The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00 - Non-Agenda Item - CorrespondenceJune 11, 2024 Non -Agenda Item From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Date: June 05, 2024 9:37:11 AM Attachments: BalboaPeninsulaCrosswalkSU)df From: Kathy Frazer <frazerka @yahoo. corn > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 9:36:43 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>; jerry and michele silver neighbor <michelesilver@roadrunner.com>; Jim Moloney <jimmejoe@netscape.net> Subject: AL LAWL] DO NOT CLICK links or it is my intention to come and speak about the crosswalk at Balboa and Island Avenue. This is a pressing issue since the new library project intends to draw more people, particularly children, to it, and neighbors are concerned with safety on the dangerous boulevard. Based on the crosswalk study on the City website included here, three things are clear. 1. The data collected for fhe study was done in 2016, and recommendations were based on the 2014 California Manual of Traffic Control Devices. And the data was collected on one Thursday in the winter and one Thursday in summer with no explanation of how/why those dates were selected. One day is not an adequate sampling! We need an updated more complete study. And we need that now, before you continue with the library/firestation plans to make sure those plans have a strong safety component that includes the intersection. Since 2016, Marina Park, Lido House, and more bars and restaurants have been built, and there has been a concerted effort by the Chamber of Commerce to attract visitors. We also have short term rentals and co -ownership residences. We have alot more people on the peninsula year round.The residents know how often cars do not stop at the crosswalks or zoom around a car stopped for someone in the crosswlk, but many people are infrequent visitors who are not aware of the dangers the crosswalks pose. And the study must encompass all the crosswalks. The 2016 data was based on only 9 of the existing 38 crosswalks. 2. The final line of the report says there needs to be more police enforcement, and yet over and over we residents have complained there are no police here as cars continue to speed on the boulevard.We need designated motorcycles here daily. The very presence of motorcycles not cruisers has a real positive influence on speed. There was a discussion years ago about having a substation at the Fun Zone, and that needs to be revisited. We need the data on the current police scheduling of motorcycles monitoring crosswalks. 3. City staff was too involved in the report that was completed. The report should have been an independent study with independent conclusions. The City continues to say we cannot have a light at the intersection, citing the State, and yet i contacted the State office of Traffic Safety, and they tod me it is totally within the jurisdiction of the City. Laaguna Beach has lights at every crosswalk and sko should we. The city has the ability to coordinate those lights to maximize traffic flow, but honestly, moving cars should be less of a concern than saving a life.Which begs the question: why is the City opposed to slowing traffic on a dangerous street? Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize Conquer PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY OF BALBOA PENINSULA in the 0— T � �r►t�c�li4�wb � ADM* August 2017 F r:D'::DI i ALBERT CAROVER & l W SOCIATES ■ J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Newport Beach has retained a transportation safety consultant to conduct a comprehensive and independent review of thirty-eight uncontrolled crosswalks along the Balboa Peninsula. The findings of the study effort suggest that despite the relatively high activity levels of both residents and visitors, all those motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the constrained Peninsula environment generally interact in a safe and efficient manner. This contention is supported by the relatively few reported collisions that have occurred over the past five years considering the high vehicular volumes and large number of pedestrians and bicyclists. In general, the consultant found that the existing signing and striping for the crosswalks are visible and in good condition. A review of project records revealed that the City has completed many infrastructure and safety improvements on the Peninsula over the last ten years including enhanced signing and striping, boardwalk improvements, new LED street lighting, and the widening of Newport Boulevard to provide new bike lanes, raised medians, and a pedestrian signal at Newport Boulevard and 23rd Street. The City has also been responsive to community requests by conducting safety investigations and regularly reviewing traffic controls and crosswalk conditions, particularly around Newport Elementary School. This Pedestrian Crossing Study continues to build on the City's public safety efforts by comprehensively reviewing traffic conditions on the Balboa Peninsula and outlining recommendations designed to further enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety. INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach retained Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) to provide professional traffic engineering services for the Balboa Peninsula Pedestrian Crossing Study project. AGA was retained specifically to assist the City in analyzing the various controlled (signalized and all -way stop locations) and uncontrolled crosswalk locations on the Balboa Peninsula and to recommend a comprehensive approach to improve pedestrian safety and walkability. The City's goals for this project were to determine if existing pedestrian crossings were adequate and to determine if modifications to crossings and traffic controls were needed to enhance pedestrian safety while minimizing impacts to adjacent residents and businesses, bicyclists, and traffic flow. At the same time, the City is keenly aware of the scenic nature of Balboa, the significant number of visitors and tourists drawn to the area, the numerous public facilities and recreation areas, miles of public beaches, high density housing, and high demand parking. These important environmental and social factors were taken into consideration when developing crosswalk and traffic control modifications where right-of-way and parking is at a premium. This study focused on implementing common sense traffic control measure, coupled with pedestrian's duty of care, to improve safety and efficiency by balancing typical traffic control "guidelines" found in books and standards with the constrained street environment found in beachfront communities. The general study area is illustrated on Figure 1 — Vicinity Map on the following page. PROJECT SETTING The City of Newport Beach is a seaside City with a total area of 53 square miles consisting of 23.8 square miles of land and 29.2 square miles of water. The City is comprised of a number of communities including Newport Harbor, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Peninsula, Newport Coast, San Joaquin Hills, Santa Ana Heights, and West Newport. The City is bordered on the west by Huntington Beach and the Santa Ana River; on the north by Costa Mesa, John Wayne Airport, Irvine, and University of California Irvine; and on the east by Crystal Cove State Park. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the permanent A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES population of the City was 85,287 during the 2010 census and is currently estimated at 87,500. Those population numbers dramatically increase during the summer months with an influx of part time residents, visitors, and tourists to this very popular beach community. Of all the communities that are a part of the City, Balboa Peninsula (commonly called Balboa) is arguably the most popular tourist destination. It is comprised of high density housing, retail businesses, numerous restaurants, and has direct access to miles of public beach and the harbor. The area experiences large seasonal fluctuations of visitors which create a high demand on the roadway facilities, parking, and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. As a peninsula, Balboa is surrounded by water on three sides with only limited roadway access via Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. Both boulevards are often congested with vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians during the summer months and on weekends and holidays throughout the year. The Balboa Peninsula is a popular place for both residents and visitors with the primary attractions being concentrated around the Newport Pier and the Balboa Pier. The Newport Pier area (approximately 19th Street to 26th Street) provides access to the beach, a variety of shops, restaurants, and has several large parking areas. The Balboa Pier (approximately located between Adams Street and Main Street) area is popular for beach access, retail shops, restaurants, a children's activity area, and water sport rentals. This area is also home to a number of public boating activities including deep sea fishing, whale watching, and passenger ferries to Catalina Island or to cross the harbor to Balboa Island. