HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-1987 - Agenda,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1987
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval' of Minutes - Meeting of January 6, 1987
4.. Adoption of Agenda
II.
JOINT MEETING WITH FRIENDS OF OASIS (Agenda Attached)
III.
COMMISSION COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS
IV.
PUBLIC HEARING - OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK (Report Attached)
V.
ACTION ITEMS
5. Joint Powers Agreement - Newport -Mesa Unified School
•
District (Report Attached)
VI.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
VII.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
6. Art in Public Places (Report Attached)
7. Request for Dedicated Tree (,Report Attached)
B. Communication from Tom Peckenpaugh (Attached)
9. Brown Act - Council Policy A -9 (Report Attached')
10. Commission Subcommittee Reports
a. Recreation Programs (Report Attached)
b. Budget (Report Attached)
11. Status of Capital Projects•(Report Attached)
12. Council Action on Commission Matters (Report Attached)
13. Park and'Street Tree Division (Report Attached)
•
14. Recreation Division (Report Attached)
•
90
VIII. SPECIAL, URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS - Remember the
Brown Act.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
This agenda posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board
located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, and various public locations.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Item No. 3
0
Motion
Seconded
Ayes
•
KI
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
January 6, 1987 _
Gity Council Ghamhprc 7 n m
INDEX
Call to
Order
Roll Call
Approval of
Minutes
I
Adoption of
Agenda
Ex- Officio Member Present: Ronald A. Whitley
Staff Present: Jack Brooks, Park & Street
Tree Superintendent
Mark Deven, Recreation Supt.
Dottie Flohr, Secretary
I. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Item #1
The meeting of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
was called to order at 7:04 P.M.
Item #2
Roll call was taken. Commissioners Brenner, de Boom,
Herberts', Konwiser,'Springer, Taft and Wolfe were present.
Item #3
X
Chair Wolfe asked that his correction to the November 4,
x
1986 minutes list the Recreation Programs Subcommittee's
x
x
x
x'x
x
x
recommendations as follows:
New classes approved: Orff Music Education, How to Make
Your New Year's Resolutions Work, You and Your Teenager,
Personal Computers, Impossible People, Persona9 Style
Decorating, Stop.Dieting (Workshop), Stop Dieting (Course),
Winter Shape, Public Domain Software, Getting Organized
Around the House and - Office, Time Management, How to Make
Money Selling and'Enjoy It, and How to Handle Objections
and Close for the Money.
Classes to be eliminated: Planning Your Retirement, Plannin
for Financial Independence, Tax Planning for the Busy
Professional, Financial Planning for Small Business Owners,
New Tax Reduction Strategies, Planning for Financial
Security: A Woman's Perspective, and Secrets of Investing.
Commissioner de Boom moved the minutes of the December 2,
1986 meeting be approved as corrected. Seconded by Konwise
Unanimous.
Item #4 - Adotpion of Agenda
The agenda was adopted as presented with the addition of
Letter to Councilman Strauss, Posting of Agenda, Bicycle
Trail on Ocean Front, and Policy Amendment on Enforcement.
INDEX
Call to
Order
Roll Call
Approval of
Minutes
I
Adoption of
Agenda
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 2
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
, _
II. COMMISSION SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWARDS
Commission
Special
Chair Wolfe commended Mark Deven for the active recreation
Recognition
programs he supervises. Mr. Deven then reported that three
Awards
Newport Beach flag football teams advanced,to the.Orange
County Tournament. These teams were the "B" and "C"
Divisions from Harbor View School and Division "C" from
Andersen School. Theyare being honored and recognized
for their sportsmanship and skill during the competition.
Mr. Deven and Commissioner Brenner then presented the
individual certificates by team.
Chair Wolfe -thanked-the players for their efforts and said
he hoped this program helps them in their future develop-
ment. Chair-Wolfe also thanked those present for coming
and stated this Commtss^ion welcomes the public's recommenda-
tions and questions:
III. ACTION ITEMS
•
Item #5 - Proposed Capital'Projects 1987 -88
Proposed
Capital
Chair Wolfe reported the Capital Improvements Subcommittee
Projects
met, the result of which was a revised list included in
1987 -88
the Commission "s agenda packet
Ron Whitley briefly reviewed each item on the list and
noted a few changes. The figure for the 1986 Bond Act for
Lincoln School should be-corrected to $181,000. The
project, however, will be- contingent upon receiving grant
funds from the State of California. If these funds are
not available, the project will have to be re- evaluated.
The amount for Inspiration Point and Ocean Blvd. Blufftops
is increased by $10,000 for the playground- equipment at
Corona del Mar Main Beach.
The Mariners Park project has-been deleted by staff since
they want-to continue using the temporary diamond.
'Chair Wolfe pointed out the Newport Harbor High School
Aquatics Center project is contingent upon the School
District providing their share of the funds and upon,this
Commission's approval of the architectural design.
•
Mr. Deven - pointed out the proposed classroom for the Oasis
Center is for Arts and Crafts. The present room is over
utilized -and not suited for this program.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 3
City Council Chambers 7 p:m. INDEX
r
•
-L
Following questions and discussion, Chair Wolfe opened the
meeting to public testimony. Mrs. Rae Cohen, 1501 Antigua
Way and a Board member of the Theatre Arts Center, addressed
the Commission'. 'Mrs. Cohen asked•that the Newport Theatre
Arts Center be added to the Capital Improvement Projects
list in order that the electrical system be upgraded for
approximately $17,000 and the downstairs restrooms be
repaired.
