommendations, and review/implementation processes. This
brochure will be mailed to all residential addresses in the City and all commercial addresses on
the Peninsula. Following distribution of the brochure, there will be an open community meeting
sponsored by the City, with both City and BPPAC representatives available to discuss the
Peninsula revitalization program.
The second component focuses on community groups, with the intent of providing more detailed
information and the opportunity for smaller group discussions on the overall program. For this
component, staff has sent a more substantial summary of the BPPAC findings and
recommendations, the priorities set by the City Council on February 10, 1997, and notice of the
Council's discussion of financing and outreach at this meeting, including the recommendations
of the Finance Committee. In addition, an offer was made for a member of BPPAC and the
Assistant City Manager to speak to any community group interested in receiving more
information or providing more input on the program.
The third component will include a separate process for each specific project included in the
overall program. The process and participants will vary somewhat depending on the project, but
will generally include the participants listed on the attached outline. News releases will be
prepared and meetings with participants will be held before feasibility studies begin, when draft
feasibility studies are released, before design of improvements or drafting of ordinances begins,
when draft designs or ordinances are released (and when major revisions are released), at
commission and City Council review of projects, and before construction of improvements or
implementation of new programs or ordinances begins.
Page 6
Outreach Program Recommendation
The Finance Committee felt that the brochure would be the most effective component of the
outreach program, but that there is a need for additional community outreach as proposed. The
Committee made the following recommendation:
10. Direct staff to initiate an aggressive public outreach program as identified in the staff
report to keep all residents and businesses fully informed on BPPAC issues and status.
SHARON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
Attachments
Page 7
BPPAC IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Funding Source
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
Total
2001-02
STREETSCAPE, PKG & CIRC
Parking Management Plan
Plan development
Off -Street Parking
$125,000
$125,000
Res permits & meter changes
Off -Street Parking
$50,000
$50.000
New facilities construction (1)
_
Off -Street Parking
$2,060,060
$2,000,000
Balboa Blvd Beautification
Feasibility study
CDBG
$10o,000'
$100,000
Design & construction - Balboa Village
N'hood Enhancement
_ _
_ $200.0.00
I
_
_$200,000
Design & construction - remainder
N'hood Enhancement
$200,000
$200.000
$200,000
$600,000
Design entry statements & signs
CDBG
$25_.000
_
_
_
Entry statement &sign ins'allation
N'hood Enhancement
_ _
_ _
$40.000
_
$40,000
_
_
_ _$25.000
$80,000
Balboa Pier Lot & Main St
-
- ------- -
Design - - _
- - --- i5ir -----
Off -Street Parking _
-
----
$100,000
'----'-'
— -
'- - ---
-
'--' —'-'-'
---'-'----.
- ..._
$100,000'
Construction
Off -Street Parking
$500,000
_
$500,000
Newporl/Balboa Blvd-Mixmaster
Feasibility study
CDBG
$25,000
$25,000
Design
N'hood Enhancement
$125,000
$125,000
Construction (1)
N'hood Enhancement
$1,500.000
- -- _
_-___--
$1,500,000
Via Lidol32nd St
Feasibility study
CDBG
$2o,060
_
$20,000
Alignment and design
N'hood E_nhanc_ement
i
yr, 00,
t'•'
_,.
_ - _--
_ $75,000
Right-of-way acquisition (2)
CDBG
$1,500,060
_ _
_ $1_,500,000
Construction
N'hood Enhancement
$5oo,0o0
$500,000
Lido Village Triangle
I
I
Staff time
$0
Cannery Village Circulation
_
Staff time
— —
_
$0
Subtotal
$125,0001
$320.000
$2.440,000
$2.240.000
$200.000
$2.200.000
$7,525.000
(1) Preliminary pending feasibility and design studies
(2) Funding with Newport Blvd. widening
(3) Partial funding from EDC Golf Tournament proceeds
(4) Re- '-=s negotiation with Orange County
BPPAC IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Total
L_CP Certification
Amendments per BP Planning Study
Staff time
-
- -' --- - - -
Co ' tal Commission process
----- -'--'--'
- - -
- ----'---
Staff time
- - -
- - -
...--- --
-
Sign Regulations
- ' —signs- -------
--- - ---
- '- - -
---$' -
----------.
------ — -
. - -
- - - --
-- -
--"---
- -- - -
--
-
- ._. .
Inventory of existing
- -
General" Fund-
-
-
5--,--
000
--
- ----
- - -
-----
--
$5,000
. -
-- -
Ordinance preparation
General- Fund-'-'-
_
$40_,000
_
- _ _
$40,0 00
_
Amortization (sinking fund)
General Fund
_
t5,000
$5.000
_
$5,000
$5,000
$20,000
Tenant Mix (3)
_
-
-
-'
Market study
Golf Tournamen_ t
$50,000
$50,000
Recruitment services
BIDS
$30,000
_
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$150,000
Specific Plans
Staff time
Staff time
Property Maintenance Stds
Staff time
-- ._ .___ - .._—_- -'---
Short-term Rental Zones....
---' ----- - -- --
-- -..
.-- ' --
-' -' ---' --
- —
Staff time
-------- -
'--- ' '-
-- -- --
- ---- - ---- - --
Design Standards
--- - -
-
Staff lime
_
-
Subtotal
$50,000
$75,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35.000
$35.000
$265.000
SECURITYIALCOHOL
-
-
Alcohol Policies
Staff time
Enforce Permit Conditions
-
-- -- - -' ---- ------
Additional code enforcement staff
---- --' -
CDBG
-
- ._.
$40,000
- - $40,000
$40,00()
• �$40,000
---
$40,000
t200,000
Rental Inspections
Staff time
Subtotal
_
$40,000
$40,000
$4000
$40,000
$40;000
$200,000
(1) Preliminary pending feasibility and design studies
(2) Funding with Newport Blvd. widening
(3) Partial funding from EDC Golf Tournament proceeds
f> (4) Requires negotiation with Orange County
BAY MANAGEMENT
Charter Boat Regulations
Additional staff overtime
Additional County enforcers
Public Docks
Location study _
Dock construction
Derelict Boats
Harbor Commission
Scope & feasibility study
Ordinance/resolution prep:
Moorings
Subtotal
FINANCING/I MPLEM ENTAi
CDBG
Redevelopment Agency
BIDS
Parking Districts
Subtotal
TOTAL
(1) Preliminary pending feasibility and design studies
(2) Funding with Newport Blvd. widening
(3) Partial funding from EDC Golf Tournament proceeds
(4) Re- -res negotiation with Orange County
Attachment 2
Assumptions for Funding Projections
CDBG
• The Peninsula qualifies as a target area, and HUD will approve the Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy and expenditure of block grant funds on public improvements
and code enforcement in the area.
• The majority of funds not needed for social services and administration in 1997-98
will be allocated for Peninsula revitalization efforts.
• HUD will approve a Section 108 loan of future CDBG allocations for five times the
grant amount not needed for social services and administration in 1998-99.
Off -Street Parkins Fund
• Beginning in 1998-99, the annual revenue that has been kept in this fund will be
transferred to a new Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve for the Balboa Peninsula.
Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve
• Approximately 150 parking meters will be added on Balboa Boulevard and on side
streets in the commercial areas, and meter hours will be extended to midnight at the
Newport Pier Parking Lot. This will result in a one-time cost of $50,000 for meter
installation and new revenue of $110,000 per year, which will be designated to the
Neighborhood Enhancement Reserve.
• Revenue of $250,000 per year, beginning in 1998-99, will be transferred from the
Off -Street Parking Fund.
Local Business
• A new BID will be established for McFadden Square, Cannery Village and Lido
Village. It will assess member businesses an amount equal to the business license fee
and generate a total of $100,000. Half of this amount will be available for tenant
recruitment.
• The Chamber of Commerce will continue to sponsor the golf tournament and it will
generate modest revenue.
Tidelands Fund
• Approximately 50 spaces will be added to the Balboa Pier Parking Lot, and parking
fee hours will be extended to midnight.
N.
1�
Redevelopment Aeency
• An agency and redevelopment project area could not be established earlier than fiscal
year 1998-99.
• All of the Peninsula except the Peninsula Point residential area would qualify as part
of a project area.
• No major property development or sale is assumed, and property tax would increase
by no more than 2% per year.
• Tax increment will be passed through to the County, School District and other public
agencies as provided in State law, and 20% of tax increment will be set aside for
affordable housing. This will result in the agency receiving 37% of tax increment.
Attachment 3
BALBOA PENINSULA REVITALIZATION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM
I. Overall Program Outreach to Peninsula Residents and Businesses
A. Material: Brochure with short, easy -to -read summary of background,
recommendations and review/implementation processes
B. Distribution
1. all residential addresses in Newport Beach
2. all commercial addresses on Balboa Peninsula
C. Community Meeting: City/BPPAC sponsored community outreach
meeting to explain recommendations and process and receive public input
H. Overall Program Outreach to Community Groups
A. Material
1. Cover letter listing contents; notifying of April 28 City Council
discussion of priorities, financing and outreach; and offering
speakers bureau
2. Summary of BPPAC Findings and Recommendations and City
Council Priorities, February 10
B. Distribution
1. Newspapers
2. Community Associations (Citywide)
3. BIDs
4. Chambers of Commerce
5. Conference and Visitors Bureau
6. Association of Realtors
7. Community Groups: Speak Up Newport, Mooring Association,
Charter Operators Alliance, Service clubs
C. Speakers Bureau: BPPAC member and Assistant'City Manager
D. Timing
1. Prior to City Council meeting of April 28
2. Update(s) following City Council action
III. Project Implementation Outreach
A. Separate process for each project on BPPAC Implementation Schedule
B. Participants (List may vary for projects with localized impacts)
1. BPPAC members and District workshop participants
2. West Newport, Lido Isle, Cannery Village, Central Newport and
Peninsula Point Community Associations
3. Balboa Village BID, Restaurant Association, Newport Pier
Association, Cannery and Lido Village and 15th Street businesses
4. Mooring Association
5. Charter Operators Alliance
6. Association of Realtors
6. Owners or tenants of property with particular interest, e.g.,
American Legion, Newport Mesa School District, churches,
one-way couplet island
C. Meetings and News Releases
1. Start of feasibility study
2. Draft feasibility study
3. Start of design or ordinance preparation
4. Draft design or ordinance
5. Planning Commission and City Council review
6. Preconstruction or before implementation of new programs, e.g.,
residential parking permits, rental inspections
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" /5
Harry and Margaret Heimeh E C E 1 V E D
n4 Via Havre
~ ~ Newport Beach, CA 92663
(714) 675-5082 97 APR 23 P4.22
OFFICE
ITY OF Or THE
BEACH
The Mayor and City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Friends:
Re. Project 2000
We strongly object to the possibility that Via Lido may be
changed with only one lane in each direction. This is a most
undesirable plan, for the following reasons:
1. It will greatly add to congestion on Via Lido which will
hurt rather than help the merchants on this street.
2. Via Lido is and always has been the entrance to Lido Isle.
3. Via Lido is even named after Lido Isle and business activity
there is the result of the growth of Lido Isle.
4. This plan would result in 32nd street becoming the entrance
to Lido Isle. This would be very unattractive. It would also be
difficult to direct people to come on the island that way.
we urge you to oppose this plan.
Sincerely,
Margaret and Harry— Heiner
ATTACHMENT 1
PENINSULA REVITALIZATION FUNDING PROGRAM
FUNDING SOURCES
I
Funding Source
1996-97 ,
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02 !
Total
I
I
1
CDBG
i
I
Beginning Balance
j
$0 ,
$81,750
$191,750 I
$151,750
$111,750
New Revenue
$291,750
$1 650 000 1
• • - $0 j
$0
$0
Demands
!
$210 000 '
$1 540 000 1
$40,000 j
$40 000
' $40 000 j
$1 870 000
Ending Balance
_$0 1
$81,750 '
$191,750 j
$151,750 I
$111,750
$71,750
Off -Street Parking Fund
I
I
Beginning Balance
$1,602,369 , $1,652,369
$1,502,369
$1,002,369 ;
$1,002,369
$1,002,369 j
New Revenue
$175 000 I
$0
$0 1
$0 '
$0
$0 ,
Demands
$125 000 I
$150 000 '
$500 000 i
$0 I
$0
$2 000 000
$2 775 000
Ending Balance
$1,652 369 $1,502,369 '
$1,002,369 j
$1,002,369 !
$1,002,369
($997 631)1
N'hood Enhance Reserve 1
1
Beginning Balance
$0 ;
$0 •
$60,000 !
($20,000), ($1,900 000) ($1 740 000)
New Revenue
$0 '
$60.000 '
$110,000 ,
$110,000 1
$110,000
$110,000 ;
Transferred Revenue
$0 !
$0
$250,000 ;
$250,000 ;
$250,000
$250,000
Demands
Ending Balance
$0 j
$0 ;
$0 ;
$60,000 '
$440,000 $2.240,000 $200,000 $200,000 ,
($20,000)' ($1,900,000)1 ($1,740,000) ($1 580 000)
$3,080,000
I
I
i
1
I
Local Business
Beginning Balance
$11,002
($39,000)i
($59,000)i
($29,000)
$1,000
$31,000 j
New Revenue
$0 j
' $10,000 ;
$60,000 j
$60,000 ;
$60,000
$60,000
Demands
$50,000 ;
$30,000 ;
$30,000 ;
$30.000 ,
$30,000
$30,000 '
$200,000
Ending Balance
($39,000)'
($59,000)
($29,000)!
$1,000
$31 000
$61 000 '
Tidelands Fund
j
New Revenue
$40,000
$40,000 I
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000 ;
Demands
$54,500 :
$104,500 ;
$104,500
$104,500
$104,500
$472,500
General Fund
I
Demands
$30,000 ;
$195,000 ;
$5,000 i
$5,000 i
$5,000
$5 000 -
$245;000
1
I
!
Redevelopment Agency '
I
!
j
Beginning Balance
I
$0 1
$0 ;
$61.500 +
$185 700 '
$373 900
New Revenue
$0 i
$0 1
$61.500 '
$124,200 •
$188,200
$253,450 !
Demands
1
$0
Ending Balance
$0 ;
$0 j
$61,500 '
$185 700
$373 900
$627,350
i
'
Totals
Beginning Balance
$1,613,369 $1,613,369 i $1,585,119 $1,206,619
($559 181)
($220 981)'
New Revenue
$175,000 i
$401,750 $1,921,500
$334,200 :
$398,200
$463 450 '
$3 694100
Transferred Revenue
$0 ;
$0
$250,000 '
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Demands
$205,000
$639,5 00 $2,619,500 , $2,419,500
$379,500
$2,379,500
$8,642.500
Ending Balance
$1,613,369 $1.585,119 $1.206,619
($559,181)
($220,981) ($1,817,531)
City of Newport Beach
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan
Community Open House
Monday, May 4,1998
A G E N D A
6:30 Refreshments and Sign -in
7.00 Welcome and Introductions
7:15 Project Overview and Progress to Date
7:45 Community Open House and Discussion
9:00 Close
City of Newport Beach
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan
Community Open House #1
Community Comment Booklet
Welcome!!
Please sign in, help yourselves to refreshments, review the information displays, and take a seat for the presentation
segment of our agenda, which will begin at 7:00.
The purpose of tonight's workshop is to:
• Provide an overview of the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan process;
• Gather community input on parking issues, goals and priorities, and
• Review potential strategies and tools for parking management.
After a brief presentation on the Action Plan process, we invite you to visit the various stations set up around
the room, talk to City staff and the planning team, and record your comments, ideas and questions on the
displays. You may also use this comment booklet to write down your thoughts as you tour the stations, and
turn it in at the end of the evening for inclusion in the workshop documentation.
UboaPem wala Par*M hkmgementAdWn Pfaa MG, Inc/May 4,1998
Cmnmumty Wm*ftp #1-CmmmnentBoo9d Page 2
Station 1: Project Goals
At this first station, you will find a list of the goals for the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan.