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES PROJECT STUDY AREA The project study area is essentially comprised of both Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard as they traverse the Balboa Peninsula. The study area is depicted in Figure 2 — Study Area on the following page. Vehicle circulation in the study area is controlled by traffic signals, stop signs, and pairings of one-way streets. Parking on the Balboa Peninsula is provided by a combination of on -street parking (both free and metered depending on the location) and paid parking lots operated by both public and private entities. Considering the high parking demand and close proximity of housing and businesses to the beach areas, the Balboa Peninsula also experiences high pedestrian activities, especially during weekends, holidays and summer months. To accommodate this brisk pedestrian activity, there are a total of forty-nine marked crosswalks on the entire peninsula at a combination of controlled and uncontrolled intersections between the two streets of Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. PROJECT STUDY FOCUS Within the project study area there are forty-one intersections containing both controlled and uncontrolled crosswalks. All forty-one intersections along with their accompanying traffic controls are identified in Table 1— Crosswalk Type and Location. The study effort focused on reviewing traffic controls, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and collision records for the thirty-eight unsignalized intersections with crosswalks across Balboa Boulevard or Newport Boulevard within the study area. During the summer months, engineering field observations and pedestrian crossing data was gathered for the thirty-eight study intersections. In consultation with City staff it was decided to select eighteen, or approximately half of the total study intersections, for further study through the gathering of follow-up pedestrian and bicycle crossing data in the winter. Those eighteen key study intersections were generally selected based on a number of factors including location, surrounding land use, collision history and activity levels. Of the eighteen key intersections half were chosen, generally based on high activity levels, to document motorist right-of-way violations of pedestrian crossings. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES m 2 4 Co 6 O w 0000 i Q m N m L Z N U 00000zo 0-4 m m m m m m z z � 000 coco o 7��a� G 0 E 9 5 w n ao W 2 U z¢ 3 V U V V V V V V V V V a a a a a a a a a a a m m m m [O [O m m m [O m m m 1 � � m � m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 D 9 9 9 D:9 N N N N N N 0C3 �y [N7 0 C m w J X X m m 8 � °a � N N N m m m 0 m m 0 m m 0 0 m 0 m m 0 m 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m m m 9 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m [V C*r]. Irj m r Or QI p N ltl N 0i F— L Q N.0 m O � m M L U ((C� 6 Lt 6 z 6 L_ m L_ v rnA rA pC y �R z a m m m m m m m m m m d} Ir Z U CW m n m h oo m ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES N N O M d N 0 O U u (9) N m � C O) O) � U O a) c O C O Y U Y Y Y (n 00 .cn U a (Db a a a O O O b U U) C C C m m m m— O O 0 m M <Z 2 N >. L N a) m m O O m Co O O m m O O m Co O O m m O O m m 0 0 >, >, m W m W m W m W >, >, T T T T >, T cc m m m co m m m m m m m ca m m m m m m m m m m m m m T> T> >> m m 3 m 3 m 3 A m 3 >, m 3 m 3 m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o m 3 CV 3 N m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 3 N N CV N m 3 N m 3 N CV N a> 3 6 3 (j, 3 W, 3 (3, 3 d) 3 3 N Um m m T T m m CO CO A T m m m m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 CV — N N N N N N fn Cn m N N (o w 0 ww N In N O w 0 co w cn to to fn co fn N fn fn In to (n cn co U) cn cn fn U)(n co cn U)O O O O O O O O H O O O H O O O H O O O O O O O O 0 0 U U U 0 U U U U b b cb b cb 0 U 0 0 0 U U m m W W W W W m m m m Co W m m W m W m W m W W a 1Z a a a a a W W W W a W a w W a W d W D- W m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a d O a O d a O a O a O IZ 0 0 F- FF-- 0 0 0 OF-- O O O O O F O H H W W W N W N N H H H F U) H U) H H co H U H N H U) U) >, >, >, >. >, >, >, U) U) U) U) >, U) >, U) U) >. U) >, U) >, U) >, m >, m m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 cc 3 >, m >, m >, >+ m >. m T >, m 3 A m m 3 A m m 3 m 3 3 m m 3 m 3 m m N CV CV N N CV CV N CV N N CV W ?j W �j W W cn cn cn z cn z cn z cn U) z z Ui cn cn cn cn cn m U) z Z C z Z -0 a a a a -o -o -0 -a -o -o -0 -o -0 a -o 70 10 70 a a a -D a -o Y Y_ Y_ Y_ Y Y Y_ Y_ Y_ N N 0 N 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 a) O U) a) b a) b O U) O U) a) Z. a) U) O b CU U) O Z. a) Z. CU U) N U) N U) N U) CU cn CD b N U) N cn d b N U) N b a) b (D N U) m Cn cn U) U) v) v) U) cn v) U) cn m U) U) N m v) N U) N U) ap CV CD N V N O CD M LQ M V M M O M M N CO N N N O N O a[) 1— CD "T M N Cl O (b -6 m _> E E E E E -o E a E E E E v -0 -0 -a -2 a -o a -o a -E 0> m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ca m m m m m °� a) m m m m a) a) m m o a) m a) m a) a) a) m m m a) m a) Q m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m o m 0 m 0 m o m O m O m O m o m 3- 0 Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m z 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 a 0 Q 0 9 0 � 0 a 0 Q 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 � o a O � 0 � o � O � o � O � o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U) z m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O N M I C� O N M NLC- N N N N N N ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES r_ 0 2 Q 0 -i L-1 � e = k Co 77 k� 0 * 2 2 \ \ Co \ co \ Co k _ r j / j / j Co / ° ) k / co 2 m m m m co d E M 0 E m Co ofoa 270E >,\$ (f > » 7 7 of $ D 3 $ 3 $ ®\ � j / / o \ C $ 4 * > > > * w Co / \ \ / \ \ \ \ ƒ \ ( ( e o k( e( o k 0�®� \ E 0 e e 2 2/ 2 I E B m E« a_ s w w z z a- o w / % b b\ / m m\\ oƒ b 5 7 7 m ) r ® \ L % » \ _ \ - - - 2 Co a) 4 / / / / f / 7 / ^ 7 � � � 7 a a $ \ A m m 7 m m m m© z o co n & z© _ ® $ z �� z -0 -0 -0 -0 k k k k /\ k k k / k \ 2 2§ E E 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E F a m m / a \ 7 m m a® 7 7= a k m m 7 © 2 $ q k ° «° m m m m ° \� k\/§ 2 2 t 4-- -F. $ M# §« mƒ w aco ce) ^ 3 / D - , / 7 -9 2 _ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ _ co k k k k co k in k k co�$ƒ m m E § m m § S@§ 3 S§§ 0\} 0 % M % % M % % % q t % % M a, = 5 = m = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = m z z = \ \ m m mz R R 7 2 m 2 m m@ 0 Az ERT eov a a SsocIA TES OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE Pedestrian studies can vary based on a variety of factors including location, roadway configuration, traffic controls, traffic patterns, pedestrian and bicycle activity, surrounding land use, and seasonal variations in visitors and tourism. Furthermore, each crossing point is unique; therefore, detailed field reviews of each location and traffic operations at various times of the day is necessary. One cannot approach a comprehensive pedestrian safety review on the Balboa Peninsula as merely a routine engineering task of gathering data, completing standardized forms, and comparing the location to engineering standards. In order to review locations in a cost effective, efficient, and context sensitive manner, it takes a unique hands-on approach by recognized experts that are not only technically proficient, but well versed in constrained beachfront community traffic control and human behavior. This project has unique challenges that require the intelligent application of traffic control strategies and measures to enhance walkability without negatively impacting access, traffic flow, parking and aesthetics. The Balboa Peninsula poses unique traffic management challenges related to its almost four mile length, limited right-of-way, population density, watercraft facilities, businesses, schools, parks, beaches, and its many tourist attractions. In consideration of its regional role as a destination for so many residents, visitors, and tourists it is important to consider all roadway users, residents, businesses, and visitors when reviewing and proposing potential traffic control changes and enhancements at crosswalks and other crossing locations. The scope of work for the project was essentially divided into three major elements of work or tasks which are outlined below. Task 1: Data Collection The first element of work was to conduct summertime detailed field reviews and to collect relevant data on pedestrian crossings. The field review consisted of evaluating traffic controls at crosswalks consisting of, but not limited to, striping, marking, signing, lighting, visibility and compliance with current traffic engineering standards. Engineers reviewing traffic controls and traffic operations carefully considered the needs of all roadway users, residents, businesses, and visitors. To aid in the gathering of pedestrian data, temporary video cameras were installed at intersections to record pedestrian crossing activity. Task 2: Collision Analysis The second element of work included a 5-year review of the collision history analysis to determine collision frequency and patterns of collisions that could be correctable through improved traffic controls or other operational strategies. Task 3: Engineering Evaluations The third element of work was to conduct in-depth crosswalk evaluations at key intersections to determine if traffic control changes could be made at those locations to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Engineers considered a comprehensive "traffic control toolbox" of ideas and strategies for potential improvements that included, but were not limited to, bulb -outs, flashing beacons, in -pavement lighted crosswalks, improved lighting, international style crosswalk markings, high visibility signage, stop signs, traffic signals, and parking removal to improve sight distance. Ultimately, the findings and recommendations from the study effort have been combined with the data collected and analysis conducted into this study report. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES METHODOLOGY In order to provide a complete picture of crossing activity on the Balboa Peninsula, intersections with controlled and uncontrolled crossings were reviewed during the summer season to reflect peak pedestrian and bicycle activity. However, since we also wanted to compare seasonal variations in pedestrian and bicycle activity, it was determined that counting pedestrian and bicyclist activity on the same mid -week day in both the summer and winter, when school is in session, would provide the most appropriate comparison. Summer season pedestrian and bicycle crossing counts were collected on Thursday, August 11, 2016, using temporary video cameras installed at each of the thirty-eight study intersections. The gathering of video documentation provides AGA engineers with a superior understanding of pedestrian and motorist behavior more than can be ascertained from numerical data alone. The video allows engineers to witness motorist behavior and safety concerns expressed by the community directly rather than relying on eye witness accounts during limited time periods. The video also permits the quantitative analysis of the number of crossings overtime by location. An understanding of the potential factors contributing to pedestrian traffic collisions at crossings helps to understand the nature of the collisions. This study reviewed approximately five years (January 1, 2012 — November 29, 2016) of collision history. A comprehensive review of traffic collision reports involving pedestrians and bicyclists was completed. Based on the data gathered from the initial counts, a review of the accident history, and consultation with City staff, eighteen key intersections representing the most utilized locations with higher collision history crossings were selected for further study. A second set of video data was then collected at those eighteen key intersections during the winter season while schools were in session. This second round of video data was collected on Thursday, January 26, 2017. A series of field reviews by AGA engineers were completed during the summer and fall seasons, on weekdays and weekends, and various times of day in order to get a "feel" for the environment and street activity levels. A nighttime review of the existing street and safety lighting was also conducted. After our initial nighttime street light review (Summer 2016), the City upgraded all luminaires from high pressure sodium (HPS) to light emitting diodes (LED) fixtures. This lighting upgrade dramatically improved visibility of the roadway and the crosswalk areas for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Traffic control inventories were conducted for each of the thirty-eight intersections to document the crossings, signage, markings, and red zones. Special attention was afforded to the Newport Elementary School area and school crosswalks during the non -summer period, since this is when school is in session. A literature review was also completed, which was comprised of the City's 1989 Traffic Analysis Report prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, NCHRP Report 562 "Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings", ITE's "Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide (UIIG), the 2015 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Marked Crosswalk Evaluation, and other related publications. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES ANALYSIS Field Review In August of 2016, an engineering field review was conducted at all thirty-eight study intersections with both controlled and uncontrolled crosswalks. That review included inventorying traffic controls and lighting, reviewing signing and striping, reviewing the location of crosswalks and their visibility, observing traffic and pedestrian activity, and determining substantial compliance with current traffic engineering standards per the 2014 California Manual of Traffic Control Devices. A review was conducted of characteristics that could be a factor in determining the most appropriate traffic controls based on traffic and physical characteristics at each location. Such characteristics included, but were not limited to, proximity to schools, presence of bus stops, location of residential and business driveways, on -street parking activities/restrictions, driver behavior and adequacy of travel and turning lanes, traffic congestion, pedestrian routes/patterns, ADA access, and the percentage and type of larger vehicles traversing the area. The engineering field review revealed that the study intersections are generally closely spaced, pedestrian sidewalks are narrow, there are multiple alleys and private driveways, and on -street parking is in significant demand. In such an active and constrained street environment, traffic control options can be limited. In order to obtain reasonable and calmed motorist behavior, it is important that traffic controls are relevant, visible, and consistent. Some improvements can actually lead to motorists simply "tuning out" the traffic controls, or worse, being distracted by them and not focusing on pedestrians and bicyclists. In such cases, simple yet practical traffic controls can actually enhance traffic safety through the decluttering of the street environment so that pedestrians and bicyclists in the right-of-way can be clearly seen by approaching motorists and safe decisions can be made. This study will focus on assessing the traffic flow, pedestrian and bicycle activity, physical environment, and collision data to "right -match" the recommended traffic controls at each intersection to provide a balanced approach to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Data Collection — Summer Bicycle and pedestrian data was collected at each of the thirty-eight study intersections to determine the total number of pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing the marked crosswalks. Data collection sheets are included in Appendix A. The data gathering effort was completed for a 24-hour period on Thursday, August 11, 2016 using temporarily installed video cameras. The secondary purpose of the video observations at each location was to be able to determine the number of drivers that "did not yield" to pedestrians or bicyclists legally within the crosswalk. In collaboration with City staff, the total hours of data to be post processed and tabulated per location was finalized. Based on the analysis of the video, field observations, and consultation with City staff a list of eighteen key intersections were determined for further in-depth follow-up study in the winter. The selection of those eighteen intersections was generally based on the volume of pedestrian and bicycle activity combined with field observations and collision history. As shown on the following page, Table 2 — Key Study Intersections lists the intersections that were chosen for further in-depth follow-up study. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Table 2 Key Study Intersections • Southbound Newport Boulevard at 28th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street • Newport Boulevard at 26th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 31St Street • Balboa Boulevard at 30th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 28th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 26th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 22nd Street • Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 18th Street Data Collection — Winter • Balboa Boulevard at 14th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 13th Street • Balboa Boulevard at 8th Street • Balboa Boulevard at Island Avenue • Balboa Boulevard at Coronado Street • Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street • Balboa Boulevard at E Street • Balboa Boulevard at 38th Street Bicycle and pedestrian data was collected at the eighteen key study intersections to determine the total number of pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing the marked crosswalks. Data collection sheets are included in Appendix B. The data gathering effort was completed for a 24-hour period on Thursday, January 26, 2017 using temporarily installed video cameras. The secondary purpose of the video observations at these locations was to be able to determine the number of drivers that "did not yield" to pedestrians or bicyclists legally within the crosswalk. Summer & Winter Data Comparisons Bicycle and pedestrian data collected at the eighteen key study intersections in both the summer and winter is summarized in Table 3 — Seasonal Comparison on page 11. The bicycle and pedestrian volumes are the sums of all bicycles and pedestrians observed on all legs of the intersection, regardless of whether a crosswalk was marked or not. This table shows that over three times more pedestrians and nearly three times more bikes utilized the location in the summer versus in the winter on the same day of the week and the same 16-hour time period. Motorist Violations A review of all reported right-of-way violations was conducted at nine locations in terms of vehicles that did not yield right-of-way to pedestrians to determine the frequency and patterns of potential pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes. The selection of those nine locations was generally based on the volume of pedestrian and bicycle activity combined with field observations and collision history. The number of drivers that "did not yield" to pedestrians or bicyclists legally within the crosswalk was collected for the summer and winter time periods. Table 4 — Summary of Motorist Right -of -Way Violations - Summer summarizes the summer results, and Table 5 — Summary of Motorist Right -of -Way Violations - Winter summarizes the winter results (see page 12). Violations by vehicles varied from intersection to intersection with the highest violations occurring at Balboa/28th (11.8%) during the summer and at Southbound Newport/281h (4.6%) during the winter. Although the violation percentages were found to be low for most of the observed intersections, violations during the summer observation period were found to be almost two times higher than during the winter observation period. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Table 3 Seasonal Comparison Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity (7am-11 pm) Location Intersection Summer Volumes (August) Winter Volumes (January) Number Name Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle 1 SB Newport/28th 912 216 319 74 2 Newport/26th 2,083 431 602 124 9 Balboa/31 st 1,621 702 574 140 10 Balboa/30th 1,867 510 707 126 11 Balboa/28th 2,134 376 653 87 12 Balboa/26th 2,146 388 507 81 13 Balboa/22nd 3,248 360 1,017 67 14 Balboa/20th 2,329 410 676 130 16 Balboa/18th 1,614 314 396 109 18 Balboa/16th 799 251 261 83 19 Balboa/14th 634 180 513 57 20 Balboa/13th 835 163 648 53 25 Balboa/8th 438 166 120 52 -- 28 -- -- Balboa/Island -- 1,038 -- 249 -- 271 -- 78 30 Balboa/Coronado 961 132 202 49 33 BalboaMashington 4,370 481 1,191 108 34 Balboa/E St. 748 1,380 219 390 41 Balboa/38th 757 334 268 97 TOTAL: 28,534 7,043 9,144 1,905 *Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes between 7am and 11 pm ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES Table 4 Summary of Motorist Right -of -Way Violations - Summer Location Number Intersection Name No. of Peds/Bikes Vehicles Did Not Yield For Total Crossings* Percentage of R.O.W. Violations/ Total Crossings 1 SB N_ewport/28th 120 1128 10.6% 2 Newport/26th 76 2514 3.0% 11 Balboa/28th 296 2510 11.8% 12 Balboa/26th 196 2534 7.7% 13 Balboa/22nd 6 3608 0.2% 14 Balboa/20th 140 2739 5.1 % 16 Balboa/16th 17 1050 1.6% 34 Balboa/E St. 13 2128 0.6% 41 Balboa/38th 45 1091 4.1 % * Total of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Table 5 Summary of Motorist Right -of -Way Violations - Winter Location Number Intersection Name No. of Peds/Bikes Vehicles Did Not Yield For Total Crossings* Percentage of R.O.W. Violations/ Total Crossings 1 SB Newport/28th 18 393 4.6% 2 Newport/26th 24 726 3.3% 11 Balboa/28th 27 740 3.6% 12 Balboa/26th 25 588 4.3% 13 Balboa/22nd 0 1084 0.0% 14 Balboa/20th 22 806 2.7% 16 Balboa/16th 5 344 1.5% 34 Balboa/E St. 7 609 1.1 % 41 Balboa/38th 5 365 1.4% * Total of Pedestrians and Bicyclists A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Collision History A review of reported collisions from January 1, 2012 to November 29, 2016 (approximately 5 years) was conducted with a primary focus on pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Table 6 — Collision History provides a summary of collision history by type for the eighteen key study intersections. Based on the number of collisions reported at the eighteen key intersections listed in Table 6, there were a total of 104 reported collisions. The most prevalent type of collision was a single vehicle collision with a parked car or fixed object on the side of the road. Also, out of the total number of collisions, 23 (21 %) involved "Driving Under the Influence" (DUI). There were relatively few reported collisions involving vehicles striking pedestrians (7 total, 2 of which were DUI) or bicyclists (19 total, of which 3 were DUI and 6 the cyclist was at fault). Table 6 Collision History — Jan 1, 2012 to Nov 29, 2016 Location Number Intersection Name Pedestrian Collision Bicycle Collision Total Bike / Ped Collisions Total Vehicle Collisions 1 SIB Newport/28th 1 2 3 16 2 Newport/26th 1 2 3 11 9 Balboa/31 st 0 2 2 0 10 Balboa/30th 1 1 2 6 11 Balboa/28th 1 2 3 6 12 Balboa/26th 1 3 4 6 13 Balboa/22nd 0 0 0 0 14 Balboa/20th 1 0 1 8 16 Balboa/18th 0 0 0 1 18 Balboa/16th 0 2 2 4 19 Balboa/14th 0 0 0 0 20 Balboa/13th 0 0 0 2 25 Balboa/8th 0 0 0 1 28 Balboa/Island 0 1 1 5 30 Balboa/Coronado 1 0 1 0 33 BalboaMashington 0 0 0 4 34 Balboa/E St. 0 2 2 1 41 Balboa/38th 0 2 2 7 TOTAL: 7 19 26 78 ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES RECOMMENDATIONS This section outlines a series of recommended traffic control upgrades for both uncontrolled and controlled intersections. These recommendations are based on multiple field observations both during the summer and winter months, review of video surveillance, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and a review of almost five years of collision reports. The 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was used as a guide in the development of the recommendations. The recommendations are divided into two categories; general recommendations pertaining to multiple intersections/locations and specific recommendations pertaining to particular intersections. In consideration of the street environment within the study area, we do not recommend the widespread implementation of traffic controls such as flashing beacons or in -pavement flashing crosswalks. Such devices can significantly interrupt and stop traffic flow on the Peninsula, as the flashing lights are activated and re- activated by pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the street. This continual re -activation may not provide sufficient gaps for traffic to progress, thus creating bottlenecks and significant traffic congestion getting on to and off the peninsula. This is particularly damaging during summer months. In 2009, the City installed in - pavement flashing lights on Newport Boulevard at 23rd Street. Because of the high volume of pedestrians and the constant flashing, traffic flow was negatively impacted through the McFadden area and further down the peninsula. In 2011, the City removed the in -pavement flashing crosswalk at this location. To accommodate the high pedestrian activity at this unique location, it was replaced by a full pedestrian signal. The following Pedestrian Improvements were studied in detail for consideration: High -Visibility Crosswalk Striping A re -striping of the existing crosswalks using continental type striping will increase the visibility of the crossing locations. Studies have shown that this type of marking increases motorist yielding and decreases the number of vehicle/pedestrian collisions (Figure 3 on page 15). Pedestrian Caution Signs Advance caution signage alerts the motorist to the upcoming crosswalk. When used with other pedestrian solutions, such as upgraded crosswalk striping, awareness of pedestrians is enhanced (Figure 4 on page 15). Curb Extensions (Bulb -Outs Bulb -outs are protrusions of the sidewalk into the roadway. Bulb -outs narrow the physical distance of the roadway that pedestrians must cross. They allow for better visibility of pedestrians by motorists, and conversely, allow pedestrians to view oncoming traffic more clearly and without obstruction. In -roadway Flashing Lights These devices are intended to call extra attention to pedestrians in crosswalks where signage or other design treatments are deemed insufficient. The City has one intersection on Coast Highway with in -roadway flashing lights. Based on experience, they are not recommended on the Peninsula because of negative impacts to traffic flow, high cost of installation, and on -going maintenance issues. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Figure 3 Typical Recommended Intersection Upgrades SPEED LIMIT Signs and Speed Markings a Aligned M � O C> rn o011i� o � Advanced PED Al Legends at ULLS III III Continental Crosswalks aM o = 6—j � x � CM o � � S III III Figure 4 Typical Intersection Pedestrian Warning Signs -1 O E L� b III III � s 5 W — X � bFYJ il III III °' 4 exuo ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES Flashing Beacons These devices can be used to provide supplementary warning of an uncontrolled crosswalk where traffic or physical conditions do not justify a full signal, but collision history and higher motorist violation rates indicate the possibility of a need. Newer rapid flashing beacon units are solar -powered and activated by the person walking. Too often, flashing beacons are installed when the public assumes there is a problem. It is of the upmost importance that flashing beacon installations be held to a minimum to maintain a high degree of respect for the installations that are truly warranted. Overuse can reduce their effectiveness. Roadway Safety Lighting Improved street lighting helps pedestrians see oncoming traffic more clearly and allows motorists to identify pedestrians crossing the roadway. Since the summer of 2016, the City has upgraded all luminaires from high pressure sodium (HIPS) to light emitting diodes (LED) fixtures. This lighting upgrade has dramatically improved visibility of the roadway and the crosswalk for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Sight Clearance Areas Sight clearance areas, also known as red curb areas, provide short no parking zones on approaches to crosswalks to improve sight lines between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. On -street parking is necessary in the community and a requirement of the California Coastal Commission. The amount of red curb should be implemented on a case -by -case basis with the intent to preserve parking and improve visibility. Yield Markings on Pavement (Shark Teeth) Optional rows of white triangles (i.e. "shark teeth") placed across approach lanes to indicate the point at which vehicles must yield to pedestrians (Figure 5). This type of marking is proposed at the crosswalks adjacent to Newport Elementary School and at "E" Street as an additional pavement message. Figure 5 Typical Intersection with Yield Markings Limit Lines at Ipp STOP Signs o WB SPEED LIMIT Signs Continental and Speed Morkings III III Crosswalks Aligned O C"-am - x � d Advanced SLOW SCHOOL XING" Legends Yeld Markings III III S10P s A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES General Recommendations - For Installation at Multiple Intersections 1. Use "Continental Ladders" with alternating two foot wide stripes for all crosswalks. Install advance limit lines to crosswalks at both STOP controlled and signalized intersections. 2. Maintain low height landscaping on all raised medians noses for line -of -sight at crosswalks. 3. Where needed, upgrade yellow pedestrian signs to a higher grade of retro-reflectivity, and school pedestrian signs to fluorescent yellow -green. 4. Install "Ped Xing" legends at all crosswalks per below: • Install "Ped Xing" legends for the crosswalks that are block -to -block: o Southbound at 36th Street o Northbound at 34th Street o Southbound at 31st Street o Northbound at 30th Street o Southbound at 20th Street o Northbound at 16th Street o Southbound at 12th Street o Northbound/Southbound at 6th Street o Northbound at Adams Street • Install "Ped Xing" legends at the crosswalks that are spaced further apart: o North bound/southbound at 44th Street o North bound/southbound at 42nd Street o North bound/southbound at 40th Street o North bound/southbound at 28th Street o North bound/southbound at 26th Street • Maintain existing `Ped Xing" legends in both directions at Washington Street, E Street, G Street, I Street, and at the crosswalk north of Serrano Avenue. 5. Review speed limit sign and legend locations and relocate as needed to better align signs and markings. 6. Consider installing specialized "Expect High Pedestrian/Bicycle Activity" message signs to alert motorists entering the Peninsula of the high likelihood of encountering bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the street. It is suggested that one such sign could be installed on Balboa Boulevard east of Pacific Coast Highway and a second sign could be installed east of the traffic signal at Balboa Boulevard and 21 st Street. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Specific Intersection Recommendations - In addition to General Recommendations #1 Southbound Newport Boulevard at 28th Street Project: Remove adjacent parking spot on both sides of the crosswalk and install crosswalks on the south and west sides. Install pedestrian warning signs. Install bulb -outs for the north crosswalk and a street light on the northeast corner (Figure 6 on page 19). #2 Southbound Newport Boulevard at 26th Street Project: Remove two parking spots on approach to both sides of Newport Boulevard crosswalk. Install pedestrian warning signs. Install bulb -outs on west/east side and a street light on the northwest corner. Install southbound through arrows on the pavement north of the crosswalk (Figure 7 on page 19). #3 Balboa Boulevard at 44th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both Balboa Boulevard directions. Remove existing "Pedestrians Next 3 Miles" sign. #4 Balboa Boulevard at 42nd Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both Balboa Boulevard directions. #5 Balboa Boulevard at 40th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both Balboa Boulevard directions. Remove existing southbound pedestrian warning sign. #8 Balboa Boulevard at 34St Street (and sianaae at 33rd Street Project: Remove existing "Pedestrians Next 2.5 Miles" sign for southbound Balboa Boulevard at 33rd Street. Remove existing pedestrian warning sign for northbound Balboa Boulevard at 33rd Street. Install southbound "Signal Ahead" sign and pavement markings south of 34th Street. #10 Balboa Boulevard at 30th Street Project: Install pedestrian warning signs in sidewalk area for both northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. #11 Balboa Boulevard at 28th Street Project: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), including all appropriate signage for northbound and southbound Balboa Blvd. Install a crosswalk on the east leg. Install a new street light on east side and bulb -outs on east and west side (Figure 8 on page 20). This recommendation is based on the relatively high number of motorist right-of-way violations in the summer (296 or 11.8% of the total crossings). It is anticipated that the RRFB installation on Balboa Boulevard (northwest of the McFadden area) will not impact traffic flow on or off the peninsula. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Figure 6 Recommendations at SB Newport Blvd and 28th St IN; - r . Remove Parking Spot C `� r f lb out Street Light - � mot:.. -5 `" •. Continental wool Crosswalks ~ Figure 7 Recommendations at SB Newport Blvd and 26th St :move 2 Parking Spots Southbound Through Arrows pow Continental Crosswalk MEMO �h{y� Street Light Bulb —outs µ �} WOO ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES Figure 8 Recommendations at Balboa Blvd and 28t" St je i Bulb -•outs Street Light � tinental z r Crosswalks �� . � " t t• � Figure 9 Recommendations at Balboa Blvd and 26t" St Street Light , . Continental ` Crosswalk jtqO '•ter "0 ` ✓ Bulb —out v ie 0 • Remove Porking Spot: f s\�• �1`� �•'L` � tY �rn eoKe ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES #12 Balboa Boulevard at 26th Street Project: Install northbound and southbound pedestrian warning signs. Remove the first parking spot on the east side, south of 26th Street. Install a new street light on southeast corner and a bulb -out on eastside (Figure 9 on page 20). #13 Balboa Boulevard at 22nd Street Project: Install one southbound pedestrian warning sign. #14 Balboa Boulevard at 20th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #15 Balboa Boulevard at 19th Street Project: Relocate crosswalk from north leg to south leg. Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both direction on Balboa Boulevard. #16 Balboa Boulevard at 18th Street Project: Relocate existing crosswalk from the north leg to the south leg. Install double (back- to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. Relocate street light from north leg to south leg. #17 Balboa Boulevard at 17th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #18 Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street Project: Remove south leg crosswalk. Install crosswalk striping on west leg. Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #19 Balboa Boulevard at 14th Street Project: Install new "School Xing" for northbound/southbound with School Crossing Ahead signs. Install "25 mph When Children Are Present". Install new street light and double mast -arm pole in median. Install an overhead School Crossing sign with flashing beacons. Install School Crossing and downward arrow signs on curb sides of crosswalk and in the median for both northbound and southbound. Install "shark teeth" advance markings and "Yield Here to Pedestrians" signs (Figure 10). #20 Balboa Boulevard at 13th Street Project: Install new "School Xing" for northbound/southbound with School Crossing Ahead signs. Install "25 mph When Children Are Present". Install new street light and double mast -arm pole in median. Install an overhead School Crossing sign with flashing beacons. Install School Crossing and downward arrow signs on curb sides of crosswalk and in the median for both northbound and southbound. Install "shark teeth" advance markings and "Yield Here to Pedestrians" signs (Figure 10 on page 22). A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES Figure 10 Recommendations for Balboa Blvd at 13th St and 14th St W,OI L E SEE HELUN mwr f i V AHEAD �r xry Flashing Becco �r;, +t�srRn�s � Street Light y J �j Y Continental Crosswalk 'Veld Markings/ • if f 1i 14PH err I V I• e ' SCHOOL y ` SPEED p LIMIT 25 ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES N e r f I It a Flashing Beacon . 9� 'Street Light f r 7CR I �J -- .# Cantinental-*" Crosswalk • s ��. ar 'A __.+sT � � a Yield Alarkings,/'• l � ` JNEPiv AHeAo- �L II ' S ' MUCH U E SEE AWE IFFT #21 Balboa Boulevard at 12th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #22 Balboa Boulevard at 11th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #23 Balboa Boulevard at loth Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #24 Balboa Boulevard at 9th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #25 Balboa Boulevard at 8th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #26 Balboa Boulevard at 7th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #27 Balboa Boulevard at 6th Street Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. #28 Balboa Boulevard at Island Avenue Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs in the median facing both directions on Balboa Boulevard. Install pedestrian access ramp on west side. #29 Balboa Boulevard at Medina Way Project: Install pedestrian warning signs in sidewalk area for both northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. #30 Balboa Boulevard at Coronado Street Project: Install pedestrian warning signs in sidewalk area for both northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. #31 Balboa Boulevard north of Cypress Street Project: Install pedestrian warning signs in sidewalk area for both northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. #32 Balboa Boulevard at Adams Street Project: Relocate crosswalk from the south leg to the north leg. Install pedestrian warning signs in the sidewalk area for both northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES u W #33 Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street Project: Maintain existing northbound/southbound "Ped Xing" legend. Install "Ped Xing" with down arrow sign on both approaches since intersection is between two traffic signals. #34 Balboa Boulevard at E Street Project: Relocate "Ped Xing" legend closer to crosswalk (both directions). Install pedestrian warning signs for northbound and southbound Balboa Boulevard. Install "shark teeth" advance markings and "Yield Here to Pedestrians" signs. Consider "No Bikes on Sidewalk" signs. #35 Balboa Boulevard at G Street/Miramar Drive Project: Move existing pedestrian warning sign for northbound and southbound for consistency. Move closer to crosswalk with down arrow. Refresh crosswalk markings. #36 Balboa Boulevard at I Street Project: Move southbound pedestrian warning sign to street light at corner and install an associated down arrow. Refresh markings. #37 Balboa Boulevard north of Serrano Avenue Project: Install double (back-to-back) pedestrian warning signs so they are visible through the curve. #41 Balboa Boulevard at 38t" Street (4-Way STOP Controlled) Project: Install LED edge lit "STOP" signs at the limit line for northbound and southbound vehicles (LED edge lit "STOP" signs installed 7/26/2017). Install a bulb -out on the southeast corner. Extend the median on the south leg up to the crosswalk and provide an additional "STOP" sign in the median (Figure 11 on page 25). ALBERT !