Mr. Whitley•reported there are sufficient funds in the M &O
account this fiscal year to determine what the electrical
problem is. Other funds can be used',for an emergency
situation.
Mrs. Cohen stated she feels the funds should be allocated
now due to safety•considerations.
Dr. Charles McCann, President of the Friends of Oasis,
addressed the Commission. He urged a favorable considera-
tion for their request of an expansion of the north•wing
for an Arts and Crafts room. The facility is over used and
The Irvine Company grant of $20,000 will help defray costs.
They will procure all equipment and•materials for approxi-
mately $15,000 through their fund raising program.
Mr. Ed Williams, Past President of the Friends of Oasis and
a present Board member, addressed the Commission. He re-
ported the estimate of $135,000 was given by James Ray.
This figure also includes electricity and plumbing. The
new Arts and -,Crafts room•would be a continuation of the
existing building and conform to that wing. The room is
very badly needed and would accommodate various types of
craft classes.
-Mr. Bob Hicks, Membership Chairman of the Lawn Bowling Club,
addressed the Commission. He reported they-need sidewalk
repairs estimated at $20,000. There have been a number of
injuries due to the unevenness of the sidewalk.
Mr. Blair lord•, 318 Montero and President of the -Lawn
Bowling Club, addressed the Commission. He reported the
Club does carry insurance, however, since they are hosts to
a number of tournaments, the repairs should be done fairly
soon.
•
Mr. Gary Graham, 1531 Tradewinds lane and President of the
Newport Harbor-High School Aquatics Booster Club, addressed
the,Commission. Their estimate for improvements is $390,000
consisting of $125,000 from the City, $115,000 donated from
the Booster Club, and $150,000 from the School District.
The Booster Club has raised $10,000 and they foresee no
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 4
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
' r-
-
problem raising more. They met with the School District
and received a favorable response from them. Mr. Graham
pointed out the pool'-s high use by different groups and
the need for a new facility.
Chair Wolfe reported the Commission's recommendation would
be contingent upon the Board'of Education approving the
funds and this Commission's approval of the plans.
Mr. Graham asked for a verbal approval which could be
transmitted to the School Board.
Chair Wolfe reminded those present that after the list is
finalized, it will be transmitted to the City Manager for
review prior to Council "s review. Any organization or
individual can-ask Council to budget an item, change its
priority or ask that funds be increased.
Chair Wolfe then closed the meeting to public testimony.
Moton
x
Commissioner de Boom moved that the Park Facility Improve -
Seconded
x
ment Fund,'Lincol'n School - Athletic Facilities, and Newport
Harbor-High School Aquatics Center be designated the top
three priorities. Seconded by Brenner.
Following discussion, Commissioner de Boom withdrew her
motion. Seconded by Brenner.
Chair Wolfe recommended the Aquatics Center be subject to
the two conditions that the School District provide their
share of funds and this Commission approves the architectura
design plans. In addition, he recommended that the Lincoln
School project be subject to the condition that the
Competitive Grant is approved.
The Commission then prioritized the list in its final form
as follows: Park Facility Improvement Fund, Newport Harbor
High School Aquatics Center, Inspiration Point and Ocean
Blvd. B1'ufftops, Newport Island Park Refurbishment,
Channel Park Refurbishment, San Joaquin Hills Park Lawn
Bowling Greens, Eastbluff Park, Lincoln School - Athletic
Facilities, Theatre Arts Center, Community Youth Center,
Peninsula Park, Oasis Center, and Completion of Bonita
Creek Park.
M &n
x
Commissioner de'Boom moved to accept the list as revised.
Secondec
x
Seconded by Taft. Unanimous.
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
Y
x
Motion
Seconded
Ayes
Motion
Se ed
Ay
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 5
City Council Chnmharc 7 n m
INDEX
Commission
Community
Service
Award
Nominations
Donation of
Palm Tree
Lincoln
Athletic
Faci1 Tty
Grant
Application
Item #6 - Commission Community Service Award Nominations
x
Mark Deven briefly reviewed the Commission's Community
x
Service Award program and referred to the nominations
x
x
x
x
x
x
submitted in the agenda packet for Commission consideration.
Mr. Deven asked For questions and /or additional nominations.
Chair Wolfe nominated Mr. Bill Hamilton for a Community
'Service Award. 'Mr. Hamilton, President of the Newport
Harbor Chamber of Commerce, has given a considerable amount
of his time and facilities towards working on the Teen
Center.
Commissioner Konwiser moved to accept the five individuals
nominated. Seconded-by Springer. Unanimous.
Item #7 - Donation of Palm Tree
x
Mr. Edward Starnes, 12801 Barrett Lane, Santa Ana, addressed
x
the Commission. Mr. Starnes reported he is requesting per -
x
x
x
x
x
x
mission to plant a,Palm Tree with a plaque near the Wedge
in memory of his-nephew who was an avid surfer there.
Ron Whitley reviewed the policy which requires every tree
request be considered by this Commission.
Following discussion, Commissioner Taft motioned to approve
the tree request without the plaque. Seconded by Springer.
Unanimous.
Mr. Starnes' request for a plaque will be determined at the
February 3, 1987 meeting.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item #8 - Lincoln Ath,letic''Facility Grant Application
Ron Whitley reported the grant application has been sub-.- -
mitted to the State and response should be between
February 15 - March 5.