Please indicate the priority you would assign to each Project Goal by placing a green dot in the appropriate spaces on the
display board. Write down any additional thoughts you have regarding the Goals in the space below:
Encourage Business Patronage
?mi►iiciri�a�aek�rt�'4testheitc9.' "�= =�= _ 'F^
I Improve Linkages to Public
�R duce,Sirarrii Aoa►dw- _, .. ; - _ _ _ ' - -
Improve Intersection Visibility
1ttice Pedestrisit Acce'btlftlr
Enhance Bi cle Travel
Generate treasonable itevteb.:
C-Ovq Ci -.Ciasta
Balboa Pemwuk Pwfw%Ma gemmtAdWKPlan
commWily WMW"41-commit Boorid
Station 2: McFadden/Civic Center/Lido Area
MUG, Zw4?A y 4,1998
Page 3
Please use the post -it notes to write down issues, comments or questions and place them on the large display map
corresponding to this area. The space below may be used to write down any additional comments.
Parking Issues/Concerns:
Station 3: Balboa
Area
Please use the post -it notes to write down issues, comments or questions and place them on the large display map
corresponding to this area. The space below may be used to write down any additional comments.
Parking Issues/Concerns:
Bd6naPenvw& PAftWhfmmgemrntAdwnPka
Cmnmmuty Wodm%p #1-Comment Bookid
MUG, I w^ly 4,1998
Page 4
Station 4: Central Newport Residential Area
Please use the post -it notes to write doom issues, comments or questions and place them on the large display map
corresponding to this area. The space below may be used to write down any additional comments.
Parking Issues/Concerns:
Station 5: Peninsula Point Area
Please use the post -it notes to write down issues, comments or questions and place them on the large display map
corresponding to this area. The space below may be used to write down any additional comments.
Parking Issues/Concerns:
R,Mw Pa unula Pinking Mamgemad Adimt PUan AUG, [= May 4, 1998
Cmmum ity Woddpp A1-Comma Booklet Pars
Station 6: Potential Strategies and Tools for
At this station, you will find a list of potential strategies and tools for parking management that may be
considered for the Action Plan.
Please pick up a handout describing the parking management tools and write down any thoughts you have regarding these
tools in the space below:
o Revised Meter Time Limits
Revised Fees
Residential Permits
Merchant Permits
Satellite Parking with Shuttle Buses
• Commercial Area Validation
R,Mw rb*mk Park*MmagementActim P&M
Community workshop t1-Commrnt Booklet
and Tools continued
• Shared Use of Private Parking
Centralized Valet System
Improved Signs
Parking Guides/Maps
• More Meters/Surface Lots
a Parking Structures
• Other Tools
MUG,W- ALy 4,19"
Page 6
BaMm PammU Pa/mgMemgewntAdwnPI=
cmmnaulyWmkshDF#1-corm "tBoahld
Additional Comments and
MUG, hwjMay 4,1998
Pap
Please use the space provided below to write down any additional comments or questions you may have regarding Balboa
Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan.
Please be sure to turn this comment form in to a staff person before you leave the meeting, or mail to:
John Douglas, Principal Planner, Planning Department, City of Newport Beach,
P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915.
Thank you for your participation!
Tool
Description
Effects of Measure
Issues to Consider
REVISE METER
Revise meter time limits and hours of
Promotes parking
• Meter "feeding"
TIME LIMITS
operation to preserve parking for
turnover for
• Enforcement
AND HOURS OF
businesses (for example, extend hours
businesses open at
OPERATION
past 6 PM or reduce 6 or 12 hour limits)
night
• Discourages all -day
use by non-paying
beach goers
REVISE METER
Revise parking fees for consistency
Encourages
Can be perceived as
FEES
throughout the Peninsula and with other
turnover of high
anti- visitor by some
coastal areas. Increased fees preserve
demand spaces
merchants
highest demand parking for highest
Consistent with
demand users
other coastal areas
RESIDENTIAL
Streets are posted so that only those with
• Reserves parking for
- Requires Coastal
PERMIT
permits may park. Residents may
residents
Commission
PROGRAM
purchase permits annually. May cover
• Prevents parking
approval
all day or only certain hours. Usually
intrusion
• Some residents
implemented to allow residents to park
oppose permit fees
where there is evidence of considerable
• May push intrusion
parking intrusion by non- residents.
to other blocks
• Requires resident
approval via petition
MERCHANT
Spaces are designated for merchant
Ensures adequate
• Removes spaces
PERMIT
usage only various times of the week or
merchant parking
from general use
PROGRAM
day
. Requires merchant
fee
Tool
Description
Effects of Measure
Issues to Consider
SATELLITE
Provide remote/sateltite parking off of
Increases overall
• Must be well
PARKING WITH
the Peninsula with a shuttle system to
parking supply
advertised
SHUTTLE
bring visitors and/or employees to the
Reduces congestion
• Shuttle is costly to
Peninsula
by reducing auto
operate
trips
• Only works for some
types of visitors
COMMERCIAL
Provide tickets and validation for public
Encourages use of
• Requires merchant
VALIDATION
lots
lots
participation/costs
SYSTEM
Simplifies parking
payment
SHARED USE OF
Develop formalized "shared use"
Effectively uses
• Liability/Cost issues
PRIVATE
agreements where private lots are used
existing parking
to consider
PARKING
by the public when businesses are closed
supply
CENTRALIZED
Implement "centralized" valet systems
Highly visible,
• Requires merchant
VALET
that serve entire blocks/areas instead of
consistent valet
cooperation and may
SYSTEMS
single businesses
operations are easy
require city subsidy
for visitors to use
IMPROVE
Improve overall parking signaage for
Provides easier to
• Only helps when
PARKING SIGNS
clarity and consistency
follow and
parking is available
understand
directions to
parking areas
PROVIDE
Develop and distribute parking maps
Increases awareness
• Distribution methods
PARKING
and pamphlets
of all parking
INFORMATION
options
City of Newport Beach
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Action Plan
Community Open House
Monday, May 4,1998
A G E -N D A
6:30 Refreshments and Sign -in
7:00 Welcome and Introductions
7:15 Project Overview and Progress to Date
7:45 Community Open House and Discussion
9:00 Close
HOW CAN PARKING
ON BALBOA PENINSULA
BE IMPROVED?
A Parking Management Action Plan is being developed by the City of
Newport Beach as one of the first steps in the Balboa Peninsula
Revitalization Program. Please help us design a plan to accomplish the
following major goals:
o Protect residential parking from encroachment
by non-residents
o Improve parking for peninsula businesses
o Accommodate visitor parking with minimum impacts
on residents and businesses
Please come to a Community Open House to learn more and give us your
thoughts
Monday, May 4, 1998
6:30 — 9:00 p.m.
American Legion Hall
215151h Street, Newport Beach
What's on the AGENDA?
6:30 — 7:00 Refreshments and sign -in
7:00 — 7:15 Welcome and introduction of participants
7:15 — 7:30 Project overview and progress to date
7:30 — 9:00 Community Open House and discussion
For more information contact John Douglas, Newport Beach Planning
Department at (714) 644-3230.
PLANNING DEPTARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1968
NEWPORT BCH, CALIFORNIA
92658.8915
IMPORTANT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Balboa Village Parking Demand
Amount of
Space
Apartment
99
Hotel +
34
Theater
415
Comm - General
163,644
Comm - Recreation
4.25
RestauranUFastfood
73,858
Office/Civic
31,214
Total Requirement
Balboa Village Parking Supply
Metered Lot
Pier Lot
On -Street Metered
On -Street Non -Metered
Privately Owned
Total Supply
Total Deficit
Unit of
Parking
Number of
Measurement
Requirement
Spaces
Units
2.5 per Unit
247.5
Rooms
1 per 2 Units
17.0
Seats
1 per 3 Seats
138.3
S.F.
1 per300 S.F.
545.5
Acres
1 per 400 S.F.
56.1
S.F.
1 per40 S.F.
1846.5
S.F.
1 per300 S.F.
104.0
2954.9
Number of
Spaces
192.0
611.0
91.0
93.0
371.0
1358.0
-1596.9
TAG
USE CODE
USE AMT
UP DATE
----------
D3F
006
--------- ---------
1
---------
D3F
036
3
1
D3G
O10
3
1
D3G
020
3
1
D3G
042
1
04-JAN-95
D3H
012
3
2
28-FEB-96
D3I
004
3
1
D3I
014
3
1
D3H
014
3
1
D3G
028
1
D3G
026
1
D3G
012
1
D3G
044
3
1
04-JAN-95
D3F
004
4
4
D3F
026
4
2
10-APR-95
D3F
008
3
D3F
030
4
2
10-APR-95
D3F
034
4
2
D3F
058
4
3
21-DEC-94
D3F
088
14
3
D3F
086
4
3
TAG
USE_CODE
---------
USE AMT
UPDATE
---------
----------
D3G
008
-------=-
4
3
D3G
006
4
2
D3G
004
4
1
D3F
100
4
3
D3F
098
4
3
D3F
096
4
2
D3F
090
4
2
D3F
056
4
3
D3G
036
4
2
04-JAN-95
D3G
024
4
2
D3G
022
4
2
D3G
018
4
2
01-MAY-95
D3G
016
4
2
01-MAY-95
D3G
014
4
3
D3F
032
4
2
D3F
028
4
2
D3I_062
4
1
12-JUN-95
D3I
O50
14
2
04-JAN-95
D3I
048
4
2
04-JAN-95
D3I_046
4
2
04-JAN-95
D3I
044
4
2
04-JAN-95
TAG
USE CODE
USE AMT
UP DATE
---------
----------
D3I
042
--------- -----
4
----
2
04-JAN-95
D3I
032
4
2
D3I
026
4
2
04-JAN-95
D31
024
4
2
04-JAN-95
D32
022
4
2
04-JAN-95
D3H
022
4
3
28-FEB-95
D3H
016
4
2
28-FEB-95
D3H
O10
4
2
D3H
008
4
2
o b y y2 z S �y pr 1 +lot
fM /
10
St` 4L
-�
1 S
(�G 1%•N44
Ua (0^"
l �
C R FG
4', c. CQ
"� c, �
c jMM t; C
lC
WINCI.
CAI.1
TSF
RtST f FF
I`1
¢cir
LZ .N SS
fSF
�.
of,,(,` CIVIL
2
TKE 1
Y�wB
,5
� Sr
vL
(htAr'
N l
fT
26
t�
C�J
2i•'µt6
`SSf
�S�
oC
of
P.a.
�.4
Sq
Est-
oc
`t N
2
TJ(
o
N6
q.5t,�
S 5 0 c� c sr Or
31N3
�PCk r
�o�
TAG USE CODE
D3F
038
15
DH
036
15
DH
022
15
D3H
064
16"-
aF D3E
004
18
D3E
002
19
D3E
004
19
D3E
O10
19
D3I
018
19
D3I
014
19
D3H
064
19
D3H
048
19
D3H044
19
D3H
032
19
D3H
006
19
D3G
034
19
DH
002
19
D3I
040
19
D3I
036
19
D31
030
19
D3I
028
19
USE AMT UP DATE
4.25 27-MAR-95
47.2 28-FEB-96
6.147 15-FEB-95
5.56 28-FEB-96
3.595 07-FEB-95
2
1.018 07-FEB-95
12.75 12-JUN-95
6.243 28-FEB-95
3
1.088 15-FEB-95
4
2.5 07-MAR-95
2.9 07-MAR-95
2.835 08-FEB-95
2.43 03-JAN-95
3.6
2.773 03-JAN-95
TAG
USE CODE
USE AMT
UP DATE
---------
----------
D3F
024
--------- ---------
20
1
D3F
038
20
.8
D3H
030
20
1.2
27-MAR-95
D3H
048
20
3.469
28-FEB-95
D3I_016
20
.85
D3I
028
20
.8
03-JAN-95
D3H
032
20
.7
15-FEB-95
D3H
026
20
2.6
03-JAN-95
D3H
064
22
.5
12-JUN-95
D3I
018
26
.44
D3G
006
—28
1
D3I
028
28
1.946
08-FEB-95
D3I
016
28
1.5
D3I
012
28
.5
D3H
048
28
.4
28-FEB-95
D3H
032
28
.7
15-FEB-95
D3G
088
28
.5
D3G
086
28
12
D3G
008
28
.8
D3G
084
23,
1
D3H
020
<'--39
1.7
03-JAN-95
TAG
USE CODE
USE AMT
UP DATE
---
----------
D3F
040
--------- ---------
44
2
D3G
002
46
4.968
07-FEB-95
D3H
036
52
5
14-MAR-95
D3H
050
52
6.249
11-JUL-95
D3H
052
5/2
3
05-JAN-95
152 rows selected.
SQL>
2 2,
USE NBR USE TYPE UNIT USE CATEGORY
12
7
TSF
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
1
6
DU
RESIDENTIAL - COAST ESTATE
2
6
DU
RESIDENTIAL - ESTATE/RURAL
3
6
DU
RESIDENTIAL - LOW (SFD)
4
6
DU
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM (SFA)
5
6
DU
APARTMENT
6
6
DU
PARK NEWPORT
7
6
DU
ELDERLY RESIDENTIAL
8
6
DU
MOBILE HOME
9
7
ROOM
MOTEL
10
7
ROOM
HOTEL
11
7
ROOM
RESORT HOTEL
24
5
CRT
TENNIS CLUB
13
7
TSF
DISTRICT COMMERCIAL
14
7
TSF
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
15
7
TSF
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
16
7
ACRE
COMMERCIAL/RECREATION
17
7
TSF
RESORT COMMERCIAL
18
7
TSF
UNCLASSIFIED COMMERCIAL
19
7
TSF
RESTAURANT
20
7
TSF
FAST FOOD RESTAURANT
USE NBR USE TYPE UNIT USE CATEGORY
21
7
ACRE
AUTO DEALER
22
- 5
TSF
YACHT CLUB
23
7
TSF
HEALTH CLUB
36
1
TSF
GOVERNMENT OFFICE
25
5
SLIP
MARINA
26
7
SEAT
THEATER
27
5
ACRE
NEWPORT DUNES
28
4
TSF
GENERAL OFFICE
29
4
TSF
MEDICAL OFFICE
30
2
TSF
INDUSTRIAL
31
2
TSF
R & D
32
1
TSF
PRE-SCHOOL/DAY CARE
33
1
STU
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
34
1
STU
JUNIOR/HIGH SCHOOL
35
1
STU
PRIVATE SCHOOL
49
5
UNIT
BEACH
37
1
TSF
CIVIC CENTER/MUSEUM
38
1
TSF
LIBRARY
39
1
TSF
POST OFFICE
40
1
TSF
OCTD FACILITY
41
1
TSF
FIRE STATION
USE NBR USE TYPE UNIT USE CATEGORY
42
1
BED
HOSPITAL
44
1
TSF -
CHURCH
45
3
ACRE
CEMETARY/RESERVOIR/UTILITY
46
3
TSF
YOUTH CENTER/SERVICE
47
5
ACRE
PARK
48
5
ACRE
REGIONAL PARK
50
5
ACRE
GOLF COURSE
51
5
ACRE
RESORT GOLF COURSE
52
3
TSF
AUTO PARKING
D3H
004
4j
2
D3G
092
4
2
D3G
090
4
2
D3G
088
2
D3G
084
3
D3G
046
3
04—JAN-95
D3G
040
2
04—JAN-95
D3G
038
2
04—JAN-95
D3H
026
4
1
03—JAN-95
D3F
042
5i
7
D3F
092
5
11
D3F_094
5
6
JI
TAG
----------
USE CODE
—
------- — ---------
USE AMT
—
UP— DATE
---------
c.^
D3G
032
5
6
D3I
O18
5
&
D3I
O10
44
04—JAN-95
D3H
024
12
03—JAN-95
D3G
034
7
07—MAR-95
D3I
028
An
34
03—JAN-95
NE
002
15
3.533
15—FEB-95
NE
004
15
23.584
23—JAN-96
D3F
020
15
3
04—JAN-95
D3I
012
15
1.2
D3I
008
15
.986
23—JAN-96
D3I
006
15
2
DW
004
15
.56
27—FEB-96
D3I
002
15
2.5
D3H
056
15
6.05
D39
048
15
7.628
28—FEB-95
D3H
046
15
.925
23—JAN-96
D3H
042
15
3.852
23—JAN-96
D3I
062
15
2.235
12—JUN-95
D3I
060
15
.983
23—JAN-96
6/
D31
038
15
1.8
03—JAN-95
TAG
USE CODE
USE AMT
UP DATE
------- —
----------
D3I
032
--------- ---------
15
2.2
D3I
028
15
1.6
03—JAN-95
DW
020
15
9.404
23—JAN-96
D32
018
15
2.9
D3H
024
15
6
03—JAN-95
D3H
022
15
3.5
28—FEB-95
D3H
018
15
2.5
28—FEB-95
D3H
016
15
2.7
28—FEB-95
D3G
O88
15
.5
D3G
034
15
.6
07—MAR-95
D3G
030
15
2.2
D3G
020
15
.15
D3H
040
15
3
28—FEB-95
D3H
038
15
3
D3H
034
15
2.49
23—JAN-96
D3H
030
15
1.8
D3H
030
15
1.6
D3H
030
15
1.4
h`1�
D3H
028
15
.4
10—JAN"95
5�
D3H
028
15
.6
27—MAR-95
D3G
004
15
2.4
53
58
62
63
64
65
43
58 rows selectec
SQL>
8 ACRE VACANT LAND
3 TSF SERVICE CLUB
5 ACRE PRIVATE PASSIVE OPEN SPACE
5 TSF PRIVATE RECREATION COMPLEX
5 CRT TENNIS COURTS
9 UNIT RESIDENTIAL GARAGE
n nnm mnneTUr_/rnmNT HnmF
1997 Baseline for OCP 2000
(Draft)
CITY
Newport Beach
CT
626.1
TAZ
2336
CAA
48
Population
_ 0
Resident I
Population
0
0
_ 0
0
Total Family
Dwelling Units
0�
Single Family
Dwelling Units
0
Multiple Family
Dwelling Units I
0
Employment
493
_ 18
139
3
Newport Beach
626.1
2337
48
48
_ 0
_ _ 0
-
0
0
0
_ 0
0
_ _ _
_ _ 0
----0---
Newport Beach
626.1
_
_2338
2339
Newport Beach
626.1
48
0
_
0
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
626.1
_ 2340
2341
_ _48
48
0
0
1
_0
0 0
1 1
_ _ 651 462
698I 658
-------------
_ _ 211 _ _ 211
2_55� - 255
1,143i 955
I_ 795E 618
9201 618
1,7001 1,188
1,459� 11021
-_ 1,095� 915
3,134; 1,561
__. 039� 843
_ 1_063: 724
_ 1,868 636
_ 250; _ 110
_ 9611 355
2,1801 1,577
_ _ 0
_ 0
- 1.8_9
_
15
_ 0
6
0
124
167
468
- 290
_ 5,734
152
21
882
21
1,795
92
0
_ _ 0
19
278
0
216
41
78
__917
___ -__ _ _32.5
0
_ _2,301
611
626.1
_
1
Newport Beach
N_ewportBeach
tJewport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
626.17
_ 2416
2417
--- - - - - -
_ 2444
_ 2445
2435�
2436
47
1,993
_11990
1,443
---
---- ----387
445
4,1291_
1,891
1,452
3,186,
2,997
1,925
626.17
--
626.17
626.17.