-'1ROVER & ASSOCIATES le" 5 'r Figure 11 Recommendations at Balboa Blvd and 3811 St Ex Beacon Bulb —out Continental Crosswalk ti '�7 Extend Median to Crosswalk;*, NO BGILC ALBERT ROVER & ASSOCIATES CONCLUSION The findings of the study effort suggest that despite the relatively high activity levels of both residents and visitors, all those motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the constrained Peninsula environment generally interact in a safe and efficient manner. This contention is supported by the relatively few reported collisions that have occurred over the past five years considering the high vehicular volumes and large number of pedestrians and bicyclists. It may not be feasible or even desirable to implement all of the improvement strategies outlined in this document; however, it is important to implement enhancements systematically, and consistently throughout the Balboa Peninsula. This continuity and uniformity of traffic control devices will ensure that motorists, bicyclist, and pedestrians have a general understanding of what to expect. This can be accomplished by systematically implementing the general recommendations contained within this study document. All installations should be designed and installed per the latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This report also outlines specific recommendations at each of the 38 locations originally reviewed. For some of the recommendations that include physical improvements such as bulb -outs, street lights, and curb ramps, additional engineering review and design may be necessary. Furthermore, physical improvements may be costly and thus the City may need to implement these improvements over time due to budgetary concerns. It is suggested that the City consider, as a priority, the pursuit of the recommended improvements at the Balboa/13th and Balboa/14th school crossings and at the Balboa/38th all -way stop. In order to be successful, strategies to improve driver awareness and safety along a corridor should include the "Three E's" of traffic management: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. The Three E's approach to traffic management can be compared to a three-legged stool. If one leg is missing or ignored, the stool is weakened and can't support its intended purpose. However, with three strong legs a stool can support loads well above what any one leg can support on its own. Likewise implementing traffic engineering actions, educating the public about expected motorist behavior, and providing enforcement to penalize violators can have dramatic positive results. We believe that with the implementation of the engineering recommendations outlined in this document together with the recently completed projects by the City (installation of LED streetlights) will provide noticeable improvements along the corridors. We also recommend an increased police presence to cite willful law breakers and dangerous behavior, and to help educate the public on safe behavior. A T •BERT DROVER & A SOCIATES June 11, 2024 Non -Agenda Item From: City Clerk"s Office To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: there is a 2024 State Manual Date: June 05, 2024 9:50:52 AM Attachments: ct-ctcdc-letter-20240111-allv.odf From: Kathy Frazer <frazerka@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 9:50:36 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: there is a 2024 State Manual XTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the pfe. it supercedes the 2014 one that our study used Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4r* DIVISION OF SAFETY PROGRAMS P.O. BOX 942873, MS-36 ' SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4385 FAX (916) 653-5776 TTY 711 W W W.DOT.CA.GOV/SAFETYPROGRAMS January 11, 2024 Mr. Jason Welday, Chair California Traffic Control Devices Committee League of California Cities (LOCC) Representative Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Welday: Effective January 11, 2024, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be utilizing the updated California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) 2014 Revision 8 to provide uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 21400 and the recommendations of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC). Caltrans has received a letter dated January 4, 2024, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) confirming substantial conformance of the CA MUTCD, Revision 8 with the 2009 Edition of the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, Revisions 1, 2 and 3, as required by title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, section 655.603(b)(1). CA MUTCD Revision 8 includes policy revisions addressing fifteen specific California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) recommendations to Caltrans since March 10, 2023, and other corrections and format changes. A list of changes, including these fifteen CTCDC recommendations, constituting policy revisions in Revision 8, will be made available to the public along with the updated CA MUTCD Revision 8. CA MUTCD Revision 8 will be available on the Internet at <https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd>. The Caltrans Division of Safety Programs is grateful to the CTCDC members for providing invaluable time, support, guidance, and direction in the development of this version of CA MUTCD. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" Mr. Welday January 11, 2024 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Murai, Acting CA MUTCD Editor, at (916) 531-6675, or by email at <kevin.murai@dot.ca.gov>. Sincerely, RACHEL CARPENTER Chief Safety Officer c: Sergio Aceves, Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations, Acting, Caltrans Shaila Chowdhury, Deputy Division Chief, Traffic Safety, Division of Safety Programs, Caltrans Yue Wang, Chief, Office of Safety Systems and Devices, Division of Safety Programs, Caltrans Kevin Murai, Acting CA MUTCD Editor, Office of Safety Systems and Devices, Division of Safety Programs, Caltrans Florencia Allenger, Acting CTCDC Executive Secretary, Office of Safety Systems and Devices, Division of Safety Programs, Caltrans CTCDC Members Elissa Konove, Acting Division Administrator, FHWA CA Division "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" Received After Agenda Printed June 11, 2024 Non -Agenda Item City Council Meeting, June 11, 2024 Public Comment Re: Are Yacht Clubs; Lido Isle Community Association; or others, Exempted or otherwise Insulated/Immune from Mooring fee/rent increases, under pending Harbor Commission Recommendation: (14 pgs. In Reverse Chronological Order) From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM To: rgrant@newportbeachca.gov <rgrant@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilwoman Grant, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. I hope that you have a wonderful trip to Japan. Just prior the last regular Council Meeting, I'd been enjoying the Sister City sculpture. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM To: Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilwoman Kleiman I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM To: bavery@newportbeachca.gov <bavery@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilman Avery, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM To: nblom@newportbeachca.gov <nblom@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilman Blom, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:28 PM To: jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov <jstapleton@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilman Stapleton, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:31 PM To: eweigand@newportbeachca.gov <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Councilman Weigand, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. I hope that you enjoy your upcoming trip to Japan. Just prior the 05/28/2024 Meeting, I'd been admiring the related sculpture. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 2:32 PM To: woneill@newportbeachca.gov <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Inquiry Mayor O'Neill, I would very much appreciate if you could source, or provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the following: "1 would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" As I have noted, a determination on this, has been elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz City of Newport Beach May 28, 2024 In response to Councilmember Weigand's concern for the impact of the project during the summer months, Public Works Director Webb explained the approach to prioritize the Newport Elementary School area and return in September for the remaining areas. Motion by Councilmember Weigand, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton, to a) find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(c), Class 1 (maintenance of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use) of the CEQA Guidelines, because this project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; b) approve the project plans and specifications; c) approve Budget Amendment No. 24-078 appropriating $42,000 in new revenue and expenditures from Orange County Sanitation District to Account No. 13501-980000-22R11; d) award Contract No. 8833-2 to R.J. Noble Company for the total bid price of $5,119,060 for the Balboa Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and 32nd Street Pavement Rehabilitation project, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and e) establish a contingency of $512,000 (approximately 10% of total bid) to cover the cost of unforeseen work not included in the original contract. Jim Mosher suggested informing the public of the types of pedestrian safety improvements being proposed since it might be more applicable along Balboa Boklevard in the future. Public Works Director Webb relayed the safety enh cements tAat are being planned. The motion carried unanimously. XVII. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS r George Hylkema discussed tideland fees in the Harbor and provided a handout. Adam Leverenz noted he has not received a response to his inquiiy on whether yacht clubs will be exempted from mooring holding fee increases or to see the Harbor Commission's recommendation they will be making to Council, recited four reliable sources the City could use to evaluate mooring rates, and asked that Council beco i informed about permit harbor rates. Jim Mosher announced the Coffee with the Mayor event on May 31, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and inquired about the address. Mayor O'Neill stated that the Coffee with the Mayor event will take place at the Starbucks at 377 East Coast Highway. XVIII. PUBLIC HEARING 17. Resolution No. 2024-32: Notice of Intent to Override Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency for the City's Housing Element Implementation Program Amendments (PA2022-0245) Assistant City Manager Jurjis introduced Acting Deputy Community Development Director Murillo, provided background, and indicated that, if Council approves the resolution, a notice will be sent to the Airport Land Use Commission and staff will return to the July 23, 2024 City Council meeting to hold a a public hearing and review the housing implementation documents. Mayor O'Neill recognized and appreciated the work on this matter by staff and noted shared concerns by the public and Council about the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. In response to Mayor O'Neill's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill relayed that Huntington Beach was unsuccessful in challenging the State on the RHNA process. Councilmember Grant added that other cities have also been unsuccessful. Mayor O'Neill opened the public hearing. Volume 66 - Page 107 City of Newport Beach May 14, 2024 III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Adam Leverenz took issue that yacht clubs are being exempt from the mooring fee increases recommended by the Harbor Commission, noted participants in the process who have financial interests, and asked Council to consider during the Closed Session the wrongful conduct leading up to this point and the inconvenience, time, and expense to defend the position. Bill Powers provided a handout and addressed the formula for the phasing and the 24% indexing to the Balboa Yacht Basin, and wondered if a working committee would be helpful to form. Ann Stenton, President of the Newport Mooring Association (NMA), expressed that she felt there was a lack of direct and real dialogue with the Harbor Commission regarding the proposed mooring rate increases and suggested there be a global rate study. She also proposed meeting with the City Manager or Mayor to review concerns and develop a mutually beneficial solution. IV. CLOSED SESSION - Council Chambers Conference Room A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION (Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2) (e)(3)): 1 matter On Aprill 22, 2024, Elise M. Kern with the law firm of Palmieri, 1knnessey & Leifer, LLP, confirmed that Mr. Chris Benzen is inclined to pursue litigation against the-cid of Newport Beach if the City Council increases the rent for moorings, as recommended by the Ha or Commission. A copy of the e-mail from Ms. Kern is on file with the City Clerk located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660, and is available blic inspection pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.5. AMW B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PRO (Government Code § 54956.8): 1Ap Property: A portion of the public right- of-lWadjacent to 929 944 Via Lido Nord (423-281-10) (approximately 845 square feet). Zurich Circle (423-282-04) and City Negotiators: Seimone Jurjis, Assistant City Manager, and Lauren Wooding-Whitlinger, Real Property Administrator. Negotiating Parties: Palmer Luckey on behalf of the 929 Zurich Circle Trust and the 944 Via Lido Nord Trust. Under Negotiation: Instruction to City Negotiators regarding price and terms of payment. V. RECESSED - 4:48 p.m. VI. RECONVENED AT 6:01 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING VII. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Will O'Neill, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, Councilmember Brad Avery, Councilmember Noah Blom, Councilmember Lauren Kleiman, Councilmember Erik Weigand Excused: Councilmember Robyn Grant VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Harp announced that no reportable actions were taken. IX. INVOCATION - Mayor O'Neill X. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilmember Blom Volume 66 - Page 91 Newport Beach City Council Meeting 05/14/2024 — Public Comment Re: Yacht Club Lease Rate Inquiries: Mayor and Council, It's said that The Harbormaster indicated at a Yacht Club function, that they would not be subject to the 300, to over 500% increase in mooring fees under the Harbor Commission Recommendation of 04/10/2024. Verification of Yacht Clubs being exempted, or otherwise insulated from the fee increases has been sought a number of times. Yesterday, Harbor Commission Chair Sculley e-mailed me, saying: "We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for mooring permittees as they are defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code" The apparent reluctance of City personnel to respond with a simple "yes" or "no", is throwing up all kids of red flags for me. I suspect that each of you is aware, of The State Lands, and California Coastal Commission's high level of concern about the existing rate disparity in Newport Harbor, wherein mooring permit holders currently pay multiple times more in rents/fees, yet The Harbor Commission suggests increasing the divide even further, while apparently exempting Yacht Clubs, when some on the Commission are equity members in the Clubs, and/or hold mooring permits there. Additionally, some Decisionmakers, and parties contributing to the formulation of the recommendation, are pier permit holders, who pay much lower rates than mooring permitees. These things are indicative of financial interests, which should have been previously disclosed. After a period of intimate involvement, The Harbormaster eventually recused himself, and has said "discussions may affect me financially". It's clear to me, that a number of other involved parties suffer from similar conflict, and should not have participated in the process. Recusal as an afterthought, does not correct prior, flawed process. As you go into Closed Session to discuss "ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION", I hope that you can see beyond the cherry picking of facts, and obfuscation that's preceded the Harbor Commission's recommendation. Please recognize the wrongful conduct that has brought us to this point, and consider how much additional inconvenience and expense you may subject civil servants, citizens, and taxpayers to, in trying to defend what has transpired to date. EL', ",,� ,edam Leverenz adlever@hotmail.com From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: May 07, 2024 2:49 PM To: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov Subject: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Good day Mr. Blank, I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear answer has seemed elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz From: Blank, Paul <PBlank@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 3:01 PM To: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com>; Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov> Subject: RE: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Mr. Leverenz: As a mooring permittee, these discussions may affect me financially. As you have likely observed, I am not participating in the proceedings and therefore do not have any information for you. I am forwarding your question to Lauren Wood ing-Whitlinger, the Real Property Administrator for the City. You may also wish to address your question to the Harbor Commission Chair, Steve Scully, or the ad hoc committee Chair, Ira Beer. Paul Blank Harbormaster Harbor Department Office: 949-270-8158 1600 W Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 11:17 AM To: Scully, Steve <sscully@newportbeachca.gov>; Beer, Ira <Ibeer@newportbeachca.gov>; Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>; ExecutiveStaff@Coastal <executivestaff@coastal.ca.gov>; Kate. Huckelbridge@ coastal.ca.gov <Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey.Palm@coastal.ca.gov>; Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Good day, Harbormaster Paul Blank has directed me to Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Steve Sculley; Vice - Chair Ira Beer, and Real Property and Asset Management Program manager Lauren Wooding Whitlinger, in relation to the following inquiry made to him: "I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship? As you've heard me say, this question has been posed a number of times, but a clear answer has seemed elusive. Thank you, Adam Leverenz" From: Scully, Steve <sscully@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:07 PM To: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com>; Beer, Ira <Ibeer@newportbeachca.gov>; Wooding, Lauren <LWooding@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>; ExecutiveStaff@Coastal <executivestaff@coastal.ca.gov>; Kate. Huckelbridge@ coastal.ca.gov <Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal<Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey.Palm @coastal.ca.gov>; Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Mr. Leverenz - We have answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for mooring permittees as they are defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Regards, Steve Scully Newport Beach Harbor Commission sscully@newportbeachca.gov 909-322-2893 From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 10:39 AM To: sscully@newportbeachca.gov <sscully@newportbeachca.gov>; ibeer@newportbeachca.gov <ibeer@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>; ExecutiveStaff@Coastal<executivestaff@coastal.ca. gov>; Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov <Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey.Palm@coastal.ca.gov>; Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>; SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov <SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: Fw: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Harbor Commission Chair Scully, I had thought that: "I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (04/10/2024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" Was a simple "yes" or "no" question. If you feel you have "answered this question in multiple Harbor Commission meetings and the rate structure that has been recommended by the Harbor Commission is for mooring permittees as they are defined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code", and multiple members of the public have not been able to decern a clear answer through The Harbor Commission's obfuscation, perhaps you could show the candor to answer the simple question, with a simple yes or no. I think tacit obstruction is not helpful. Regards, Adam Leverenz From: Ad lever <adlever@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 3:46 PM To: Palm, Jeffrey@Coastal <Jeffrey.Palm@coastal.ca.gov> Cc: reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov <reidboggiano@slc.ca.gov>; sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov <sheripemberton@slc.ca.gov>; ExecutiveStaff@Coastal<executivestaff@coastal.ca.gov>; Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov <Kate.Huckelbridge@coastal.ca.gov>; Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov <Karl.Schwing@coastal.ca.gov>; Spencer, Amrita@Coastal <Amrita.Spencer@coastal.ca.gov>; Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov <Shannon.Vaughn@coastal.ca.gov>; SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov <SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov> Subject: Re: Adjusted Newport Beach Mooring Rents Good day, I had thought that with Newport Beach Harbor Commission Chair Scully's May 13, 2024 reply below, if I read through the Newport Beach Harbor Code again, I would find the answer to my question: "I would like to know if the Harbor Commission's recent (0411012024) recommendation of adjustment to fees/rates for Mooring Permits, are fees/rates that will be applied to those Moorings held/managed under Yacht Club stewardship?" However, I do not see Chair Sculley's stated "mooring permittee " listed under "Definitions" in the Code. A search indicates that the term "mooring permittee ", appears 48 times. None of those seem to define the term though. "Mooring" and "Permittee" are defined separately: "Title 17 Definitions: 7. Mooring. The term "mooring" shall mean a device consisting of a floating buoy or other object that is secured to the harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel and includes any apparatus used to secure a vessel in Newport Harbor which is not carried aboard such vessel as regular equipment when under way. 2. Permittee(s). The term "permittee(s)"shall be the person or entity who holds a validly issued permit under any provision of this title. Permittee(s) shall also include licensee(s), except in cases where such definition would conflict with another provision of this title. " A clear and precise yes or no answer, on whether or not the recommended rate increases apply to moorings held by Yacht clubs; Lido Island Association; et al., is very important. There have been indications that they are exempt, or otherwise insulated/immune. I would hope that the City can be compelled to provide a clear answer. Apparently, I'm not very compelling in this regard. I hope that recipients of this e-mail may be more so, and will elicit clarity. Thank you so much, Adam Leverenz CM OF NEMORT BEACH Received by J.B. JUN 11 2024 Office of the Cf y Manager From the desk of... Steve Smith ... and his dog Champ 225 Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 equipmentsjs@gmail VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL RE: Follow Up to May 24, 2024 Certified Letter Received By The City on May 28 Concerning the Illegally Parked Parked Cars and Trailers on Santa Ana Avenue in Newport Heights June 8, 2024 The Honorable Brad Avery Newport Beach City Council, District 2 Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA92660 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Dear Council Member Avery, As you now know, because I had never received acknowledgement from you - despite repeated attempts to reach you using all forms of media - on Friday, May 24, 2024 1 chose to send a certified letter addressed directly to you at City Hall. The Management Team's acknowledged receipt of my letter confirms that you now know that District 2 homeowners and taxpayers are distraught by our City Council's failure to solve this street parking issue which has been neglected for over two years. Living next to what can only be described as a makeshift auto salvage yard is destroying the quality of life here. Then, finally, on May 28, 2024, 1 received a phone call from Mr. Matthew Kerman, the City's Acting Parking Control Supervisor. He acknowledged that my certified letter had been forwarded to him by the City's Management Team. I found my phone conversation with Acting Supervisor Kerman to be quite informative - and disturbing at the same time. He informed me that: 1) The City knows who the alleged perpetrator of the years -long parking violation is - an outsider who rents a room from a homeowner here; Page One of Four w IL 2) The City had, in fact, issued numerous citations and assessed the perpetrator over $2,000 in fines which he has paid to avoid related Department of Motor Vehicles registration violations; 3) Without offering any specifics, he said the City in late 2023 passed an ordinance updating and, supposedly, strengthening parking violation enforcement in the City. 4) In a somewhat confusing, contradictory statement, police and parking control employees have been directed to issue only a single citation per vehicle or trailer found to be in violation of applic- able parking laws - no matter how long the vehicle had been parked illegally! 5) There was nothing more that he could do than issue a single citation - suggesting that Santa Ana Avenue homeowners and taxpayers would simply have to grow used to having their street turned into an auto salvage yard eyesore! However, in recent days after my letter was received, the City did chalk outline some of the illegally parked cars which forced the now infamous SANTA ANA AVENUE PARKING PERP to move them to other parts of the neighborhood. While this is a positive first step, there is still work to be done to keep the Santa Ana Avenue Parking Perp and from coming back. That's why I looked up the ordinance Supervisor Kerman referred to in our conversation - Ordinance 2023-22 - Adding, Amending, and Repealing Various Provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Photos Taken June 8 Ordinance 2023-22 contains Sections 1.04.010 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement and 1.04.050 Parking Violation - Infraction. Each of these Sections state in great detail the now increased fines per multiple parking infractions that could be imposed on a single perpetrator. It also outlines what action the City might take to clamp down on Individuals taking advantage of loopholes in the City's inadequate street parking laws - like the Santa Ana Avenue Parking Perp. While I applaud the City's attempt to strengthen its flawed street parking laws, Ordinance 2023-22 does nothing to get one person's makeshift auto salvage yard off our street and out of our neighborhood permanently. It appears that the City Council believed that the best way to end this parking nightmare - which, at least according to Supervisor Kerman, is occurring in other parts of town, too - would be to increase fines on repeat offenders to the point where it was financially impractical for the now notorious Santa Ana Avenue Parking Perp and others like him or her to keep parking their cars and trailers on our streets. Page Two of Four The problem is that by directing the Police Department to issue only one citation per illegally parked vehicle takes the teeth out of the City Council's own ordinance which is based on a step -ladder approach of multiple infractions means increased fines. Moreover, given the multiple offences required and an endless appeal process detailed in Section 1.05.060 Appeal of Administrative Citation, THE ILLEGALLY PARKED CARS AND TRAILERS ON SANTA ANA AVENUE COULD REMAIN ON OURS STREETS IN PERPETUITY! Worse yet, the ordinance language outlined heretofore leaves it up to outsiders like - the Santa Ana Avenue Parking Perp - to determine when and if he or she chooses to move his or her cars and trailers off our street - all while homeowner taxpayers wait in earnest looking at this blight every single day. Sadly, given my known interest in this issue, this error could have been avoided if you, City Council Member Avery, had contacted me directly and informed me that the City Council was considering Ordinance 2023-22 and asked for my input on Sections 1.04.010 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement and 1.04.050 Parking Violation - Infraction. If I had been given an opportunity to include my input I would have opined that Ordinance 2023-22: 1) Allows the Santa Ana Avenue Parking Perp and others like him or her to decide if and when the illegally parked cars and trailers will be removed - not everyday impacted Santa Ana Avenue homeowners and taxpayers; 2) Any car -covered or trailer -covered vehicles must keep their license plate revealed at all times so that law and parking enforcement personnel can confirm that these vehicles are currently registered - and are not stolen or involved in other types of criminal activity; 3) Most importantly, the ordinance must include specific language that allows cars, trailers, boats and campers to be towed that have been left parked on City streets for at least 72 consecutive hours - as is the case in other California municipalities. Therefore, I suggest that the City Council and its Management Team, though well-intentioned, erred by placing the "rights" of an outsider above the "rights" of Newport Heights homeowners and taxpayers. This error must be cured and corrected immediately. If not, the quality of life in Newport Heights will continue to erode. To this end, the City Council should consider: 1) Directing the City Attorney to have these illegally parked vehicles and trailers parked on Santa Ana Avenue towed away as soon as possible under the powers which appear to be granted to him under Section 1.04.010 Violations, Penalties and Enforcement Subsection D Civil Action. It states that the City Attorney "may institute an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to restrain, enjoin, or abate the condition(s) found to be in violation of this Code as provided by law." Thank you for your time and ongoing prompt attention to this matter of highest importance to homeowners, taxpayers and voters in Newport Heights. Sinperely, Steve Smith Newport Heights Homeowner and Concerned Taxpayer Page Three of Four cc: Mayor Will O'Neill, District 7 Mayor Pro Tem Joe Stapleton, District One Council Member Eric Weigand, District Three Council Member Robyn Grant, District Four Council Member Noah Blom, District Five Council Member Lauren Kleiman, District Six Page Four of Four