Mark Deven answered questions concerning the application and
proposal. Mr. Deven noted the School Board consented to a
ten year iron clad agreement for recreational use. Ron
Whitley explained the concept of the Evergreen Lease wherein
each year continues another five years, thus perpetuating
INDEX
Commission
Community
Service
Award
Nominations
Donation of
Palm Tree
Lincoln
Athletic
Faci1 Tty
Grant
Application
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 6
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
,_
,
itself until notification is made. In the event the facility
is returned to the School District, the City has first right
of refusal and.the facility would continue to be available
for community use.
Item #9 - Commission Action Report
Commission
Action
No report.
Report
Item #10 - 'Status of Capital' Projects
Status of
Capital
Ron Whitley reported West Newport Park-received approval
Projects
from the Coastal,Commiss,ion and we are now proceeding• with
plans and specifications. The project may be delayed until
September-since it would be difficult to build during the
summer months.
Chair Wolfe-complimented Mr. Whitley on the fine job he did
getting the approvals for this project.
•
Ron Whitley' reported the Community Youth Center is now in
plan check with the Building Department and they have been
asked to expedite so bidding can commence as soon as
possible. Should the competitive bid'be higher than the
funds appropriated, request can be made to Council for
additional funds. Construction could begin in May.
Ron Whitley reported Bonita Creek Park is presently in
plan check.
Item #11 - 0ommission Subcommittees and Liaison Reports
Commission
Subcommittee!
Commissioner Konwiser, Chair of the Park Maintenance
and Liaison
Committee, recommended that since the-sign program is not
Reports
moving along as intended, bids be solicited from a minimum
of three outside sign manufacturers or a revised schedule
be implemented.
Ron Whitley reported the Sign Shop. which is under the
General Services Department, has a backlog which takes
priority, over the park signage program. Mr. Whitley will
investigate the matter and give a report at the next
Commission meeting.
Jack Brooks reported the sign for Old School Park has been
•
installed and the two signs for Irvine Terrace Park are
near completion.
Commissioner Konwiser passed out his report on the status
of some of the City parks and recommendations for improve-
ments. Following review and discussion of Commissioner
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 7
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
Konwiser's report, Chair Wolfe asked that the items listed
in the report bexcbrrected within 60 days. Commissioner
Konwiser advised the improvements be implemented based
one realistic'approach and manpower available.
Jack Brooks said after he gives the report to the Park
Supervisor and area personnel, he will report back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Herberts, Chair of the Street Tree Committee,
reported they had a special meeting on December 4 regarding
the tree•at 315 Poppy which was determined to be removed.
This will' not seta precedent since each request will be
considered separately.
Susan Barry, President of•Eastbluff Homeowners Association,
is concerned about the °tree trimming in this area.
Commissioner'Herberts suggested the - homeowners write letters
for the individual-trees so that they can be considered
•
separately.
Commissioner Springer, Liaison to Friends of Oasis, reported
the Board did not meet -in December. There will be a general
membership meeting on January 9.
Commissioner Brenner, Chair of the Recreation Programs
Committee, reported they did not meet this month.
Commissioner Taft, Chair of,the Oceanfront and Beach
Committee, reported they did not meet this month.
Commissioner de Boom,'Liaison to Friends of the Theatre
Arts-Center,-reported they will meet January 7 and that a
new play has opened with• opening weekend performances sold
out.
Commissioner Herberts reported an Ad Hoc Committee was .
formed for Art'in Public Places to recommend locations
for the art pieces. Any public art work designated for
a park site would'be reviewed by this Commission. There
will be another meeting-,on January 7.
Chair Wolfe reported the Budget'Committee will meet in
January. He also reported funds are available for the Teen
Center and that•The•Irvine Company will be contacted again
•
concerning a site.
Mark Deven reported the Youth Council is ,planning a Harbor
Cruise on January 29 on the Catalina Holiday which will be
provided at no charge by the Balboa Pavillion.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Motion
Seconded
Ayes
•
Motion
Seconded
Ayes..
11
a
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 8
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
begin January 1-2.
:h the Street
ie Commission
cell. Seconded
ion's monthly
:opies could be.
responsible
pined that
:he locations.
:ed by the pro -
ition. Mr.
ing such a
issioners
)n-Whitley,
t and procedures.
ant to Council
ichment Enforce -
the written
to enforce
nmissioner
Policy, L -6 as
Seconded by
Recreation
Division
Park and
Street Tree
Division
Letter to
Councilman
Strauss
Posting of
Agenda
Bicycle
Trail on
Ocean Front
Policy
Amendment
on Enforce-
ment
.t
Item. #12 - Recreation Division
Mark Deven reported the winter program wil'
Item #13 - Park—and Street Tree Division
Jack Brooks reported he will be working wi-
Tree Committee to develop a better program
VI. SPECIAL;,URGENT OR LAST MINUTE ITEMS
Item #14 - Letter to Councilman Strauss
x
Commissioner Brenner moved a letter from tl
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
be sent to Councilman Strauss wishing him•i
by Herberts. Unanimous.
Item #15 - Posting of Agenda
Commissioner Brenner suggested the Commiss
agendas be posted in public areas: Extra
sent to each Commissioner who would then bi
for posting at designated locations.
Following a brief discussion, it was deters
Commissioner Brenner would make a list of
Item #16 —Bicycle Trail on 'Ocean Front
Chair Wolfe asked that all residents affec
posed bicycle trail receive proper notiftc
Whitley reported Public Works will be plat
notification in the newspaper.
Item #17 - Policy•Amendment on Enforcement
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Commissioner Brenner reported she and Comm
Springer and Herberts met-January 5•with R
who had investigated the enforcement polic,
Mr. Whitley referred to the report, Amendm
Policy L -6, from the Subcommittee on Encro
ment. Amending Policy-L-7 by insertion of
statement provided will furnish the vehicl
encroachments.