626.18
47
-----
47
47
47
47
47
46
46�
46
_
1,445
--- ---
388
-- --
446
_ 4,129
1,891
1,452
3,186
---2,997
_1,925
2
_ 4.0
_- 0
_ 0
_ 188
- 177
_ 302
_ 512
438
1,573
_ 96
_ _-339
1,232
- 140
_ 606
_ 603
-_ 430
Newport Beach
626.18
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
626.18'
627.011
627.02
627.02
627.99
_
24_37i
2413i
2414
_ 2415
_ 2413�-46
_ 2410
2406�
2421f
2422r
_ 2423
0
Newport Beach
628
46
_ 46
_ 47
47
47
46
_
I- - 5,149
1,938
5`149
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
629
1,938
630.04i__
- -
1,265
3,362
_ 495
1,503
1,265i
3,365.
Newport Beach
630.04
Newport Beach
630.04
397
Newport Beach
630.05
2411
i ' 2412
1,503
Newport Beach
630.06
46
_
_ 3,607
3,601
Newport Beach
630.07
2428
47"
_ 47
471
-- --
47[_
1,558
- 0
1,642
1,413
13
1,55.8
_ Oi
T,0421
1,413
--
1,980
843�
7241 294
Oj 0
414: 188
i - ----
813i 811
--- - ..
868-� 452
- 5301 125
0�
0 0
0_ 0
_ 545 510
195 179
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
-
630.07
_ 2429
- 2430
--- - -
2431
0
226
_ 2
416
405
0
_ �_ 0
0
35
16
630.07
Newport Beach
-
630.07
Newport Beach
630.07
_
2432
471
11,980
Newport Beach
630.08
2424
- -
47
47I
47
47
47
47
__ _
862
- ---
_ 0
0
0
17292
443
Newport Beach
630.08
2425
_ 2426
2427
2419
2420
-
01_____
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
630.08
_ Oi
0
11292
443
630.08
630.09
630.09
Center for Demographic Research
CSUF
9/4/99
13
"jtSA
IC90 utt L'Wk -
9i19 is61 isns
st�lq
Tao 2-
tiSL't IRN2. L1�ti
""FbK
Epp
4��t SE'P'^
1997 Baseline for OCP 2000
(Draft)
CITY
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
CT
630.11
631.01
TAZ
2418
2327
CAA
47
44
Population I
_- 6,008
_ 0
Resident
Population
6,008
0
_ 465
— 0
Total Family
Dwelling Units
3,330
0
Single Family
Dwelling Units
1,487
0
Multiple Family
Dwelling Units I
1,843
__ _ _ 0
__ _0
_ _ 0
_ 278
284
147
1,230
1_,269
66
-0
6
0
142
1,025I
6681
Employment
__ __ 215
_ 0
711
_ _ 29
153
237
4.71
28
34
778
517
0
0
1,248
1,610
672
Newport Beach
_ 631.03
633
EE�_
2393
45
465
0
_
157
I. -7
Newport Beach
2396
45
0
_
0
Newport Beach
634
_ 2407
46
_
_ 2,881
2,849
1,412
1,316
1,038
Newport Beach
- _ 6341
_ _ 2408
46
1,428
' 624
413
1,846
_ 340
266
616
421
Newport Beach
634 2409
_ 635; 2404
6551; 2405
_ 636.011 2381
-- ----
_ 636.02 - - 2382
636.0T 2399
636.03 2400
636.03 2401
636.03, 2402
636.03, 2403
46
_-_ _
328
_ 3,384
3,153
621
0
- -
_ 0
OI
1,644
2,394
1,918
_
918
_ 3,384
3,153
_ 62.1
-- _ 0
0
_ 01
_1,3951
_ 2,1891
1,7371
Newport Beach
46
46
Newport Beach
1,690'
Newport Beach
45
45
-
46
281
_ _
195
____ _ 0
__ 0
_ _ 0
1,096
35
14
Newport Beach
'__ 0
Newport Beach
0
_ __ _ 0
1,237
1,060
670
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
46
48
46
46
Newport Beach
Center for Demographic Research
CSUF
9/4l99
Trimble, Daniel
From:
Wood, Sharon
Sent:
Thursday, September 30, 1999 10:29 AM
To:
Trimble, Daniel
Subject:
FW: Parking
Please get together with Karen on this issue. You also should include the new meter technology in your report to PROP
forth 15th.
----Original Message -----
From:
Henisey, Paul
Sent:
Monday, September 27, 1999 11:25 AM
To:
Wood, Sharon
Cc:
Weigand, Karen; Chandler, Don
Subject:
RE: Parking
I too, have serious concerns because of the labor intensive nature of chalking tires. It requires two PCO's to perform the
task because we do not have the vehicles to perform such duties. There are a couple of vehicles on the market that are
dual drive allowing one person to perform this duty, although the costs of purchase and maintenance are high because it is
a custom installation. Even then it has drawbacks due to the slow speed interfering with other traffic, the time consuming
nature of the task with minimal return, and the safety issues related to the divided attention required of the PCO. At the
same time, I think the public will quickly learn how to get around this resulting in little gain with a lot of effort. Karen
Weigand is our Parking Control supervisor and is the contact person for us. Her extension is 3741. 1 was surprised to see
this in the draft report that I received the day of the study session. We do need to be involved in the parking plan as there
are issues that will impact what we do and how we do it and may well have financial implications on the Department and
the City.
-----Original Message -----
From:
Wood, Sharon
Sent:
Thursday, September 23, 1999 5:00 PM
To:
Henisey, Paul
Cc:
Trimble, Daniel
Subject:
Parking
As part of the Peninsula Parking Management Program, there's a recommendation to chalk mark tires to enforce time
limits and stop meter feeding. Naturally, Bob is concerned about the staff costs of doing that. Who in PD can Dan
Trimble in my department work with to get some information on this issue?
Trimble, Daniel
From:
Henisey, Paul
Sent:
Thursday, October 14, 1999 4:30 PM
To:
Trimble, Daniel
Cc:
Weigand, Karen; Chandler, Don; Wood, Sharon
Subject:
FW: Parking
As Karen has indicated, although the concept of marking tires to prevent meter feeding sounds good, the fact is additional
resources will be required and the costs for those resources will not likely be recouped with either additional fines or meter
revenue. I will object strongly if this additional duty is placed upon existing personnel with no additional staff provided. I
have made a commitment to Admin Services to maintain current levels of personnel to provide at least the same level of
service as we have in the past. It is important to note that years of experience have shown that our citizens have become
adept at circumventing some of the parking regulations. This will no doubt continue and will likely increase as we add
additional regulation.
Having said that, if the City determines to proceed with this regulation, a decision will have to be made on how to
implement this. Will it be a year round regulation, or just during the summer months? If it is year round, has anyone
looked at the impact? During the non -summer months, parking is usually readily available unless it is an unusually warm
weekend day. However, if it is to be year-round then the Police Department will need to staff an extra PCO on a daily
basis to monitor these zones so as to not impact the level of service provided by the existing PCO deployment. This will
require one full-time PCO at about $48,000 per year salary and benefits and a part-time PCO at about $20,000 per year for
salary. It will require an additional PCO vehicle at a cost of $16,000 and then Internal Service Fund Equipment
Replacement and Maintenance at about $6,000 per year. Additional first-time startup equipment and miscellaneous costs
of about $10,000 would be required. Total cost for year round deployment would be estimated to be $100,000.
If the plan is to establish this regulation just for the summer months, then two part-time PCO's at a cost of $40,000, one
vehicle at $16,000 plus Internal Service Fund costs of $6,000, and miscellaneous costs of $10,000 for a total of $72,000.
Again, these are just estimates because I have not had time to thoroughly review all pertinent issues to get this to you this
afternoon. I would like to see a draft of any work intended to be distributed prior to that occurring. As Karen indicates, it is
important for us to be involved in the planning of any parking issue that involves enforcement.
--Original Message ----
From: Weigand, Karen
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 1999 9:50 AM
To: Henisey, Paul
Cc: Chandler, Don
Subject: RE: Parking
In the report is the suggestion to chalk tires to free up the parking and prevent vehicles parking in metered spaces for any
extended period of time. While marking tires (30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hour, etc.), is a good way to monitor this, there are
approximately 20 vehicles (sometimes more) in the Balboa business that display handicap placards on a daily basis. The
placard allows these vehicles to park at any meter or time zone (excluding white & yellow) for an unlimited amount of time
(up to 72 hrs). In addition to the placards is the use of the master permits that also allows vehicles to park at any meter for
up to 72 hours. As current practice has shown on Balboa Island and in Corona del Mar, marking tires does not necessarily
result in more available parking. The business owners and employees are quite creative in their efforts to avoid moving
their cars. Some tactics include, washing the marks off, moving their car forward or backward enough to cover the chalk
mark, and finally just switching spaces with another shop owner or employee. Not only is it time consuming to require a
vehicle move from one spot to another or to move a required amount of distance, this just creates more traffic congestion.
Time zone enforcement is less efficient since the PCO has to work the area twice to determine if a violation exists. To
mark the tires, the PCO either walks the area or since the PCO vehicles are left hand drive, one PCO drives while the
other PCO marks the tires.
In addition, the area would require the posting of additional signs indicating the maximum amount of time allowed to park.
PCO's comment that many spaces are taken up by business owners and employees and suggest the business folks get
involved and be educated on where to park and encourage those using handicap placards and city permits to park in long
term parking (Balboa Pier Parking lot), rather than in front of the businesses. If the proposed plan is implemented we will
need one additional PCO to enforce parking regulations in this area and one additional PCO vehicle will be required.
Included in the report is the suggestion for permit parking for residents and business owners. We definitely want to be
included in this discussion]
-----Original Message ----
From:
Henisey, Paul
Sent:
Monday, September 27, 1999 11:25 AM
To:
Wood, Sharon
Cc:
Weigand, Karen; Chandler, Don
Subject:
RE: Parking
I too, have serious concerns because of the labor intensive nature of chalking tires. It requires two PCO's to perform
the task because we do not have the vehicles to perform such duties. There are a couple of vehicles on the market
that are dual drive allowing one person to perform this duty, although the costs of purchase and maintenance are high
because it is a custom installation. Even then it has drawbacks due to the slow speed interfering with other traffic, the
time consuming nature of the task with minimal return, and the safety issues related to the divided attention required of
the PCO. At the same time, I think the public will quickly learn how to get around this resulting in little gain with a lot of
effort. Karen Weigand is our Parking Control supervisor and is the contact person for us. Her extension is 3741. 1
was surprised to see this in the draft report that I received the day of the study session. We do need to be involved in
the parking plan as there are issues that will impact what we do and how we do it and may well have financial
implications on the Department and the City.
-----Original Message -----
From: Wood, Sharon
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 5:00 PM
To: Henisey, Paul
Cc: Trimble, Daniel
Subject: Parking
As part of the Peninsula Parking Management Program, there's a recommendation to chalk mark tires to enforce
time limits and stop meter feeding. Naturally, Bob is concerned about the staff costs of doing that. Who in PD can
Dan Trimble in my department work with to get some information on this issue?
MEMORANDUM
September 7, 1999
TO: Dan Trimble
FROM: Rich Edmonston
SUBJECT: Comments on the Balboa Parking Management Plan Report
The following are my comments on the report and your draft staff report.
In addition, I am returning your copy of the report with some notations on
Post it notes.
• I had previously indicated to the Consultant the the parking in the
median of Balboa Boulevard is actually a LOT, not on -street parking.
Not a big deal, but it does make some differences.
• The In -lieu parking money is part of the Offstreet Parking Fund. It may
be a separate sub -category, but segregating may lead to confusion.
• It appears to me that there is more of a split opinion on Option 3 -
Extended meter hours. Table 7 shows 48 out of 69 votes as "I really like
this idea" and bullet 6 on pg 45 reiterates this. The results in Table 8 are
quite different and I may have overlooked it, but I didn't see any
explanation for the difference. Maybe this should be pursued further
with consideration given to limiting the change to meters in the
business areas only.
• Option 4 - Business Permits - appears to have more negative votes in
Table 8 than positive ones yet it ended up as a Category 2 Option.
• if we are relying more heavily on the 3,d workshop balloting, Option 8 -
Residential Permits- was voted down by nearly a 2 to 1 margin, yet it
isn't being rejected.
• The report lists specific locations for added red curb, Option 15. 1
intended this to be more generic and I think the discussion provides for
this. I concur with it being a Category 1 Option.
• Option 16 - Balboa Lot Validation - will require quite a bit more work
and maybe should be a Category 2 or 3 Option. I think neither the
City Council nor the business people understand all of the details and
what the cost/revenue tradeoffs may be. Somebody has to pay for
this type of program and at the workshops we heard a variety of ideas
on how it might work in Balboa.
As a final comment, would it be possible to enumerate the process for the
City Council on how we will implement the Category 1 items, ie. What if
any additional approvals are needed and an approximate time frame.
I'd be surprised if this question doesn't come up next Monday.
Again, sorry that I didn't look more carefully at the route slip to see the
request for my comments.
Trimble, Daniel
From: Wood, Sharon
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 10:40 AM
To: Trimble, Daniel
Subject: FW: Draft Parking management Plan Report
Please forward to Gary if appropriate. I think we will need an errata sheet unless his budget provides for publication after
final CC review.
-----Original Message -----
From:
Melum, Tony
Sent:
Wednesday, September 15, 1999 2:53 PM
To:
Wood, Sharon
Subject:
Draft Parking management Plan Report
Page 67 re: Balboa Penn. Parking lots, the BE
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
DESIGN ISSUES MEETING
November 4, 1999
AGENDA
1. City Council approval:of Alt 6A
a. Impact of separating entry and exit points
b. Other concerns
2. Consideration•of•changing from attendant operation to "meters"'
a. Collection technology
— impact to Public Works Department staffing
impact on entry/exit design
b. Impact.to.Fire.and Marine Department attendant staffing ^
c. Impact to Police Department enforcement staffing
3. Potential to segregate,the lot into short, medium and long-term parking areas
a. By design of entry/exit points
b. By signage and meter controls
c. Enforcement implications under attendant and metered operation.
Trimble, Daniel
From:
Edmonston, Rich
Sent:
Friday, October 29, 1999 11:52 AM
To:
Melum, Tony; Davis, Sue; Chandler, Don; Weigand, Karen; Trimble, Daniel; Brine, Tony
Cc:
McDonell, Bob
Subject:
Balboa Pier Parking Lot project
I have set up a meeting for Thurs, Nov 4 @ 10:00 in the Council Chambers. The City's consultant on the Peninsula
Parking Management Study will be there as well.
The two key areas to talk about are:
1. What would be the impacts if the attendants were eliminated? If we end up going this way there are major issues with
lot layout, enforcement, equipment selection and control on peak days.
2. Should there be clear segmentation of the parking into short, medium and long term parking. If there is a feeling we
should do this, do we have the needed information to derive the proper percentages for each. Obviously, this is closely
tied to item 1.
My goal for this meeting is to identify issues that each department may have with the above and how these new
considerations fit in with the overall Parking Management Program we have begun. I envision the need for each dept to do
follow-up and then we would meet again in a few weeks. Prior to the second meeting each dept would distribute written
info addressing their concerns and to the extent possible the financial impact to their operation.
The second meeting would then lead to a draft report to the City Manager or Council. Depending on the extent of what we
come up with there may be a need to have another community meeting and a revised report to the City Council before we
can tell the design consultant what they are supposed to accomplish.
Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan
Chalk Marking Tires recommendation
Police Department comments:
• Chalk marking tires would not impact current handicap or other permit users who can park at a space
for up to 72 hours (20 or more in Balboa Village alone).
• The chalk mark is easily wiped off or covered up by moving the vehicle only a few inches forward or
backward.
• This type of enforcement is less efficient since the officer would have to visit the area twice to
determine if a violation has occurred.
• Existing tire -marking efforts in Corona del Mar and on Balboadsland have not shown any significant
improvement in the availability of parking as a result of this type of enforcement.
• At least one and a half additional officers ($68,000), a new vehicle ($16,000), and equipment and
annual maintenance ($16,000) would be required for full year enforcement— annual total $100,000.
Summer only enforcement would only reduce the cost to $72,000 per year.
Electronic Alternative to Chalking Marking Tires
The alternative uses an electronic wire loop that is installed in each space along with a monitoring
mechanism in each meterhead. The Company that has developed this technology has proposed a no cost
pilot program to the City. Here are further operational details about the program and the equipment that is
used:
• Equipment has a projected 10-year life span with an estimated 3-year battery life
• Meters automatically collect data on utilization and duration (Still requires manual download)
• Meters can be programmed to give "free time" when someone pulls into an empty space, allowing
• them time to use a change machine or get change from a merchant
• Meters can be programmed for any time increment and are reprogrammable
• Once the maximum allotted time has expired, additional coins would not be accepted until the vehicle
leaves the space and another vehicle pulls in
• Any remaining time on the meter is cleared as the vehicle exits the space
• The program is estimated to increase revenues by 30%, part of which would be used to finance the
purchase of the equipment
MEMORANDUM
Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department
Marine Environmental Division
Date: May 21,1999
To: Sharon Wood
From: Tony Melum
Subject: Balboa Parking Lot Stats
Here are the stats that we have accumulated so far. We have had this capability
but no one has requested it so we did not keep them until recently.
This is for a 20-day period and is broken down into 20-minute sections with the
number of cars for twenty days in each time slot. When you multiply the
number of cars (see first row, 0-20 min. =1,958 cars times $.50 = $979.00) times
the rate you can see what each time slot generates.
If you have any questions give me a call.
w,.
lc) 80"(S
1
L1
L •
Iu-t_t"r`
A. L 1
99-05• D1
e)20-10:47
Lv-�. •
1p1 3�
anal
nn �a;Q
'Z
< -�
I��� 2fb74.Si7
, A,4`�
riir''
,•�
i-ID l��µi�i
I `�
n�J ran
:.t�jL• "t%f':.•'H
D
Iyx
nnc.,, c,n
�...;_;
(o
.... 39w
1/\VN
nvf
AA a r
yob
nl
ra�.
1
yir,n
LV�7.....1jtt
L08 .04
BUD....
��.,�<.
nerJ.....Q,r�,t
Pi.:,,. c.ss
11
U
_
`C04..... 0
OA
meJ , 0
4V....�
r'1•±•-.. •2,i
ti•.
i�Colo....L
,
Coe I ....00
�� •d < < < < n•
r�
...
nna •
LA:L
_ _
Wood, Sharon
From:
Edmonston, Rich
Sent:
Friday, April 30, 1999 10:07 AM
To:
Wood, Sharon
Cc:
Melum, Tony; Davis, Sue
Subject:
Balboa Pier Parking Lot fees
After the discussion at PROP this morning it occurs to me that this is exactly the kind of
discussion Meyer,Mohaddes and their subconsultant should prepare. It doesn't make much
sense to have staff develop a detailed report on first -hour -free and or validated when this is
obviously part of how we "manage" the single largest parking facility on the peninsula.
It would seem to me that Fire/Marine could provide the consultant with a lot of detail on the
percentage of users who stay for various time increments. These increments would provide a
pretty good indication of shoppers, fishermen, employees, over -night residents, etc. This would
allow for revenue projections to be prepared based on at least current usage and the consultant
could hopefully offer some forecast on how the usage might change with the two programs.
Fire/Marine may need to figure out how to deal with either program as far as their computerized
accounting system. It may be set up for these options, and it may not be.
It seems we are very close to wrapping up the Parking Management study and we are also at
the end of the Winter fee schedule for the Balboa Pier Lot so there wouldn't appear to be any
reason to rush this through.
I don't have a personal stake in this, but I think it would give the overall process we've been
working on more credibility to include all changes in the PMP study.
April 26,1999
Council Agenda
Item No. 4
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Timothy Riley, Fire and Marine Chief /z-,,
Subject: Revised Parking Lot Fees for Balboa Pier and Corona Del Mar Parking
Lots
RECOMMENDATION
If desired, rescind Resolution No. 92-105 and adopt Resolution No. 99 ,
amending the City Master Fee Schedule for parking lot fees at the Balboa Pier and
Corona Del Mar Parking Lots.
BACKGROUND
Resolution No. 92-105 (attached) for the fees at both City parking lots was last revised in
1992. That resolution established a summer fee from March through September and a
winter fee from September to March.
A recent survey of the majority of the municipal parking facilities in our areas,
specifically Huntington Beach City, Huntington Beach State, Crystal Cove and John
Wayne Airport, indicates all have a single year-round rate, which is essentially the same
as our summer fee. Leaving the summer fee the same year-round will do a number of
things. It will eliminate public confusion as to what the fees are from summer to winter.
It will update our fees, which have not been changed since 1992. It will bring us into
conformity with the majority of the other municipal and private parking facilities in our
area. It will have a projected revenue increase of between $40,000 and $50,000 a year.
d
9 PM4/"/"
Exhibit "A"
City of Newport Beach
1999 Fee Schedule Amendments
II. CORONA DEL MAR STATE AND CITY BEACH PARKING LOT
A. Summer Rates:
Last Saturday in March through the last Sunday in
September.
Autos:
$6.00 per day.
Vehicles 20 feet or longer:
$12.00 per day.
Motorcycl.os•
$3.00 per day.
B. Winter Rates:
First Monday following the last Sunday in September
through the Friday preceding the last Saturday in
March.
Autos:
$5.00 per day.
Vehicles 20 feet or longer: t
$10.00 per day.
Motorcycles:
$3.00 per day.
III. The City Manager is authorized to waive any of the
aforesaid fees established herein when a special event of
a charitable or civic nature is being held and it is in
the best interests of the City and the general public
that fees not be charged for the use of any such parking
lot in connection with said cpeci.al event.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 91-24 is
hereby rescinded.
ADOPTED this 28th day of September, 1992.
a.-Q
Mayor
ATTEST: [`�)
PUpT
z�
�lGil�Gc. G o� k f o
CityClerk 1 I jT� s1�21
ICI rc)tx
00
08/04/1999 11:41 714-673-0377 HYANS ET CIE
PAGE 01
P.O. Box 884 • Newporc Beach, Califomia 92661
Memo reply to:
Tom Bran, Pre9Weat
217 W Stm4.
Newport He+s6, CA 92663
949.673.0333
Chairman Tod Ridgeway
P.R.O.P. Ad Hoc Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 NewportBlvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Councilman;
Ai sociation
August 4, 1999
r
Poat-Ito Iiax Note • 7671
pa#O
Date daa�
Fro
-f JPg♦ %
�r
Go/DepL
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
Fex #
Paz #
We have reviewed the Meyer, Mohaddes report, Balboa Peninsula DRAFT PARKING
i41ANAGEM.UNT P):AN REPORT, dated "August 1999" which was made available to
us on July 23. We wish to comment on that, and on the Balboa Pier Parking Lot Redesign
items which are agendized for your August 6 meeting.
Each of your Committee was addressed in the original, and following your election, you
received a copy of our April 17, 1997 letter. Therein, we expressed our residents,
homeowners and business owners' views, concerns or concurrence on each of the many
facets of the Project 2000 report of January 20, 1997. Our comments here are consistent
with our letter, which was, and still is consistent with our CNBCA Statement of Policies,
the guidelines promulgated by the members and reaffirmed annually.
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
On Meyer, et al, our comments will focus on the 16 options beginning on page 64. We
note with interest the workshops (WS) 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3 and subsequent collation of the
data in two tables• produced. confusing results, e.g., extending operating hours for meters.
At the first workshop, we noted on more than one subject, that the same question posted
on charts on opposite sides of the room yielded a great majority of"dots" pro- on one
chart, but con- on the other. WS results should be part of the discussion of each option.
The RFQ required that any new facility or program should be accompanied by a
discussion of costs, potential funding sources and financial feasibility. Such discussions
are missing.
Options 1.2 and 3: Ivleter Fees, Meter Time Limits and extension of Meter Operation
Hours in commercial areas of the Peninsula. Our general comment is that the
00/04/1999 11:41 714-673-0377 HYMNS ET CIE HauE W2
determination of what will work best for the businesses, in those areas, is for them to
explore. Many options can be tried at relatively little expense to the City. Our interests
are for no more meters in residential streets. We are not supportive of higher fees. We see
meter time limits as a tested method worth considering, but fear such may create a traffic
mess as expired vehicles simply recirculate looking for a second spot. A glance at the
outreach data, tables 7 and 8 will show overwhelming support in the first two workshops,
overwhelming lack of support at the third workshop for the 8 PM operation option. We
believe the extended time to 8 PM will take parking away from working people arriving
home between 5 PM and 7 PM.
Option 4: Remote F-mployee Parking. Note that parking locations suggested in Pig. 25
are predominantly and extensively used resident parking (conflict after 6 PM) and beach
parking (conflict before 6 PM) on Balboa Blvd. We discussed the nighttime risks to
employees of such a program. In another beach community, the remote part ang program
is reportedly difficult to enforce under any circumstances short of threat of termination.
Option S: Parking Guides, Maps. Distribution of such seems a challenge. requiring
widespread distribution points to avoid focusing traffic on few points or avoiding the
need to park to grab a map! The cost to produce these should come from the general fund
revenues, not from the Off Street Parking Fund.
Options 6 and 7: Valet Parking and Shared Parking. This was not an option at WS 1, 2a,
2b and 2e. Attendees at WS 3 were not supportive, 26 to 0. Generally, if the business
community thinks this is a viable option, and it seems inexpensive to test, go for it.
Option 8: Resident Parking Permits. The tabulations reflect ambivalence in Table 7, and
2:1 non-support in Table 8, We are skeptical about cheaters and scofflaws, abuse such as
with Handicapped Parking, and about enforcement. There are numerous complexities
which will accrue to our parking -short, multi -family residential neighborhoods. Residents
do not really believe that the Coastal Commission would allow such exclusivity, and are
concerned with the expense and potential loss of credibility resulting fighting a losing
battle. We risk losing the greater benefit of the `Blue Meter" program and also jeopardize
our preference to eliminate some curbside parking on Balboa Blvd. in order to improve
visibility and sightlines from cross streets (see Option 15).
Option 9: Bus Layover Area. No real consensus in the WS. Our sub -committee supports
free bus parking in the Balboa main beach parking lot, removed and not upwind of any
residential use, with on -street parking banned.
Option 10: Charter/Sport Fishing Vessel Permit System. The reservation system would
be difficult. to administer. Daily beach users and patrons of the other businesses would be
adversely impacted.
Potion 11: Chalkmark Tires. This appears to be the obvious way to enforce ordinances,
which are not now being enforced. What would the revenue balance be to activate such a
08/04/1999 11:41 714-673-0377 HYANS ET CIE PAGE 03
program? It seems a potentially profitable activity considering the $1.8 Million revenue
now gleaned from parking fines.
Qotion 12: Regular Monitoring of Lot and Land Uses. The studies should be done only
to evaluate the effects of changes implemented. What is the scope and projected cost for
twice yearly monitoring?
Option 3: Off -Peninsula Parking and Peak Season Shuttle. While we traditionally
support the concept, it has not been pursued seriously, nor have the half-hearted attempts
been successful. One visualizes the family headed for the beach, parking at the Rockwell
site, unloading the kids, food, toys, waiting for the shuttle, loading up the same, then
unloading at the beach. At day's end reversing the process to get back to the car. The
whole of it seems an unlikely scenario resulting in a not -successful program. What part of
the RFQ indicated a requirement to accommodate more people at the beach? How does
this option resolve the parking problem?
Option 14: Real Time Signage, This Option is here for comic relief, right? If this is a
serious consideration, it's the wrong time to be considering such expenditures to make
the day's visit to the beach more tolerable. There are more important projects to be
funded. It is intrusive, expensive and, no doubt, please George Orwell.
_QU iqn 15: Review Red Curb and Intersection Visibility. Accident statistics
notwithstanding, this is a resident serving option which needs serious consideration.
Option 16; Balboa Pier Lot Validation Program. Again, whatever works for the
merchants and costs little to test is worth the trial. However, validation at a reduced rate
is another subsidy.
BALBOA PARKING LOT
Our position on the beachfront lots, including the Main Beach Lot is this: No more
asphalt on the beach, no less landscaping than is (supposed to be) there now, and keep the
noisy, smelly buses away from in front of (upwind of) residences or residential uses.
We have suggested free parking for buses in the MB Lot, and banishment from Peninsula
parking otherwise.
Thank you for your time and attention to these issues on our behalf. Your efforts are
sincerely appreciated.
Grace Dove
Tom Hyans
Mel Mann 4e
Stuart McKenzie
For the Board of Directors
xc: Dan Trimble, NB Planning
Sharon Wood, NB Planning
Councilperson Jan Debay
Couneilperson John Noyes, Jr.
08/04/1999 11:41 714-673-0377 HYAHS ET CIE PAGE 04
Y.T,y �• ' � •. ww'. .�..���: n :' i`�+I-�r4Y"" �: `'.� r ;��:
.r�M' c�.+4 +°. ,� .• •r'+'v.py�rF �
.
.'-�
'•t3E..�'
."_ k'j�1
`C'�-0.y'�' �,
4
�:Y� : � 7, `
^
?a.2¢i•"..4� ��"' # "_.,':�.