Following discussion and clarification, Co
Brenner moved to transmit the amendment to
written to the City Council for approval.
Taft. Unanimous.
begin January 1-2.
:h the Street
ie Commission
cell. Seconded
ion's monthly
:opies could be.
responsible
pined that
:he locations.
:ed by the pro -
ition. Mr.
ing such a
issioners
)n-Whitley,
t and procedures.
ant to Council
ichment Enforce -
the written
to enforce
nmissioner
Policy, L -6 as
Seconded by
Recreation
Division
Park and
Street Tree
Division
Letter to
Councilman
Strauss
Posting of
Agenda
Bicycle
Trail on
Ocean Front
Policy
Amendment
on Enforce-
ment
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
arks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page 9
City Council Chambers 7 D.M. INDEX
VII. ADJOURNMENT'
There being no further business, the Parks, Beaches and
Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
AV,./1 /AA O• �.�/ M ,Gl/f
Dottie Flo r, Secretary
•
Item No. II
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
0 Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Recreation Superintendent
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with the Friends of Oasis
Background:
On at least a semi - annual basis, the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
and members of the Friends of Oasis Board of Directors meet to discuss issues
of mutual concerns. The next scheduled meeting.i's February 3, 1.987 and will
include the following items for discussion:
1. Capital Improvements Review
The Friends wish to express the general membership's concerns regarding
the arts and crafts room addition. The Board of Directors were dis-
appointed with the project's priority ranking and hope to address the
• Commission's concerns about costs. The Board also wants to review
project financing, including the-Friends' pledge of $20,000 towards
construction and $20,000 towards equipment and furnishings.
2. Liability Insurance
The annual premium for liability, property and automobile insurance required
by Council Policy I -17 escalated 144% to•$26,854. The policy also authorizes
the Department to provide an assistance payment equal to 50% of the premium.
Some members of the Board feel that,the increased premium is too high for
the membership to absorb without increasing fees. Any change in the liability
insurance requirement,, including increasing the Ci-ty's co- payment share, will
require City Council action.
3. Master Plan
The Friends wish to update the Commission on the master plan development of
Oasis, including the 1.06 acres off the north wing.
Please feel free to contact-me regarding clarification of the agenda items.
MaDevenYl1�� ---
j�—
,s
•
9
Item No. III
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: February_3, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Recreation Superintendent
SUBJECT: Presentation of Community Services Awards
At the meeting of January 6, 1987, the Commission unanimously approved the
following nominees for Community Service Awards which will be presented tonight.
Each recipient listed includes a summary of his /her volunteer activities:
Joe Jorgenson
As president of the Newport Beach _Aquatics Parent Support Group, Mr. Jorgenson
contributed to the growt of the team by-organizing parents for swim meets and
fund raisers. Mr. Jorgenson also assisted staff-in the preparation of a report
which successfully nominated the Support Group as an outstanding volunteer organiza-
tion as recognized by the California Parks and Recreation Society, District X.
James DeLamater, M.D.
Dr.'DeLamater has
cluding positions
Planning Committee
public agencies.
Board members.
George Goepper
maintained,an active membership in the Friends of Oasis, in-
on the Friends' Board,of Directors, Chairman of the Long Range
and has prepared grant requests to private foundations and
Dr. DeLamater's efforts assist both staff and the Friends'
For the past seven years, Mr. Goepper has volunteered his energy, effort and expertise
to teaching sculpture to senior students at Oasis. Mr. Goepper's assistance also
extends to the annual hobby show and working with students to get their sculptures
"fired" as a finishing touch to a personal masterpiece.
Norma Gilchrist
Mrs. Gilchrist has served the Oasis Center since 1979 in the area of Human Services.
During the first two years, Mrs. Gil chri -st'served as the Human Services Coordinator
which eventually evolved into,a part =time funded position. Remaining a volunteer,
Mrs. Gilchrist then chaired the Human Services Committee, started the Senior
Employment Program and works with seniors as a Medicare consultant. Her efforts are
invaluable to the City and the Center.-
William Hamilton
13 Mr. Hamilton spent a busy 1986 as President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of
Commerce and serving in the same capacity of the Newport Youth Association. Mr.
-2-
Hamilton's personal involvement in both organizations included assistance in
the Department's Fall Back Bay-8K Run and the development of the Newport Beach
• Teen Club project. As owner /operator of the Cannery Restaurant, Mr. Hamilton
has been involved in numerous other community activities.
•
•
14
Item No. IV
'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation:
1. Conduct Public "Hearing.
2. After hearing public input, subcommittee reports and staff comments,
transmit a recommendation to•the City Council from the listed
alternatives in the study.
Discussion:
The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission continued the public hearing
• on this matter at their January meeting. A concerted effort has been made
to notify the public by mail outs, posting of the property, etc., to obtain
representation testimony on the subject. In addition, questions that were
posed at the prior meeting will be answered by the Public Works Department
at the hearing.
If there are any questions, please feel free to call.
.0
I
s
January 28, 1987
PB &R Commission
City Hall, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport .Blvd.
Newpor-t'Beach, CA 92663
Dear Chairman and:PB &R Commission members:
After•.two community meetings and.many conversations in our'various neighbor -
hobds"we believe that•we reflect the opinions of a g'reat•many•Newport Beach
residents relative to`the proposed•changes in;the Ocean.Fron't sidewalk. The
changes proposed'-are:a long •way off from what! th .'residents :want and expect.'