~T
,,.% .A,� 4p
� r
��t r��h
i .�.
i
�(�.'.4�yp/
1� l_ 7:i"::`.�7 v F uy.
�" p�.. / fV• Y'^—Q"•
'�.
Please reply to: Tom Hyans, Pres
217 Nineteenth Street Tel: (949) 67s-QJJJ
Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Fax: (949) 673-0377
By Facsimile To: � � At r 4
Date:
Qj ref Total ,pages:_ _
Mr
Fax No. c r rl 6T ( '— —
&A. 616,1
do
11n7--.
To: Gary Hamrick
Fax: 562-799-0011
PLANNING DEPTARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. O. BOX 1768
NEWPORT BCH, CALIFORNIA
92658-8915
From: Sharon Wood
Pages: 3
Re: Balboa Pier Lot Fees Date: 05/27/99
CC:
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
• Comments:
Here is the duration and revenue information generated by the Fire and Marine
Department. If you have questions on the information or need more of it, I suggest
you call Tony Melum at 644-3041.
1 think I mentioned that I'll be on vacation June 7 through 23. If you need information
or guidance during that time, I suggest asking Rich Edmonston (644-3345) or Dan
Trimble (644-3230).
A
City of Newport Beach
Parking Management Plan for Balboa Peninsula
Community Open House
May 3,1999
Community Comment Booklet on
Parking Management Action Plan
Welcome!!
Please sign in and begin your tour of the information displays.
The City has completed the analysis and developed potential actions for the Balboa Peninsula Parking
Management Action Plan. The purpose of today's open house is to gather input on strategies and actions for
parking management.
We invite you to visit the various stations set up around the room, talk to City staff and the planning team, and
record your comments, ideas and questions on the displays. You may also use this comment booklet to write
down your thoughts as you tour the stations, and turn it in at the end of your visit for inclusion in the workshop
documentation. Please recognize that subsequent analysis will be required to determine the feasibility of
specific recommendations. Considerations include cost to implement and approval by other agencies (Coastal
Commission, etc.), as well as further coordination with local residents and business owners.
Page z
Station 1: Technical Parki
Wall graphics at this station illustrate the results of a comprehensive technical parking analysis. The space below may be
used to write down any comments regarding the displayed information.
Comments on Technical Parking Data:
Station 2: Potential Actions - Lido, City Plaza, Cannery Village, McFadden
Newport Pier
Change Lido/City Plaza Area Meter Fees to $0.50/hour (phase in over time)
• Extend Commercial Area Meters to 8 PM to Reserve Spaces for Customers
• Implement Business Employee Permit Program
• Modify Meter Time Limits to Match Parking Duration (change some 6 hour meters to 3 hour meters)
Other:
Page 3
Station 3: Potential Actions - Central Balboa Commercial Including Balboa
Pier Area
• Change Meter Fees to $1.00/hour (phase in over time)
• Extend Commercial Area Meters to 8 PM to Reserve Spaces for Customers
• Implement Business Employee Permit Parking
• Implement Trial Valet Parking Program for Washington/Main Lot
Create Bus Layover Area for Private Buses
• Implement Charter Boat/Fishing Boat Patron Permit Parking in Balboa Lot
Implement Parking Validation Program for Balboa Lot
Modify Time Limits to Match Parking Duration (change 1 hour meter to 2 hours, change some 6 hour meters
to 3 hours)
Other:
Page 4
Station 4: Potential Actions - Residential Areas
• Implement Residential Permit Parking Program on As-Needed/As-Requested Basis
• Increase Red Curb at Sight -Restricted Intersections
• Other:
Station 5: Potential Actions - Peninsula as a Whole
• Create Visitor Parking Guide/Map
• Implement Shared Use Program for Private Lots
• Chalk Mark Tires to Prevent All Day "Meter Feeding"
• Add Parking Off -Peninsula with Shuttle System
• Regularly Monitor all Lots for Utilization Patterns and Changes
Other:
Page 5
Additional Comments and Suggestions
Please use the space provided below to write down any additional comments or questions you may have regarding the
potential Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Actions.
Please be sure to turn this comment form in to a staff person before you leave the meeting, or mail or fax to:
Sharon Wood, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Fax: (949) 644-3250
Thank you for your participation!
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLS
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
EFFECTS OF
ISSUES TO
ACTION
CONSIDER
Selected residential streets would be posted so that only
• Reserves parking for
• Requires Coastal
those with permits may park. Residents -would purchase
residents
Commission approval
RESIDENTIAL
permits annually. May cover all day or only certain
• Prevents parking intrusion
• Administration Fee required
PERMIT
hours. Options include permitting one side of each street
• Limits excessive resident
(approx. $15 to
PROGRAM
only, guest parking permits, and summertime only
parking (e.g., where
$25/vehicle/year)
system. Would require "day -permit" purchase option for
residents have more cars
• May push parking intrusion
non-resident visitors.
than garages or spaces)
to other blocks
• Requires resident approval
via petition
Selected spaces would be designated for use by
• Helps business employees
• Some meters will be used
BUSINESS
businesses with permit. Essentially allows businesses to
find parking by allowing
all day by businesses,
PERMIT
override selected meters so that employees can park all
them to park all day at
although they will be meters
PROGRAM
day
selected meters. Helps keep
located away from the
them out of residential
highest demand locations
neighborhoods and out of
for customer parking
prime spaces near
• Administration Fee required
businesses
to cover City costs
EXTEND ONE
Revise one hour meter time limits to two hours in selected
Two hour limit at meters
• Reduces the number of
HOUR METER
commercial areas
allows easier use by
short term one -hour meters
LIMITS TO TWO
restaurant patrons
HOURS
POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLS (continued)
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
EFFECTS OF
ISSUES TO
ACTION
CONSIDER
EXTEND METER
Extend current 6 PM meter enforcement to 8 PM
• Discourages employees and
• Requires payment of meter
HOURS TO 8 PM
residents from filling
fees between 6 PM and 8
valuable meter spaces in
PM
early evening, thereby
reserving spaces for
business patrons
• May increase revenues
Provide remote/satellite parking off of the Peninsula with
• Increases overall parking
• Must be well advertised
SATELLITE
a shuttle system to bring visitors and/or employees to the
supply
• Requires on -going funding
PARKING WITH
Peninsula
• Reduces congestion by
• Only appeals to certain
SHUTTLE
reducing auto trips
types of visitors
• Could increase number of
Endorsed by Coastal
visitors
Commission
• Remote parking location not
yet identified
BALBOA LOT
Validation system for Balboa Lot would allow businesses
• Encourages use of lot by
• Requires merchant
VALIDATION
to subsidize parking for paying customers
paying customers
participation/costs
SYSTEM
POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEh
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
EFFECTS OF
ACTION
ISSUES TO
CONSIDER
CHANGE
Convert current $0.25 and $0.50 per hour meters in
• Increases turnover of
• Requires Coastal
$0.25/HOUR
Central Balboa Village area to $1.00 per hour, and
spaces, freeing spaces for
Commission approval
METER FEES TO
convert current $0.25/hour meters in Lido and Cannery
business customers
$0.50 OR
Village to $0.50. Phase in the increases gradually over
• Discourages use of meters
$1.00/HOUR
time.
by all -day beach goers
IMPLEMENT
Provide "shared" valet for multiple businesses to more
• Customers in Balboa Pier
• Requires subsidy by City
VALET SERVICE
effectively serve customers on peak days.
area would have convenient
and/or businesses to attract
NEAR BALBOA
valet option
customer usage
PIER AREA
• With Valet can stack park
and obtain more spaces
UTILIZE TIRE
More vigorously enforce meter limits via tire chalk
• Increases effective supply
• May be perceived as anti -
CHALK MARKING
marking.
by enhancing turnover
business by some persons
TO ENFORCE
• Discourages all day and
• Increased staffmg cost,
TIME LIMITS
long term usage of meters
although cost may be offset
by revenue from tickets
POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLS (continued)
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
EFFECTS OF
ISSUES TO
ACTION
CONSIDER
Improve overall parking signage for clarity and
• Provides easier to follow
Mostly helps during times
IMPROVE
consistency
and understand directions to
when parking is available
PARKING SIGNS
parking areas
• More effective use of
available parking
PROVIDE
Develop and distribute parking maps and pamphlets
• Increases awareness of all
• Requires participation by
PARKING
parking options
businesses to be effective
INFORMATION
CATALINA
Reserve spaces in Balboa Lot on peak days for Catalina
• Reserves spaces for boating
Requires significant
BOATICHARTER
boat, charter boat and sport fishing boat patrons. Provide
patrons so that they are not
coordination with boat
BOAT RESERVED
special permits and set aside spaces for those users.
attracted to residential
operators and parking
SPACES AND
neighborhood for parking
managers
PERMITS
POTENTIAL PARKING MANAGEMENT TOOLS
ACTION
DESCRIPTION
EFFECTS OF
ACTION
ISSUES TO
CONSIDER
ADD RED CURB
Add red curb area and restrict parking by high profile
Would allow drivers in
May remove a parking
AND RESTRICT
vehicles at selected intersections where sight distance is
turning vehicles to more
space at selected
HIGH PROFILE
particularly restricted.
readily see oncoming traffic
intersections.
VEHICLES AT
at the intersection
SIGHT -
RESTRICTED
INTERSECTIONS
CREATE SHORT
Redesign the Balboa Lot entry to create convenient short
• Encourages buses to wait in
• Potential loss of some auto
TERM PRIVATE
term private bus parking/layover area that is located away
the lot rather than elsewhere
parking spaces
BUS LAYOVER
from residential units.
on the Peninsula
SPACE
Analysis of Where Parking Revenues are Spent
Parking revenues are currently allocated into three City funds: the general fund, the neighborhood
enhancement reserve, and the commercial in -lieu fund. For FY 1998-99, the general fund received an
estimated $3.2 million, the neighborhood enhancement reserve received $240,000, and the commercial
in -lieu parking fund received $21,000, for a total of approximately $3.5 million. The $1.9 million of
the general fund revenues collected from parking fines are specifically earmarked for the police
department.
Approximately $365,000 has been spent during the last five fiscal years. The majority of the
expenditures during the last two years have been for the Balboa Pier Parking Lot Redesign Study and
the Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Study. The following monies are available in the reserve
funds:
1. Off-street parking fund: A balance of $689,916 is presently available.
2. Neighborhood enhancement reserve: A balance of $479,509 is presently available.
3. Commercial in -lieu parking fund: A balance of $712,832 is presently available.
Meyer, MohaddesAssociafes, Inc.
An Odat/cs ITS Company
FAX COVER LETTER
To: Dan Trimble Date: 10/14/99
From: Gary Hamrick J/P Number: J98-012
Fax Number: Project: Parking Master Plan
Total Pages
with cover letter:
Comments:
Please find revised Section 4.0 of the Parking Master Plan report. It incorporates a discussion
and analysis of the residential housing component of parking on the Peninsula, as requested at
the working session. Please call with any questions.
RECEIVED BY
CITY OP 111r: DEPARTMENT
AM OCT 2 0 1999 PM
71819110111113111213141E 6
Please call our office if you do not receive all the transmitted pages.
400 Oceangate, Suite 480, Long Beach, California 90802-4307
Phone (662) 432-8484 - Fax (662) 432-8486
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
4.0 LAND USE TRENDS/PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Sections 2 and 3 of this report summarize the results of parking surveys that were conducted on the
Peninsula. The data in those sections is based on actual observations of parking. They indicate that
overall, parking demand utilizes nearly all of the public parking supply on peak summer weekends,
however, privately owned or operated lots had some excess capacity. This section discusses parking
code requirements in the context of Newport Beach parking guidelines. Another dimension to the
parking issue is the possible increase in demand for parking in the future based on land uses, and the
change in parking demand over time in response to changes in land uses.
4.1 PARKING REGULATIONS
Like most cities, Newport Beach has enacted ordinances that require certain levels of parking for new
developments. The number of spaces depends on the type of land use and the building size. Parking is
required for new developments, and in some cases due to re -occupancy or re -use of existing properties.
The citywide parking regulations for selected land use types are as follows:
• Single Family Residential - 2 spaces per unit (1 covered)
• Multi -Family Residential - 2 spaces per unit, plus 1 for guest parking for 3 units, and 0.5
per unit for guest parking for 4 or more units
• General Retail/Commercial - 1 space per 250 square feet
• Other Commercial - 1 space per 300 square feet
• Offices (business and professional) - 1 space per 250 square feet
• Medical Offices - 1 space per 250 square feet
• Restaurant - 1 space per 75 square feet
• Fast Food Restaurant - 1 space per 35 square feet
• Religious - 1 space per 50 square feet
• Marine - 1 space per 0.8 berths
• Hotel - 1 space per 2 rooms
• Motel - 1 space per room
• Charter Vessels - 1 per each 3 occupants, including crew members
• Snort Fishing Vessels - 1 per each 2 occupants, including crew members
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
m
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
4.2 EXISTING PENINSULA LAND USES
Based on data provided by City staff, the Peninsula currently has the following land uses:
• 1,982 single family dwellings
• 2,842 multi -family dwellings
• 8,302 population
• 49 motel rooms
• 56 hotel rooms
• 101,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial
• 533,200 square feet of general commercial
• 68,300 square feet of other commercial
• 216,800 square feet of restaurants
• 33, 100 square feet of fast-food restaurant
• 262,400 square feet of general office
• 85,800 square feet of industrial
• 19,000 square feet of religious institution
• Charter Vessel occupancy - Catalina boats - 500 passengers, 8 crew in one boat
• Harbor Cruise Whale/Watchers - 825 passengers in five boats
• Sport Fishing Charters - 320 passengers, 20 crew in four boats
• Small Sport Fishing Boats - ("six-pack boats") - estimate 120 persons total in 15 boats
4.3 RESIDENTIAL PARKING DEMAND/CODE ANALYSIS
A significant component of the parking demand on the Peninsula is due to the people who live in the
area. In theory, all residential units should provide adequate off-street parking in garages, driveways or
carports. In actual practice, however, many units are under -parked. Inadequate residential parking has
occurred for several reasons, including the following:
Parking was not built - Many residential buildings are quite old and were built prior to modern
parking codes were in place. Therefore, some buildings provide fewer spaces than would be
required if they were built now, and some actually have no parking at all. In addition, some
garages are very small and do not accommodate certain larger size vehicles and are therefore not
utilized by residents.
Parking is used for other purposes - Some garages and driveways are used for purposes other than
parking, including storage, office space or even living area. Although not legal, many of these
uses are difficult to detect and monitor over time.
High -density living by the ocean - Due to the popularity of the Peninsula in the summertime, some
units accommodate more persons and automobiles than anticipated by city zoning codes. For
example, families vacation in the area with several vehicles for parents as well as older children or
extended family members, or college students live in apartments where each resident has a vehicle.
This situation results in too many vehicles compared to parking spaces, even when code -required
parking is provided.
Parking convenience - Finally, some people simply prefer to use curbside parking due to
convenience in some locations. Alleys may be narrow or garages may be difficult to get into and
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
49
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
out of.
All of these factors result in a significant number of Balboa Peninsula residents who use public street
parking, or even public lot parking instead of private off-street parking. We have estimated the total
demand due to residential land uses based on standard City codes. It should be recognized that the
actual demand is likely to be higher in the summer due to high density living arrangements that are
common in the peak season. We are unable to estimate the number of residents that use their own
parking versus park on street due to the complexity of that task. It would require surveying every
residential unit to determine if there are garages and driveways, if they are available for parking, and
whether they are used for parking.
Based on the number of dwelling units on the Peninsula (approximately 4,824 units, of which 1,982 are
single family and 2,842 are multi family), current parking code would require a minimum of 9,648
spaces for residents, plus additional spaces for guests in larger multi -family units. Assuming an average
of one space per three units for guest parking, the multi family units would require an additional 938
spaces, for a total residential parking requirement of 10,586 spaces. This equates to an average of 1.28
spaces per person based upon a population of 8,302 persons on the Peninsula. Based on census data,
over 97 percent of all households on the Peninsula have at least one vehicle, and most have at least two.
Assuming an average of two vehicles per household, there are approximately 9,360 vehicles that belong
to residents, with more during peak summer months.
Although it is impossible to predict the number of residential vehicles that park on street, some
assumptions can be made for planning purposes. If it is assumed that on average one in five residential
parking spaces is not available for parking or the unit does not have parking (i.e., spaces are used for
storage, living area or other non -vehicle uses), then the residents would add to the on -street parking
demand approximately 1,870 vehicles on a typical day. Since not every vehicle needs a space every day
(people are out of town), and parking demand differs throughout the day, the true total unmet need
(spaces needed versus spaces available) is more like 1,700 spaces. These totals are compared to the
overall parking ratios, including commercial parking demand, in the following section of the report.
4.4 COMMERCIAL LAND USE PARKING CODE ANALYSIS
The purpose of the parking code analysis is to estimate the number of parking spaces that would be
required for the commercial land uses on the Peninsula as a whole, based on the sum total of parking
requirements for each individual use. This analysis provides the total theoretical parking requirement
based on city code. Table 9 summarizes the code analysis.
The analysis is conducted by multiplying the parking code requirement per unit (square foot, restaurant
seating area, boat passenger, etc.), by the size of the use. For example, a 2,000 square foot office
would result in a theoretical requirement of 8 spaces based on code of 1 space per 250 square feet. The
code parking rates and resulting required parking are listed below:
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
U
TABLE 9
COMMERCIAL LAND USE PARKING CODE ANALYSIS
Land Use
Type
Code Parking
Ratio
McFadden / Lido
Area
Central Balboa
Residential Area
Central Balboa
Commercial Area
Quantity
Code
Quantity
Code
Quantity
Code
Motel
l/ room
49
49
0
0
Hotel
1 / 2 rooms
22 rm
11
0
0
34 rm
17
N. Comm.
1 / 250 SF
96,500 SF
386
5,000 SF
20
0
0
G. Comm.
1 / 250 SF
397,700 SF
1591
19,600 SF
78
115,900 SF
464
Comm/Rec.
1 / 250 SF
900 SF
4
0
0
4,300 SF
17
Other Com.
1 / 250 SF
15,900 SF
64
0
0
47,200 SF
189
Restaurant
1 / 75 SF
154,400 SF
2059
0
0
62,400 SF
832
Fast Food
1 / 50 SF
19,500 SF
390
2,200 SF
44
11,400 SF
228
Yacht Club
1 / 35 SF
0
0
0
0
500 SF
14
Health Club
1 / 75 SF
5,300 SF
71
0
0
0
0
Tennis Club
1/ 4 courts
0
0
0
0
0
0
Marina
0.8 / berth
73 berths
58
14
11
0
0
Theater
1 / 3 seats
48 seats
16
0
0
27 seats
9
Office
1 / 250 SF
242,200 SF
969
13,800 SF
55
6,900 SF
28
Medical Office
i/ 250 SF
800 SF
3
0
0
0
0
Industrial
1 / 750 SF
85,800 SF
114
0
0
0
0
Gov. Office
1 / 300 SF
39,300 SF
131
0
0
0
0
Library
1 / 300 SF
0
0
4,800 SF 1
16
0
0
Post Office
1/ 300 SF
0 1
0
0
0
1,700 SF
6
Religious
1 / 35 SF
6,900 SF
197
10,100 SF
289
2,000 SF
57
Youth Center
1 / 35 SF
10,700 SF
306
4,800 SF
137
5,000 SF
143
Public Assembly
1/35
0
0
13,400 SF
383
Charter Vessels
1 / 3 persons
116 persons
39
1,343persons
448
Sport Fishing
1 / 2 persons
460 persons
230
Total Spaces
6,458
1,711
2,004
Note: SF = s care eet
DAusers\98\19MIZtable8 (Balboa Puling)
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
• Hotel/motel
- 77 spaces
• Neighborhood Commercial
- 406 spaces
• General Commercial
- 2,133 spaces
• Other Commercial
- 253 spaces
• Commercial / Recreation
- 21 spaces
• Restaurant
- 2,891 spaces
• Fast-food restaurant
- 662 spaces
• Clubs / Marina
- 154 spaces
• Theater
- 25 spaces
• General Office
- 1,052 spaces
• Medical Office
- 3 spaces
• Industrial
- 114 spaces
• Youth Center/Service
- 586 spaces
• Religious
- 543 spaces
• Gov. Office
- 131 spaces
• Library/Post Office
- 22 spaces
• Public Assembly
- 383 spaces
• Harbor Cruise /Whale Watching/
Catalina vessels
- 487 spaces
• Sport Fishing
- 230 spaces
Total
10,173 spaces
Overall, approximately one-half of the Peninsula parking demand is commercial and one-half is
residential. The relative magnitude of commercial parking requirements is illustrated in Figure 22 and
described below:
• 35 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to restaurant
• 28 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to retail/commercial
• 12 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to office
• 7 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to commercial vessels (sport
fishing, charter, etc.)
• 6 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to youth center/service uses
• 5 percent of commercial code parking requirement is related to religious uses
Theoretical Commercial Code Requirement by Area
The theoretical parking requirement by subarea based on unadjusted City code is as follows (note that
this excludes civic center and residential land uses which are presumed to provide their own parking
supply):
• 20,159 total spaces required (including 10,586 residential spaces)
• 10,173 commercial spaces for the Peninsula as a whole (excluding residential)
- 6,458 spaces in the McFadden/Lido area (5,396 are provided)
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
52
12,000
10,586
10,173
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parkin,2 Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
- 2,004 spaces in the Central Balboa Commercial area (1,358 are provided)
-1,711 spaces in the Central Balboa Residential area (2,447 are provided)
(Note: no commercial spaces are noted in Peninsula Point as there are no commercial land uses)
It is important to note that there is no parking code requirement for beach users or general visitors that
are not associated with a particular land use. During peak summer weekends, the parking demand
associated with beach and bay use is very high and it clearly results in full parking occupancy
throughout the day. That demand is virtually unlimited on peak days for tourist/beach parking, which
results in shortages of parking for both residents and businesses.
Mixed Use Parldng Adjustment
Actual parking demand on the Peninsula is driven by a variety of factors, including resident demand,
employee demand, patron demand, deliveries, beach goers, tourists and other visitors. Public parking
(both on- and off-street) is available on a first come first serve basis (with the exception of merchant
reserved spaces). The public spaces therefore serve a number of users throughout the day. A space may
turn over numerous times during the day and serve residents as well as businesses that are oriented to
morning, mid -day and evening activity.
Parking codes typically require that developers provide the full number of code parking spaces for each
individual land use/building to ensure that there are enough spaces. However, in a dense commercial
environment, each building may not need a full supply of parking, for the following reasons:
Captive Market - Land uses within walking distance of one another generate the opportunity for
shared trips. For example, offices generate lunch time restaurant customers when employees walk
to lunch. That lunch walking trip, however, does not generate the need for additional parking
spaces since the employees/patrons are already parked for the day. Separate office and restaurant
uses located a mile apart, on the other hand, would require two spaces instead of one. Similarly,
there is a significant component of walk-in patronage from nearby residential areas.
Different Peak Periods - Different land uses experience different peak periods of activity and
therefore different peak periods of parking demand. Office uses, for example, peak during the
mid -day and fall significantly in the evening, while certain restaurant uses peak in the evening. In
this way, land uses can share the same parking supply when they are close together.
Even with extensive research and economic analysis, it may not be possible to precisely quantify the
effects of captive market and peak demand in the Peninsula. Other studies have, however, provided
general estimates of the effects of captive market and different peak periods on parking demand. The
publication "Shared Parking" by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has estimated ranges of 0 to 83 percent
reduction in overall demand for captive market, with an average of 28 percent for mixed use land use
parking reductions. Similarly, a recent study in downtown Hermosa Beach applied a mixed use captive
market parking reduction of 30 percent, plus a reduction for different peak periods. Applying the ULI
average of 28 percent would yield a theoretical demand of 7,325 spaces (total theoretical code demand
of 10,173 spaces minus 28 percent). This compares to the parking supply of 2,247 metered spaces,
3,027 private spaces, 611 ticketed spaces and 157 City Hall/municipal spaces (total of 6,042 spaces).
Therefore, there are 1,283 more code required spaces for commercial uses than private or metered
spaces available.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
54
Draft Balboa Peninsula Parking Management Plan Report City of Newport Beach
This analysis indicates that a significant amount (over 1,200 spaces) of the commercial parking demand
is accommodated by the on -street un-metered parking supply such as spaces in the residential areas.
The estimated residential unmet parking need (spaces needed over spaces available) is approximately
1,700. The residential demand peaks at night while the commercial demand peaks during peak business
hours.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
55
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
AND MAIN STREET
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
MAY 1999
®A!/.ST/N�fOUST ASSOC/AYES, AW
i
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND
MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
On June 22,1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Parking and Circulation
Study of the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street/Central Balboa area. This study is one of the
first steps in the Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Program. This study includes an engineering analysis
of possible alternatives for re -designing the existing parking lot and access. The goals of any re -design
would be to improve pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus circulation. The
other primary goal of the study is to address parking concerns and needs. The City's approach to
completing the study included a community outreach component so that the residents and business
owners would have input at the start and at key milestones during the study. Austin -Foust Associates,
Inc. (AFA) held a series of public workshops on behalf of the City to solicit resident and business
owners input. This study has been coordinated with the preparation of the peninsula -wide Parking
Management Study.
BACKGROUND
In 1991 a Parking and Circulation Study for Central Balboa was conducted at the direction of
the City Council. Five public workshops were held to develop a community consensus on the traffic
problems and solutions for this area. The key parking recommendation was to increase the amount
of parking in the existing Balboa Pier parking lot. The parking lot redesign proposal developed in the
1991 study was incorporated into the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan as approved by the City
Council in 1994.
More recently, both the Urban Design Camp Peninsula Planning Study and the Balboa
Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 reports include an improvement to
the Balboa Pier parking lot as well as a proposal to reconstruct Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard
for pedestrian use only.
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rptwpd
r- ,
The City's current budget includes funds for the preparation of plans and specifications for
the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street pedestrian access. The design process includes a
community outreach component so that residents and business owners would have input in the
process. The two parking lot concept plans previously developed, the 1991 Recommended Plan and
the BPPAC Recommendation, were used as a starting point for this study. This study analyzes and
compares the previous proposals, and outlines new alternatives developed to improve Central Balboa
parking and circulation.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing Balboa Pier parking lot contains 609 parking spaces in the main lot and 56 spaces
in metered lots for a total of 665 parking spaces. Parallel spaces for OCTA bus layovers are provided.
The existing parking lot layout is illustrated in Figure 1. Inbound parking lot traffic approaches the
lot entrance via Palm Street. Palm Street is a two-lane one-way street southbound south of Balboa
Boulevard. There is an existing signal at the intersection of Palm Street and Balboa Boulevard.
Outbound traffic exits the area via Main Street or via Washington Street if the motorist has not
entered the main parking lot area. Main Street is a two-lane one-way street northbound south of
Balboa Boulevard. The intersection of Main Street and Balboa Boulevard is signalized. Washington
Street is a one -lane one-way street northbound south of Balboa Boulevard.
Traffic counts along Palm Street, Washington Street and Main Street were collected during
summer weekends in 1998. On a typical summer weekend (July 24-26) the parking lot attracts
approximately 5,400 trips daily. During the Fourth of July weekend, the parking lot attracts
approximately 5,600 trips daily. During the Labor Day weekend, the parking lot attracts
approximately 4,300 trips daily. Figure 2 illustrates the existing traffic in the study area. These streets
are currently operating at capacity during the peak arrival and departure periods.
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
ao
�G
0
v
v � muaa a�a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y m
ow m M
F S
� t
,iIIIIIIIIIIIHIL t
i
C
O
C
w1
Figure 1
EXISTING PARKING LOT PLAN
BALBOA
no scale
z
0
�o
0
O
zo
Q o
0-
to
_
¢
CO
d
TYPICAL SUMMER WEEKEND
BALBOA
no scale
z
0
�0
CD
z0
4TH OF JULY WEEKEND
BALBOA
no scale
z
0
�0
z0
d0
to
(0
<o
LABOR DAY WEEKEND
LABOR
Figure 2
EXISTING ADT VOLUMES
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A total of seven parking lot alternatives have been developed and evaluated. These
alternatives are numbered 1 through 6 and 6A, 6A being a relatively minor variation of Alternative
6. There is no enlargement of existing asphalt area in any of the alternatives; therefore, there is no
encroachment into the beach or park areas.
Alternative 1 is the plan that emerged from the 1991 Balboa Pier parking study with a minor
modification to incorporate diagonal OCTA/tour bus parking. Alternative 1 requires separate
attendants for traffic entering and exiting the lot, provides four bus layover spaces, and improves
pedestrian access to Main Street; however, Alternative 1 reduces storage for vehicles entering the lot.
This alternative produces the most net parking spaces (84) while at the same time costing $750,000
or about $9,000 per space. On the basis of cost per parking space alone, Alternate i is perhaps the
optimum choice. Figure 3 illustrates Alternative 1.
Alternative 2, shown in Figure 4, is the BPPAC recommendation. This plan eliminated any
vehicular access to Main Street and introduced a new signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington
Street. Alternative 4, shown in Figure 5, modified the BPPAC plan to partially retain vehicular access,
at least for local businesses, to Main Street which was reduced to one lane. However, public reaction
to a proposed third traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street was overwhelmingly
negative, thereby eliminating both Alternatives 2 and 4 from further consideration. Other reasons for
eliminating Alternatives 2 and 4 were related to the question of whether Washington Street is wide
enough for two lanes of traffic, whether buses can turn on Washington Street and whether traffic could
be handled with one lane on Washington Street.
Alternative 3 is the modified existing plan which largely retains the existing parking lot layout
and circulation. The central parking area has been redesigned to provide 10 tour bus spaces (in
addition to OCTA buses) and make better use of an area of the current lot deemed relatively
inefficient by some people. Other than tour bus parking this design does not increase automobile
parking. However at a cost of "only" $281,000 it is also the least expensive. Some people expressed
that $281,000 for 10 tour bus spaces was quite high. Nonetheless, several residents, who did not favor
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Across Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
a
9
I
W10! tm T
I
1 I
I
1 '
I
sIt[14Y
I
1 1 I G NG
dtyP NYO�91 iWWA 1 * �� "�
Y . � y-� EMSIING 7RAITIC SIGNAL
C
90E7YAIH AND CROSSWALK
ti p oaMW W4F0 ti
Y J
�ouT—
i Will
y it
PARKING SUMMARY
EIOSRNG SPACES: BSS
PROPOSED SPACES: 714
y i 1 NET CHANGE +49
LANDSCAPED: 35
!BID WARAW AnaN m mN DET0G41
IMS OF STORAGE ORTD BABA SLM
l
Figure 3
ALTERNATIVE 1
1991 STUDY RECOMMENDATION
J
i!f t
......../........... _...........
_........................ _........ f"�i'i
... ' f — — — _ _ .. _ _ — —
,
E ntIWFY„W �
C�i C
dlf
9
rq
............... ............... ._..... .................... ....... 1 .._........................................_. ___.................._......._._...._........._...__....
�....................... ..... ............... .... ....... 1..............
.......... _...
................
...............
.................................._........................
' S' x :T'6 'K•K' 'g(C
Ilk
1J� •: !1�1111 !
! .i . .....
: .._T....
_ .. ♦ .`
♦ 1 EE°!i
1
! ............ .. ..........
0EWS NG TRAMC SGNAL
+ PROPOSED NEW TRAMC 9GNAL
jy1l71L1,j SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
rn�,w
f 7+�[7:1f i ititSD���S�:r{ I
EIISTING SPACES. 605
PROPOSED SPACES: 074
NET CHANGE +G
LANDSCAPED 20
Figure 4
ALTERNATIVE 2
HPPAC RECOMMENDATION
W
q
... ... A.................._...__..................................�^'
--:-- - - - -- --
Ci.j
t
ji
.......i
:........... ................... ........................... _.
- 1
1,
31
Y
II
___..._..._....._..... CL _ _.._.._....__......._—_.
F
C C
I EGFdQ
..... ................. ...... ....................... ................................_............................. ............................