We are asking•thatyou vote against -,the proposal as presented by the'
-Department of Public Works. Some of the main reasons for our rejection
_ of the plan are::- -
i`. ' Increased liability to the City that would -result from more intense
'use'.of the•ocea6 front.'walk.
2. '•Safety'considerations are'not.adgquately addressed; higher speed bikes
:would enlarge .'the safety •,profil -eros.rather'than•solve them.
"s. Access to ,the proposed' expanded walk` is not addressed'satisfactori:ly.
4." The new-.proposed walk would be, an invita•tiorirto - use by motorcycles and.
• other motorized vehicles.
5.' There has never :tieeri adeguate enforceinent•of brdinahces 'ori the:•existing.
oce ""front, walk: It seems •likely there wou•1'd •not be'any additional .
enforcement with an added. walk. The problems'would become. greater. .
'h•_.' 6. :Maintehance' would b2 difficult, costly addA n most cases, unlikely.
7. Co,' §t projectiohs•for ' t!ie proposal are'iow and un'realistic." Knowledgeable
contractors'.think-that $3mi7lion is- more likely: The report does not tell
us• what material �Vil T° be used.
'8'...B4ilding a'trai•1 around ''the •periimeter of, the'elementary •school'••playg'round
iv. unreal is -tic. ' ' •
9. •`The traffic si•tuatio6 through, the parking•' lots at` th6`twb' 'pi ers mitigates
totally'against having heavy use bicycle traffic dieected`there!!!
10.' Using County and /or- State funds`and guidelines•'would be unacceptable.
11''. If money :is to be - spent for'bike:traiIi,'the present trait'shouId be '
;'•
extended. in length., rather than'expanded'in breadth!
12: 'How many`ni:les "of. bicycle trails. are there 'i'n" Newport ";Beach?" How many
"miles off walking trails ?. 'Let us look'to•walking, trans-in this-instance!
1s. The proposal does:not represent the 4iews- "of many•of the residents of•
.' Newporf. Beach; particularly• those in•Central Newport,.the area most
:affected.
In general-, the view of the. community is that the present Ocean Frbnt'•walk.
should: be' left' in its— present' configuration with sane imp• rovements 'to the
cement'surfaces. "Several'othe'r positive'suggestions have•been'made during
ur`-c ns3dersit -D and_we= would= be _g]_ad —to_present_them_to_youu._
= 'Si cere y,
.,,`L.,I,. 3, /98%
0
0 ,
0 r
0
Please ADD YOUR thoughts to these arguments against the City proposal for an
Ocean Front•bicycle trail
COST If the proposed trail costs from 3 to 4 million $, it is a total waste of money.
Maintenance will be costly as well 'as original costs, due to weathering, erosion
and misuse
CITY LIABILITY The City would be opening the door for bike related injuries and
resulting litigation. Buil'di'ng a.trail labelled specifically for bicycles means
extra liability:
Bikes will travel faster if there is a special trail, and 'they 'will bxpect a
wuality of trail that will be difficult or impossible to maintain on' the beach
SAFETY Pedestrians will still have to cross the path
Bikes will be going even faster and with•'less regard for- walkers, so safety •will
be diminished rather than helped
ACCESS Where would the access be? Does that mean MORE street end concrete? We dont
want more concrete on the beach
TRAIL without beginning or end: This trail (so- cal -led) starts nowhere and goes nowhere!
If money is going to be spent, it should be spent extending the trail in both
directions. Can we get people in West Newport and on the point to help us in
this fight to avoid this possibility?
USE BY AUTOMOBILES and other vehicles.;. especially speeding motorcycles and other
motorized vehicles. A strip so wide will be an invitation to joy riders, drunks
and all sorts of cars. ' It is frightening enough now—this would be a terror
*FFIC SITUATIONS -- with a "path" this wide we have the beginning of a road down the
Ocean Front!
LIGHTS Would the "trail" have to be lighted? Surely no one wants a string of lights
out on the beach!
MAINTENANCE• Impossible, for most of the time the trail would be covered by sand and would
not be useable. It would have to be swept at least daily to keep it clean. The
HARD CORE bikers dont use the trai''l anyway because they dont want to expose their
machines to sand.
ENFORCEMENT -- Pedestrians, skaters, tricycles, motorized cycles ... all'would feel free to
use the proposed walk. There is* no enforcement of rules on the present walk and we
would anticipate no enforcement on this proposed addition.
TRAIL through the Parking lots at the Piers and around the School grounds... have no continuity
or reasonableness in regard to the rest of the trail. As proposed, these areas would
stay about as they are ... so there is no reason to clutter up the rest•of the sidewalk
COUNTY Money - Advisory Committee tries to mec: County standards for bicycle trails so they
can get County money to help pay! Do we want County involvement in this beach. NO!
STATE bike trails snap. ONLY-the City Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee voted not to have the
Ocean Front removed'from the State map. After their (7 man) decision, the issue was
droppea. No,i•nput from'citizens or residents was sought or desired. We must pursue this
,,outside the bicycle•• .4dvisory committee!
Ti2ASH anu LITTER problems would increase. The space between the existing and the proposed
trail would invite more trash and litter which would be impossible to keep clean unless
each householder took care of it. You and I will pick up the trash... but how about
0
•
•
CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH
Community Association
P.O. Box 884 Balboa, Ca. 92661
City of Newport
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach,
January 29, 1987
Beach, City Hall
CA 92663
CAN i`,
Attention: Mr. Robert L. Wynn, City Manager; and
Members, Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission
Dear Mr. Wynn and Committee Members:
.. For several years our Association has studied
and commented on various proposals concerning what is now
the Ocean Front Boardwalk which spans the entire length of
Central Newport Beach,'but has no outlet at its eastern
terminus farther on down the Peninsula.