..................................................................................................................} +EMInNG TRAFFIC SIGNAL
■ i i
Y f �-y+ PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
< iij SIOEWAIN AND CROSSWAIX
wz:cu wezax —_. _—
f.) f.1.f .3.iJ !.:.f.
E KING-MMMARY
EMSTINO SPACES: aa5
PROPOSED SPACES 854
NET CNAN Et -I I
LANDSCAPED. 20
Figure 5
ALTERNATIVE 4
any change at all to the existing lot, did indicate this option was the least objectionable. Figure 6
1,
illustrates Alternative 3.
t
Alternative 5 was the outcome of a publicworkshop discussion regarding the placement of the
bus parking. This plan merely shifted the tour bus layover spaces to a point in front of the hotel
instead of existing residences. The owners of the Balboa Inn strongly opposed this alternative because
of the potential impacts to their hotel. While this option was initially supported by some business
interests, that limited support was quickly withdrawn when it became apparent the issue simply boiled
down to residents versus hotel uses. Statistically, Alternative 5 is quite similar to Alternative 1.
Alternative 5 is illustrated in Figure 7.
Alternative 6 also emerged from the public workshop process, only this time a group
representing the theater and other businesses sought more short-term metered parking. Alternative
6 provided such an option but at a very high cost, $818,000, with essentially no gain in total parking.
Alternative 6 provides for bus layover spaces which are located further from the residences than
currently or with any of the other alternatives. Figure 8 illustrates Alternative 6. Alternative 6A,
illustrated in Figure 9, was developed in response to the criticism of the high cost but otherwise
appealing aspect of the added short-term meters of Alternative 6. A significant cost reduction (down
to $663,000) is achieved through retention of the northerly third of the existing lot, and only affecting
new construction of the remainder of the lot with the exterior landscaping. Table 1 presents a matrix
comparison of the alternatives. Table 2 summarizes the cost of each alternative.
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
The first public workshop was held September 9,1998. The subject of the first workshop was
development of alternatives for the Balboa Pier parking lot. Approximately 45 residents and business
owners attended the workshop. A questionnaire was circulated to the workshop attendees seeking
their opinions on the main concerns with the Balboa Pier parking lot, their solutions to the parking
lot problems, and which features of the BPPAC recommendations they oppose or support. The main
component of the BPPAC recommended plan is the conversion of Main Street south of Balboa
Boulevard to pedestrian use only and the channeling of exiting vehicles out Washington Street to
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
0
r
ft`
t
=
......_....`.'�A
.....
- -
- - - - - - -•
evaer
N q11-111.P[
••
di
.......i
i................
.....
.. ....,
f.................................
.......................
D/I
I
.
:::.
...,....
11.I ; p i4L�> E i.1.1111.L1.`> 1t1----
—
-
-- -
- ' - - -
- - -
-
- - J w
—
—a.
..... ....
... ...
. tl .... i.... ....
_................ _...................
..... �.............�
__
a)
....E... •....
_-
=
d i t
1...
..��
....
L.LL.Li!
a..i:'..I LI 1.1
Lt.l.l_i s'!. i. i.l.i.l.l
ll LI L1 L1. i.l i €1..l.i.L.lJ..k._�
i.i..i.(.L.LLI.I.I.;•�......
.....�:xi.t
f.........................
I.ErENQ
i
I
4}
i
EXISTING IRAMG SIGNAL
i
9
404
i
FM SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
:
E
i
eeRKIdsf_SUMMARV
EMSIIND SPACES 855
PROPOSED SPACES: 683
NET CHANGE: -2
LANDSCAPED: 23
Figure 6
ALTERNATIVE 3
k -
LLLWJJI
77
I
t t
L
LEBEHR
EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
KM SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
ARMING UWAKY
KISTING SPACES: 665
ROPOSED SPACES. 715
ET CHANGE. 1-50
kNOSCAPED: 33
710 SEPARATE ATTEIIIIANT TO MSWH QUEST10111
iSS OF STORAGE ONO UAIIIOA DIM)
Figure 7
ALTERNATI" 5
V Wl sty
- - - - - - - - - - - - B
a_p
{1{ t
1
1
I
1�1
f t • t
cv.n. wiwu �cwwa
II'''{-I�I'I I I�I'"Ij�I jIy�-I�I I}'''I I I I�jI'�
• • I III II IIII I III1111 1 `11�11111HHHH H 111 t `
Gr
r
a
e
t
I EGEf111
+ EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
+ PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Figure 6
ALTERNATIVE 6
W I
q
LEGEND
EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
®
SIDEWALK AND CROSSWAL(
C
EXISTING PARKING SPACES
TO REMAIN
C
RE -ARRANGED PARXING
SPACES
I.
NO. SPACES (E)IST. CONDITION) 665
ND. SPACES (PROPOSED CONDITION) 681
NET CHANGE +16
LANDSCAPED 24
Figure 9
ALTERNATIVE BA
e
I
Table 1
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
CONDITIONEVALUATED
EXISTING
ALT.1
ALT.3
ALT.5
ALT.6
ALT. 6A
1.
Additional Parking Spaces
+20•
+84•
+21'
+83•
+28•
+40•
No interior landscaping
2.
Additional parking spaces
N.C.
+49
-2
+50
+2
+16
With interior landscaping
3.
Tour Bus Spaces
0
4
10
4
8
10
4.
Accommodate OCTA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
5.
Landscaping in Front of Residential
N.C.
YES
Partial N.C.
YES
YES
YES
6.
Main Street Ped Mall
NO
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
7.
Impact on Ferry Access
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
8.
Impact on Safety a Boardwalk
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
9.
Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot
N.C.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
10.
Engineer's Estimate of Probable
--
$750,000
$281,000
S732,000
$818,000
$663,000
Construction Cost
4 Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces
N.C. - no change
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
BID ITEMS
ALT1
Table 2
ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
ALT3 ALTS
ALT6
ALT6A
1. Asphalt
5150,000
550,000
$150,000
$150,000
$100,000
2. PCC Curb
$100,000
$50,000
585,000
$120,000
$90,000
3. Landscaping
$200,000
$100,000
5200,000
$200,000
5200,000
4. Ticket Booth
SI00,000
-
SI00,000
$1001000
5100,000
5. Striping
550.000
S55_000
550.000
$50.000
540,O00
Sub -total
$600,000
$225,000
$585,000
$620,000
$530,000
Contingencies 15%
590,000
$34,000
588,000
$136,000
$80,000
Engineering 8:
Program Admin 10%
560.000
522.000
559.000
562.000
553.000
TOTAL
$750,000
$281,000
$732,000
$818,000
$663,000
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street
Access Improvements Final Report
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc
017058rpt.wpd
Balboa Boulevard, which would require signalization of the intersection of Washington Street and
Balboa Boulevard. Nine new parking spaces would be added to the Balboa Pier parking lot.
Comments at the workshop indicate that area business owners are interested in providing more
parking for their customers, increased nighttime lighting, and layover spaces for tour buses. The
business owners also raised concerns about restricting vehicular access to Main Street. Residents are
concerned about tour buses which currently park in residential areas. The residents would like layover
spaces provided for tour buses also. Both groups oppose concentrating exiting traffic onto the narrow
Washington Street and signalizing the intersection of Washington Street at Balboa Boulevard.
Peninsula Point residents strongly oppose signalizing the intersection. Residents also oppose
expanding the physical size of the Balboa Pier parking lot, support removing interior parking lot
landscaping to gain additional spaces, providing perimeter landscaping to screen parkedvehicles, and
support raising parking fees and prohibiting overnight parking in the parking lot.
The second workshop was held December 9, 1998 and was attended by28 people. Alternatives
1 through 4 were presented to the residents and business owners. The residents and business owners
in attendance were surveyed to determine their preferences for the alternatives. Out of 30
questionnaires, Alternatives 1 and 3 received 25 (83 percent) and 22 (73 percent) votes, respectively.
Alternatives 2 and 4 were eliminated based on the infeasibility of using Washington Street as the only
egress street from the lot during peak hours. Also the strong objection from residents to an added
signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street was a secondary factor. Approximately half the
residents would prefer perimeter landscaping to landscaping within the parking lot. Residents
between Palm Street and Washington Street do not want the tour buses parked directly in front of
their homes, but the hotel owners do not want the tour buses parking directly in front of their pool
area. Theater and business owners requested more short-term metered parking. Based on comments
received at the meeting and from the questionnaires, two additional alternatives were developed.
The final workshop was held February 10, 1999. Thirty-two residents and business owners
were in attendance. Alternatives 5 and 6 were presented. Business owners sent letters indicating their
support for Alternative 1(Appendix B) prior to this workshop and the discussion of Alternatives 5 and
6. Results of a survey at the third workshop indicate that the majority of the residents and business
owners support Alternative 3 (48 percent) and Alternative 1 (37 percent). Alternative 6 received
support also (19 percent).
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the public workshops indicates there is support for both Alternatives 1 and 3.
Alternative 1 provides the most additional parking spaces while Alternative 3 provides only an
increase in OCTA/tour bus layover spaces. The bus layover spaces in Alternatives 1 and 3 would have
to be modified to provide handicapped access. Alternative 6A provides a compromise between
Alternatives 1 and 3.
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street
Access Improvements Final Report
17
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
017058rpt.wpd
APPENDIX A
WORKSHOP PRESENTATION
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street A-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd
i.'
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
DESIGN STUDY
WORKSHOP NO, 1
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
By:
JOE FoUST, P.E.
AUSTIN-FoUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
(714) 667-0496
PENINSULA REVITALIZATION
BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION
WORKSHOP NO. 1
SEPTEMBER 9, 1 99B
PURPOSE OF STUDY
1. DESIGN ENGINEERING FOLLOW-ON T❑ BALBOA
PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
2. IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE PARKING LOT DESIGN
A. EXISTING LAYOUT
B. BPPAC 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS
I
C. "WORKSHOP" CREATED ALTERNATIVE(S)
TAS KS
1 1. EVALUATE BPPAC RECOMMENDATIONS
A. BALBOA PIER PARKING AND CIRCULATION?
B. MAIN STREET "PEDESTRIAN ONLY" PLAN?
2. SOLVE IDENTIFIED PARKING MANAGEMENT ISSUES
i
A. ❑PPORTUNITY T❑ ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL PARKING
PROBLEMS - TOUR BUS LAYOVER
B. IMPROVE AESTHETICS
C. OTHER ISSUES
3. DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES FROM
COMMUNITY INPUT
BALB OA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRIE
WORKSHOP N❑. 1
WHAT IS (ARE) YOUR MAIN CONCERN(S) REGARDING THE CURRENT
BALE❑A PIER PARKING LOT?
Z. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, COULD BE DONE T❑ IMPROVE THE PARKING
LOT?
3. D❑ YOU HAVE AN OPINION REGARDING THE BPPAC
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT?
YES_ N O_
IF S❑, WHAT FEATURES D❑ YOU SUPPORT ❑R OPPOSE?
i
4. WHAT OTHER TRAFFIC ❑R PARKING RELATED CONCERNS D❑ YOU
HAVE REGARDING THE BAL6❑A PIER PARKING LOT?
NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
DESIGN STUDY
WORKSHOP NO, 2
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
BY:
JOE FOUST, P.E.
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
(714) 667-0496
BALBOA PIER PARIONG LOT
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
CONDITION EVALUATED
EXISTING
ALT 1
ALT 2
ALT 3
ALT 4
1.
Additional Parking Spaces
+20*
+84*
+29*
+21*
+9*
(No interior landscaping)
2.
Additional parking spaces
N.C.
+49
+9
-2
-11
(With interior landscaping)
3.
Tour Bus Spaces
0
4
0
10
8
4.
Accommodate OCTD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
5.
Adequate Capacity on Main,
YES
YES
NO**
YES
NO**
Washington, Palm
6.
Need Signal @ Washington Street
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
7.
Landscaping in Front of Residential
N.C.
YES
Partial N.C.
Partial N.C.
Partial N.C.
8.
Main Street Ped Mall
NO
Partial
YES
Partial
Partial
9.
Impact on Ferry Access
N.C.
N.C.
Reduced
N.C.
N.C.
Storage
10.
Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk
N.C.
N.C.
Improved
N.C.
N.C.
(Eliminate One
Crossing)
11.
Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot
N.C.
YES
YES
YES
YES
*
Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces
**
New Washington Street signal would disrupt
Balboa traffic
Washington Street width (19') limits egress to single lane
BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
WORKSHOP NO. 2
1. WHICH OF
(INCLUDING
LOT)?
THE ALTERNATIVES COULD YOU SUPPORT
USE OF LANDSCAPED SPACES IN EXISTING
2. DO YOU BELIEVE ANY ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES NEED
TO BE EVALUATED? IF SO, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE.
3. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA ❑F INCREASING AND
IMPROVING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE
BALBOA PARKING LOT IN EXCHANGE FOR INCREASED
PARKING ATTAINED THROUGH REMOVAL ❑F THE INTERNAL
LANDSCAPING I.E., PALM TREES)?
4. DO YOU SUPPORT INCREASED NIGHTTIME LIGHTING,
PERHAPS WITH LOW LEVEL MOUNTING HEIGHTS, FOR
SECURITY PURP❑SES?
5. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PROVIDING TOURING BUS
PARKING IN THE BALE❑A PIER PARKING L❑T?
6. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
NAME (OPTIONAL)
ADDRESS
r
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
WORKSHOP #3
Prepared by:
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 North Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705-7827
(714) 667-0496
February 10,1999
BALBOA PIER PARIUNG LOT
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
CONDITION EVALUATED
EXISTING
ALT 1
ALT 3
ALT 5
ALT 6
1.
Additional Parking Spaces
+20*
+84*
+21*
+83
+28
(No interior landscaping)
2.
Additional parking spaces
N.C.
+49
-2
+50
-8
(With interior landscaping)
3.
Tour Bus Spaces
0
4
10
4
8 .
4.
Accommodate OCTD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
5.
Landscaping in Front of Residential
N.C.
YES
Partial N.C.
YES
YES
6.
Main Street Ped Mall
NO
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
7.
Impact on Ferry Access
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
8.
Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
9.
Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot
N.C.
YES
YES
YES
YES
10.
Engineer's Estimate of Probable
--
$750,000
$281,000
$732,000
$818,OOC
Construction Cost
I* Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces
BID ITEMS
Table i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BALBOA PIER ALTERNATIVES
ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
ALT 1 ALT 3
ALT 5
ALT 6
1. Asphalt
$150,000 $50,000
$150,000
$150,000
2. PCC Curb
$100,000 $50,000
$85,000
$120,000
3. Landscaping
$200,000 $100,000
$200,000
$200,000
4. Ticket Booth
$100,000 -
$100,000
$100,000
5. Striping
$50,000 $55,000
$50,000
$50,000
Sub -total
$600,000 $225,000
$585,000
$620,000
Contingencies (15%)
$90,000 $34,000
$88,000
$136,000
Engr & Prg Admin (10%)
$60,000 $22,000
$59,000
$62,000
TOTAL
$750,000 $281,000
$732,000
$818,000
BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
WORKSHOP NO. 3
FEBRUARY 1 O, 1 999
1 . WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES COULD YDU SUPPORT?
2. DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA ❑F INCREASING THE
PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALBOA
PARKING LOT?
3. SHOULD THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS BE
CONVERTED TO PARKING SPACES?
4. WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE BUS PARKING SHOULD BE
LOCATED?
S. D❑ YOU SUPP❑RT DEDICATION OF A LARGER PORTI❑N OF
THE EXISTING PARKING LOT T❑ METERED PARKING (SUCH
AS ALTERNATIVE 5)?
NAME (OPTIONAL)
ADDRESS
APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE
Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Ma
Aa s Improvements Final Rep
Balboa
Merchants [Owners
Association
01/19/99
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 N. Tustin Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Attn: Joe Foust
Dear Joe,
The Balboa Merchants/Owners Association Board of Directors reviewed the Alternative
Plans for the Balboa Municipal Lot your firm presented at workshop 92 in December of
1998. Our conclusions were unanimous and strongly recommend the following:
1. Alternative #1 is the best choice.
2. Increase the peripheral landscaping around the lot in exchange for increased
parking attained through the removal of internal landscaping inside the lot. This
would be in addition to the increased landscaping proposed in front of the
Rendezvous Condominiums and the additional landscaping on the boardwalk
from Palm St to Adams.