OFFICIAL POSITION
This Association "s position of many years standing
was reviewed at our 1985 and 1986 General Membership meet-
ings, and the following two Policy Statements were unani-
mously confirmed:
THE CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION...
"1. OPPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD ALONG THE OCEAN
FRONT ON THE PENINSULA(OR IN WEST NEWPORT."
"4. SUPPORTS THE PRESERVATION F THE OCEAN FRONT WALK
AS A PEDESTRIAN PROMEN DE, AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE
SHARED USE BY PEDESTRI NS D BICYCLES."
BICYCLE TRAILS CITIZENS' ADVISORY
This Citizens' Advisory Committee (on which I
serve as an individual, and not as a member of this Associa-
tion) has also considered the Ocean Front boardwalk /bicycle
trail question.
A report prepared for presentation to the Citizens'
Advisory Committee has been presented to and reviewed by the
Central Newport Beach Community Association's Board. At its
�J
E
City of Newport Beach
Attention: Robert L. Wynn, City Manager; and
Members, Parks Beaches and Recreation Commission
January 29, 1987
Page Two
January 14, 1987 meeting, the Board, together with several
other Association members present, unanimously voted to have
this Association go on record in opposition to creation of a
separate, Class I bicycle trail, as suggested in the
Bicycle Trails Committee Report prepared for the Citizens'
Advisory Committee.
Please accept this letter as the Central Newport
Beach Community Association's opposition to that report in
general, and in particular as it affects that part of the
Community known as Central Newport Beach.
OCEAN FRONT PROMENADE
To demonstrate the consistency with which our
Association has acted, enclosed is a copy of the May "7, 1985
letter to.you from Lee Mallory, III, our then President.
Attached to that letter is a copy of a June 15, 1984 report
to our Board, prepared by William P. Picker. Again, our
present Board is unanimous in its support of the position
taken by all prior boards, and affirmed at our Annual
Membership meeting, in favor of the meadering configuration
designated as "Scheme C" in the Picker presentation.
CONCLUSION
Members of our Association will be in attendance
at the PB &R meeting on February 3 to reiterate this position.
Our Board has also been commissioned to follow this issue
through the City's budgetary process.
rw
Very truly yours
CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY ,4PSOCIATION,
By_
Don
CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH
Community
P.O. Box 884
May 7, 1985
Mr. Robert L. Wynn
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA
Dear Mr. Wynn:
Association
Balboa, Ca. 92661
This letter is to indicate a support of the proposed
"Oceanfront Sidewalk" as proposed in the Plans and
narrative prepared by Bill Ficker and attached to this
letter.
This Plan was presented to our Board of Directors and
endorsed by the Board. It was then submitted to our
4
general membership at our annual meeting in October 1984,
at which -time it was approved and the Board was directed
to pursue its construction.
The Plan that appears. to be most desirable, 'is the one
marked "Scheme C ", as it separates the pedestrian traffic
and bicycle traffic to the best of any plan's ability to
do so.
Our only concern is that this Plan not be expanded to
widen the walks beyond what is shown, or to serve any
- .motorized vehicular traffic,---This is an area to which
oceanfront owners and all property owners,on the Penninsula
are particularly sensitive.. Any slight inconveniences to
pedestrians or bicyclers due to the proposed width, might
be a benefit rather than a liability.
What is proposed will certainly provide dramatically better
and safer pedestrian and bicycle usage that is now enjoyed.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation
understand you have provided to date and look
this improvement to our oceanfront.
Very truly. yours,
Lee Mallory, III
President
that we
forward to
LM_- sw
Enclosure
FICKER 8 RU'FFING • ARCHITECTS
510 Newport Center Drive - Suite 690 • Newport Beech. Calif. 92660 - 714. 644.1581
June 15, 1984
I
To: Board of Directors - CNBCA
Subject: Ocean Front Sidewalk
Newport Beach Peninsula
William P. Ficker. A.I.A.
Paul 1. fluffing. A I.A.
James L. Van Daltsen, A.I.A.
Arnold E. Moron. A.I.A.
The attached.sketches are intended to indicate some
opportunities that might be worthwhile considering when
replacing portions of the ocean front sidewalk.
.Certainly, a plan could be easily developed to incorporate
these improvements,.if they are considered to be such, and
perhaps, some ocean front owners might even want -to
participate with the City in order to expedite such a
configuration. I think this approach would solve some
.concerns which everyone has who lives on the ocean front.
These concerns-have developed primarily because'of' the
different type of use and intensity of use to which the
ocean front sidewalk is subjected. Perhaps, these are
concerns that did not exist or of,minor significance.
many years ago. Anyway, some items to be discussed and
considered are as follows:
1. This meandering configuration might provide some
opportunity to make the walk more interesting, but
primarily to, do away with the "straight shot freeway"
which produces h' Ted bicycle riding attitudes.
Certainly, the m T!nlle sng form might help to reduce
this and I think o bly would.
2. Sa_ fety. This would get the sidewalk awav from the
gates from private properties and would certainly
create a far safer situation, both for bicycle riders
and pedestrians, but primarily for people who are
stepping out of.their gates. It would be an opportunity
to "see and be seen ".
a
1
June 15, 1984
Page 2
8.1 There.are also some concerns with regard to design of
the sidewalk that I'would like to be involved in with
.the City. These are with regard to construction
joints, running at a slight diagonal across the walk,
rather than perpendicular, because it will'be much
better from a maintenance standpoint and reduces the
thumping noises, since it is much quieter and easier
to roll diagonally across a joint, rather than at
90° to it.
Also, some concern for properly caulking joints so the
seeping of sand into the joints will not continue to
deform the sidewalk. I think this is primarily what
happened during the heavy roller skating era, when the
sidewalks all of a sudden started to buckle and grow.
From an engineering standpoint, it was rather obvious
that this should have happened, and it did.
3. It would help reduce the
maintenance and damage which
is done in most cases, quite innocently, by people
continually banging into the fence, i.e., roller
skaters, bicyclers, three -wheel vehicles etc., and
people leaning and sitting on the fence. Primarily,
this is just a plain concern of damage and maintenance„
and not one of disturbance, at least not to me.
4.' Homeowners could have the choice of either landscaping
the area between their fence-and the sidewalk, or
leaving it in sand if they so desired. This would
be no different that any other parkway on any other
street or sidewalk.
5. I wouldn't think anybody would have any concern that
ocean front property•owners were trying to encroach
on the-public beach. There's plenty of beach and we
are talking about merely a design concern here, not
one of securing property.
M
6. Certainly nothing would be permitted to be built
beyond the "homeowners "' property lines. Only
landscaping etc., such as, permitted in parkways on
streets or sidewalks.
7. I think there is flexibility in the plan and •I've
tried to show this on the two schematics. If there are
people who want to retain the walk directly against
their fence, this is certainly acceptable and that
should be their privilege. The plan can be adapted
to serve the preference of everyone with minor
compromise.
8. General.
8.1 There.are also some concerns with regard to design of
the sidewalk that I'would like to be involved in with
.the City. These are with regard to construction
joints, running at a slight diagonal across the walk,
rather than perpendicular, because it will'be much
better from a maintenance standpoint and reduces the
thumping noises, since it is much quieter and easier
to roll diagonally across a joint, rather than at
90° to it.
Also, some concern for properly caulking joints so the
seeping of sand into the joints will not continue to
deform the sidewalk. I think this is primarily what
happened during the heavy roller skating era, when the
sidewalks all of a sudden started to buckle and grow.
From an engineering standpoint, it was rather obvious
that this should have happened, and it did.
June 15, 1984
Page 3
(8.1 Cont'd)
I think if our Association wants to pursue something
like this, we can probably get a meeting together of
the ocean front owners who are essentially the only
ones it affects, and plan block by block, how and when
to do it, and how to implement this effort.
I would appreciate any concerns that other homeowners
or members of the Association might have. Perhaps I
have overlooked what may be of concern to others who
use the ocean front walk.
Very truly yourQ,
William P. Picker
WPF:sw
i'
• Y
• O
Y•
m m o m Q
9nr arrest _ L . _rnv ow?M • , *=AY anv-?m I : m �
co -0 - •:'V'• V
- CO - I C0 U-
O Lq 'E
CO
U Q.
to
J A
u
(JosVj
ptr In Sao
N04 .1 333
aa3�e
.0 u_
10'A 9
ask! 3
WU� O p Q UJ r4
O
a °u O m .
aw j O a.
g3 � L
w
_u� U= J
O�x � a ¢
FWO �a Z .
O
cc
�3�fuf H1X19 FI O �L.
Z � Z
o O
R
i
CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH
Cornmi -mity Association
May 7, 1985
Mr. Robert L. Wynn
City Manager
City of Newport Beach
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, C-A
Dear Mr.,Wynn:
Balboa, Ca. 92661
This letter is to indicate a support of the proposed
"Oceanfront Sidewalk" as proposed in the Plans and
narrative prepared by Bill Ficker and attached to this
letter. •
This Plan was presented to our Board of Directors and
endorsed by the Board, It was then submitted to our
general membership at our annual meeting in October 1984,
at which -time it was approved and the Board was directed
to pursue its construction.
The Plan that appears.to be most desirable, Is the one
marked "Scheme C ", as it separates the pedestrian traffic
and bicycle traffic to the best of any plan.'s ability to
do so.
Our only concern is that this Plan not be e..cpanded to
widen the walks bevond' what is shown, or to serve any
- motorized vehicular traffic: - --This is an area to which -
oceanfront owners and all property owners on the Penninsula
are particularly sensitive.. Any slight inconveniences to
pedestrians or bicyclers due to the proposed width, might
be a benefit rather than! a liability.
What is proposed will certainly provide dramatically better
and safer pedestrian and bicycle usage that is now enjoyed.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation
understand you have provided to date and look
this improvement to our oceanfront.
Very trulyyouurs,
Lee Mallory, III
President
that we
forward to
LM- sw
Enclosure
r�
c
to
4
F I C K E R & R U F F I N G ARCHITECTS William P. Ficker, A,I.A.
Paul J. Rutling. A I.A.
610 .Newport Center Drive • Suite 670, • Newport Beach, Calif. 92660 • 714- 6414581- lames L. Van Dallsen, A.I.A.
Arnold E.Maron.A.I.A.
June 15, 1984
To: Board of Directors - CNBCA
Subject: Ocean Front Sidewalk
Newport Beach Peninsula
The attached.sketches are intended to indicate'some
opportunities that might be worthwhile considering when
replacing portions of the ocean front sidewalk.