3. We strongly recommend increased nighttime pedestrian lighting for security
purposes within and around the lot, extending to the entry ways into town on
Palm St, Washington St. and Main St.
4. If this plan or another is approved, construction should not take place in the
summer months, and should be phased in so that the lot is never completely
closed to parking
In addition to our recommendation, I have enclosed six other questionnaires completed
by various businesses in the Balboa area.
If you have any questions please feel free to call at any time.
Sincerely,
Britta Pulliam
President, BMOA
P.O. Box 84-0 Balboa, CA., 92661
Balboa BIA th-e Sea -,A. oloncterfAl Plar_e to Be!
0
Oalboa ghn
O N T H E S A N D A T N E W P O R T
December 10, 1998
Mr. Joe E. Foust
Austin Foust Associates Inc.
2020 N. Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana CA 92705
Re: Balboa Parking Design Study/City Counsel Meeting
Dear Mr. Foust,
Pursuant to our phone conversation, this letter shall confirm that Balboa Inn strongly supports
alternatives 1 and 3 as proposed in your meeting of Dec 9th, 1999.
Alternative 5 was proposed to relocate the bus parking area close to the pier and the Balboa Inn
swimming pool. We strongly oppose this plan. The bps lay over area in front of the hotel will
seriously increase the noise level for the hotel residents and guests using the pool area as well as
obstructing the views form all rooms. This change will probably result in substantial loss of
income for the hotel operation.
I will be looking forward to hearing from you in the nest few days.
Sinclr ly yours,
4Rayin Pourmussa
Property Manager
cc:Tony Brian City of Newport (parking and traffic)
105 Main Street • Balboa, Califomia 92661 • (714) 675-3412
'L9.0 coop
O� ',`'EAT tiQOR'iBF,gC P40
LOTS A FISH
yf��RlgLVD. NEWP�P`��T'
March 2, 1999
Anthony Brine, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
Mr. Joe E. Foust
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
2020 W. Tustin Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92605
Re: Balboa Pier Parking Proposal
Action Plan
Dear Mr. Brine and Mr. Foust:
Following the last meeting on the Balboa Pier Parking Lot, I reflected upon the
various proposals and I have reconsidered some of my comments. At that meeting, I may have given
the impression that $10,000.00 per parking space may not be a practical solution.
By this letter, I want to make clear that my earlier judgment was in error. Having
given further thought to the comments of you, Mr. Foust, and after consulting with other
knowledgeable people, I now believe that $10,000.00 per parking space is a very wise and prudent
investment for our city.
Also, the removal of the small landscaped medians within the parking lot in order to
allow for more parking spaces makes a great deal of sense. This parking lot is a needed facility
which should be utilized to its greatest potential.
We all know that the greatest need of the merchants within our community is an
increased number of patrons. We all know that those patrons would include visitors, residents and
Anthony Brine, P.E.
Joe E. Foust
March 2, 1999
Page 2
seasonal renters, all of whom need, make use and benefit from greater parking facilities. As such,
increasing the City's ability to provide for more parking and accommodate more people only serves
to fill its obligations to the public as a steward of our beautiful beach lands.
I thank both of you for your time and effort in conducting a most fine and useful
meeting.
DJG:vaa
f:\client\00809\G3\briafous.302
n
Very truly yours,
\
Robert
Robert Roubian
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
CONDITION EVALUATED
EXISTING
ALT 1
ALT 2
ALT 3
ALT 4
1.
Additional Parking Spaces
+20*
+84*
+29*
+21*
+9*
(No interior landscaping)
2.
Additional parking spaces
N.C.
+49
+9
-2
-11
(With interior landscaping)
3.
Tour Bus Spaces
0
4
0
10
8
4.
Accommodate OCTD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
5.
Adequate Capacity on Main,
YES
YES
NO**
YES
NO**
Washington, Palm
6.
Need Signal @ Washington Street
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
7.
Landscaping in Front of Residential
N.C.
YES
Partial N.C.
Partial N.C.
Partial N.C.
8.
Main Street Ped Mall
NO
Partial
YES
Partial
Partial
9.
Impact on Ferry Access
N.C.
N.C.
Reduced
N.C.
N.C.
110. Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk N.C.
Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot N.C.
Storage
N.C. Improved N.C. N.C.
(Eliminate One
Crossing)
YES YES YES YES
* Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces
** New Washington Street signal would disrupt Balboa traffic
Washington Street width (19') limits egress to single lane
JYAWA
am
- - - - - - - - -
e e
- - - - - - -
- -
-
- - - - -e
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
AA
•
did
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tl
�
�
I
I
a
a` I
p-
15b
�
I
11
I
7
WA
FB
I i
I
1
I
_ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _
r 9 =
4l
xw� r-a
EXISTING PLAN
PARKING MDY
® �Al/STIN--FOUST ASSOCIATES INC.
BAMA PIER PARKING LOl
I I I I I I I I I I
1 tr
1 tt
149 r4W lcysyvvw rASS0CL47FS6 Ala
-it
t'
I1
i
LEGEND
I
I Jp
+ DOSONG TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SOEWALK AND CROSSWALK
PARKING SUMMARY
655
D7SRNG SPACES:
PROPOSED SPACES:
714
NET CNANGE:
+49
LANDSCAPED:
35
NM groan: ATRNMNf
m ANTlR MMOM
LM OF STMAE am 9AI8M BUM
6
C
1
ALTERNATIVE 1
1991 STUDY RECOMEF
PARKING SMOY
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
........if t ........................sa _. .# q'^.. .........................._.... f'.............. ....... _._.__`R.........
..........................._ f f...^~4
f- - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ -i f-
..•..- S.f(. ,......y V.S..aal...........,................w........... ...:
.................._......_._....._......._........................................_........._...._.........._................_........._._.............................
............................................................_..._...._..........................................................................
311
lo: �
u.�cax wcrana ttacrtz
U 1,
:.:
_ _ _ - - - - -
---YEIt/YYYYtlfN� � J
f
.......... .....— .._.... ................_....... ....1._._......
.... .... .... ....9.... .... .. .. .�
y.... ....
......'��-�"3.1.}..1.}..f.�.€..€.z.€..€..1..(.l.l.l..l.11} �.?. �. �.€..(.lii..1.1.l.I.(....€.r.€.�..i.1.1.(.1.(.....€..€.:`•.1.).l.l..i.}..1.�.....
t
IEGENR
6E30STING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
M SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
PARKING SUMMARY
EKSRNG SPACES: BDS
PROPOSED SPACM' 803
NET CHANGE —2
LANDSCAPED: 23
ALTERNATIVE 8
MODIFIED EX18TING
CENTRAL BALBOA PARKING PLAN
E)OS'NNG PLAN
® ®AYSTAV6FWSJ A'SS0 AITF.g AC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
WORKSHOP NO. 2
1 WHICH ❑F THE ALTERNATIVES C❑ULD YOU SUPP❑RT
(INCLUDING USE OF LANDSCAPED SPACES IN EXISTING
LOT)?
2. D❑ YOU BELIEVE ANY ADDITI❑NAL ALTERNATIVES NEED
T❑ BE EVALUATED? IF SO, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE.
3. DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING AND
IMPR❑VING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE
BALBOA PARKING L❑T IN EXCHANGE FOR INCREASED
PARKING ATTAINED THROUGH REMOVAL OF THE INTERNAL
LANDSCAPING (I.E., PALM TREES)?
4. D❑ Y❑U SUPPORT INCREASED NIGHTTIME LIGHTING,
PERHAPS WITH LOW LEVEL MOUNTING HEIGHTS, FOR
SECURITY PURPOSES?
5. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PROVIDING TOURING BUS
PARKING IN THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT?
6. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
NAME (OPTIONAL)
ADDRESS
I
BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
WORKSHOP NO. 3
FEBRUARY 1 O, 1 999
1 . WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES C❑ULD YOU SUPPORT?
2. Do YDU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE
PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALB❑A
PARKING LOT?
3. SH❑ULD THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS BE
CONVERTED T❑ PARKING SPACES?
4. WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE BUS PARKING SHOULD BE
LOCATED?
5. DO YOU SUPPORT DEDICATION OF A LARGER PORTION ❑F
THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO METERED PARKING (SUCH
AS ALTERNATIVE 6)?
NAME (OPTI❑NAL)
ADDRESS
BALBOA PIER PARHING LOT
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX
CONDITION EVALUATED
EXISTING
ALT 1
ALT 3
ALT 5
ALT 6
1.
Additional Parking Spaces
+20*
+84*
+21*
+83*
+28*
(No interior landscaping)
2.
Additional parking spaces
N.C.
+49
-2
+50
+2
(With interior landscaping)
3.
Tour Bus Spaces
0
4
10
4
8
4.
Accommodate OCTD
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
5.
Landscaping in Front of Residential
N.C.
YES
Partial N.C.
YES
YES
6.
Main Street Ped Mall
NO
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
7.
Impact on Ferry Access
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
8.
Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
9.
Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot
N.C.
YES
YES
YES
YES
10.
Engineer's Estimate of Probable
$750,000
$281,000
$732,000
$8181000
Construction Cost
*
Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces
- /-_-_-_-_-_-_---_-_-_-_-_-P/ - -_- -
-�-!
I
94
I
i 31 3 I
I
I I
1
I 1
� � 1
76 0 3 1
I
1
T7m
_r S Z C�iTi
EXISTING PLAN
wry• �- PARKING STUDY
49j®AUSTW--FOUST ASSOC/ATFS /NC. BAWOA PIER PARKING LOT
I1
~ I
` I.
rr�rw III���
1
a
1
�_/ram
L_AlISTIA(-FOUSTASSOC/ATES 1W.
�AtleOA ULM 1
w I
t
1
e
M
I
= 1 LEGEND
i a
mwrwf 1
EXISTING TRAFFlC SIGNAL
14
SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
t�� h
t�
t•
PARKING SUMMARY
EXISTING SPACES
665
PROPOSED SPACES:
714
NET CHANGE
+49
LANDSCAPED:
75
NEm RPARATE ATIDIOW TO
MMR OMTONS
LOSS OG STORAGE ONTO B DA MW.
1
ALTERNATIVE 1
1991 STUDY RECOMMENDATION
PARKING STUDY
BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
I / sWOA
— --/— — — — — — — — — —
- -I - - - - - - �w�w'rvim�vs
I
eLw.
`3' 2
Z
0
s
4
9
Y
41
4
�Jp��G ND
—y - EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
® SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
PARKING SUMMARY
EXISTING SPACES: 665
PROPOSED SPACES. 663
NET CFIANGE: -2
LANDSCAPED: 23
ALTERNATIVE 3
MODIFIED EXISTING
���
49jW AOST/N-FOIIST ASSOCIATES, INC.
CENTRAL BALBOA PARKING PLAN
CITY NEWTING PLAN
PORT BEACH
OF NEWPORT
I -'-I
.[i
3 RS12VE
F� Ren
.• �'
ii
�.•
r�
�1
L'L L'L
L�
L'G
L'C
�1
L"C LG
Y
A
I
I
I
LEGEND
I
i
•'{}`" EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
A
SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
PARKING SUMMARY
EXISTING SPACES:
665
PROPOSED SPACES:
715
NET CHANGE
+50
LANDSCAPED:
33
N® 3PARATE ATTEMANT TO
ANS% WEST101
LOSS W STORATE 040 BA a em
6
ALTERNATIVE 5
MODIFIED 1991 STUDY
PARKING STUDY
4rA!/ST/N-FO!/ST ASSOC/ATES, INC. BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT
eA
LEGEND
+ EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
® SIDEWALK AND CROSSWALK
PARKING SUMMARY
EXISTING SPACES 655
PROPOSED SPACES 667
NET CHANGE +2
LANDSCAPED 26
ALTERNATIVE 6
CENTRAL BALBOA PARKING PLAN
INCREASED VILLAGE PARKING CONCEPT
® ®AUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/AYES, /NC, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
I
I
I
MR
ENTRY BY FERRY--- _
• Bike Racks t!`,
• Flag Pole .�
• Sigwge _
CONSOLIDATE TICKET BOOTHS ;
FOR BOARDWALK CONCESSIONS
1
MURAL WALL,
MONUMENTICLOCKXO WERE
• Balboa Village Sign
Benches
• Shade Trellis?rxs
CLOSE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS
• Provides Sidewalk and Street Trees
ENTRY TO VILLAGE
• FManced Paving at Intersection!
• Flowering Trees
• Signage
ADD TURNING LANE FOR /
ACCESS TO PIER PARKING LOT
ENTRY TO VILLAGE BY FOOT,
• Enhanced Paving at Intersections
• Flowering Trees
• Slgnage
OCTAfrOUR BUS
Hgyq VgNv�
CONSOLIDATE TICKET BOOTHS
FOR BOARDWALK CONCESSIONS
BALBOA PAVILION
• Consider walkway at waters edge. outdoor dining
CONVERT WASHINGTON STREET
TO PEDESTRIAN WAY FROM
EDGEWATER TO BALBOA BLVD.
• Enhance Paving
• Sueet Trees and Flowering Vines
Fountain
• Access to Emergency and Service Vehicles Only
• Enhance Vista to Bay
BAY AVENUE PARKING
• Diagonal Stalls on North Side
• Relocate Trash Enclosure
• Revise Puking Layout to Increase Stalls
TURN AROUND DEMARKED
ERN PAVING
!— BALBOA BOULEVARD
T
! 1
CONSIDER ALL DIRECTION
CROSSWALK
WIDEN SIDEWALKS ON BALBOA BLVD
AND WASHINGTON ST.
(Reduces on Street Puking)
ENHANCE ALLEY
• Wall Lights
- Decorative Paving
• Close to Through Traffic
UPGRADE EXISTING PAVILION TO
BANDSTAND
UPLIGHT EXISTING PALMS
— CUNNb l A bitcCct oat IV 1vtAM
— T — _ — STREET(GRASSCRETE)
I — -- as BALBOA PIER PLAZA
— _ • Decorative Paving
I I I • $C8e R
_ Q • Bike Racks
• Fountain
I .I 11f lIIIIIIIIIIIIII
iII J
o BALBOA VILLAGE
', I' I I I I I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1 1 'rl I l Ill I l I I l l l J l IL LI �_I I_L1JJ11.111J i-L tiu I 111liL 1 111 L.Ll-m-LI 111 1 I Ii f _1 °9 FOR .rr as i:ccnrr: reDlsrRtnus
... -- --- --- _ --- - - in CITY0FNE3'P0RTB6"ACH .{.
ALTERNATIVE 'A' ®�^I
PARKING - Alternative 'A
BALBOA BLVD.
On Street
21
Lot
0
BAY AVE.
On Street
25
Lot
17
PALM ST. LOT
39
SUBTOTAL
102
PIER LOT - Plan 6A•
719
TOTAL
821
• asad N. a.A
4
•
7A ".
• . I. ' : • . � �•`� � � Wyk ail./ s' M.
• . �, � ��'=`�t '- L 'III i� <��� ;9 -
� 7 i &9 'e y /?f��.1•
- �� c •r irrli :!.°. r• • �41!r:� � savr�..axal�.Il.: Jr nOC�' �. a ..r �� e���.,�yc.T
ay. a btll o' S.A. t ii V:
y p 2 W.I.F.
.t3lt a
AARi
• 1 !i 'rlow
a NMI
. • ., , • - i + ���• ,`q 1afiEla!�R�raeile�=� . I
Y' \IIAAP
III IEEE
`SYilw:%tlifFleon ■P■. teed ■ ■ '�rnr..n�n•c#�yCTn+en,,Re�wi.. u�r■mNu■ ■ �.�., aor +• �.
CIl�•�,,,�..,✓�i�cr-n. a.'c .�ual� �r.'�\ •i'r. "I rl ,..e ^I �s�-qf� I, r/ C�ac. s f1. i.
��'��. • et
I Met,
IONIC• . • • • I •'
( \4.1\YI •ll•91\'{L'11\YI\.IiYJ. �;����1 • ®i _ _
� 1
f. I:�'• _
•
: 1 '