.Certainly, a plan could be easily developed to incorporate
these improvements,.if they are considered to be such, and
perhaps, some ocean front owners might even want to
participate with the City in order to expedite such a
configuration. I think this approach would solve some
concerns which everyone has who lives on the ocean front._
These concerns-have developed primarily because'of the
different type of use and intensity of use to which the
ocean front sidewalk is subjected. Perhaps, these are
concerns that did not exist or of ,minor significance.
many years ago. Anyway, some items to be discussed and
considered are as follows:
1. This meandering configuration might provide some
opportunity to make the walk more interesting, but
primarily to. do away with the "straight shot freeway"
which produces high speed bicycle riding attitudes.
Certainly, the meandering form might help to reduce
this and I think probably would.
2. Safety. This would get the sidewalk awav from the
gates from private properties and would certainly
create a far safer situation,, both for bicycle riders
and pedestrians_, but primarily for people who are
stepping out of.their gates. It would be an opportunity
to "see and be seen ".
June 15, 1984
Page 2
to3.
It would help reduce the
maintenance and damage which
is done in most cases, quite innocently, by people
continually banging into the fence, i.e., roller
skaters, bicyclers, three -wheel vehicles etc., and
people leaning and sitting on the fence. Primarily,
this is just a plain concern of damage and maintenance,
and not one of disturbance, at least not to me.
4.'
Homeowners could have the choice of either landscaping
the area between their fence-and the sidewalk, or
leaving it in sand if they so desired. This would
be no different that any other parkway on any other
street or sidewalk.
5.
I wouldn't think anybody would have any concern that
ocean front property owners were trying to encroach
on the.public beach. There's plenty of beach and we
are talking about merely a design concern here, not
one of securing property.
6.
Certainly nothing would be permitted to be built
beyond the "homeowners "' property lines. only
landscaping etc:, such as, permitted in parkways on
streets or sidewalks.
7.
I think there is flexibility in the plan and I've
tried to show this on the two schematics. If there are
people who want to retain the walk directly against
their fence, this is certainly acceptable and that
should be their privilege. The plan can be adapted
to serve the preference of everyone with minor
compromise.
8.
General.
8.1
There are also some concerns with regard to design of
the sidewalk that I'would like to be involved in with
.the City. These are with regard to construction
joints, running at a slight diagonal across the walk,
rather than perpendicular, because it will'be much
better from a maintenance standpoint and reduces the
thumping noises, since it is much quieter and easier
to roll diagonally across a joint, rather than at
90" to it.
Also, some concern for properly caulking joints so the
seeping of sand into the joints will not continue to
deform the sidewalk. I think this is primarily what
happened during the heavy roller skating era, when the
sidewalks all of a sudden started to buckle and grow.
From an engineering standpoint, it was rather obvious
that this should have happened, and it did.
1
a
June 15, 1984
(• Page 3
(8.1 Cont'd)
I think if our Association wants to pursue something
like this, we can probably get a meeting together of
the ocean front owners who are essentially the only
ones it affects, and plan block by block, how and when
to do it, and how to implement this effort. ,
I would appreciate any concerns that other homeowners
or members of the Association might have. Perhaps I
have overlooked what may be of concern to others who
use the ocean front walk.
Very) truly yourQ,
4 -
William P. Ficker
(•
WPF:sw
t
Q
N_
T
U
i —
o mC
*=AY QMV-w I :E
CD
.X
W 1t
O 0 E
��
111
�• 0
lA
� W Z
J A
_ a1
�r\3
<1 °
u
i
� 3V �
33
V ;rl Q
O J'o o
CC .
CL
LL
Y
Z U O
m
m
E:sm avrn+
E
co
Q
" O
Q
V
O
'
-
N
• as x
0
'riot -
aaa s
r
1
�d3�1 if
�,nSl LL
•
askl ?
�9W tug
a
_
ctow
Q.iu p
�3wa
0Gw
L�4 uE
4 W
�u v2=•
L7]W� Hlt(IS
W
F
' 17rltfa H1MS
Q
Q
N_
T
U
i —
o mC
*=AY QMV-w I :E
CD
.X
W 1t
O 0 E
��
111
�• 0
lA
� W Z
J A
_ a1
�r\3
<1 °
u
i
� 3V �
33
V ;rl Q
O J'o o
CC .
CL
LL
Y
Z U O
0
0
JOHN F. HEYDORFF
Furniture Design /Consultant
January 29, 1987
Mr. Sterling Wolfe, Chairman
City of Newport Beach
Parks Beach & Recreation Commission
City Hall
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
As a long -time Newport Beach resident, I would like it to
be known that I disapprove any expansion of the current
Boardwalk, and would like it to remain as is!
I would be interested and supportive of the controlled
use of summer bike thoroughfare on the Boardwalk.
In addition, I would prefer to see public funds spent in
controlling the flooding problems along Balboa Blvd., i.e.
especially in the area of Newport Elementary School. These
problems are especially evident at high tide (salt water),
rainy days, and on Sundays after several car washings by
area residents. This flooding is a traffic and safety hazard
since cars unfamiliar to this area drive right into it and
can cause accidents.
Also, I believe we would'be better served if more tennis
courts were built rather than more parking lots!
I appreciate your time and your attention to this letter, and
the possibility of limiting the growth of the Boardwalk.
Co dially yours'
John F. eydorff
JFH:mv
cc: Committe Personnel
(See Attached)
908 WEST OCEANFRONT • BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 • (714) 675 -5069
0
l�
-._ - _ . �/J /G�/�� l/ -'rte- f.G1��r�/.�� ..%���rLa -�'•
�2�1'G- T'f —e�� ��/T/ ✓�l/ �.- ct /!_� t�L�J9.�/� � (�I:PiU�J41t(iliL!�
Cfi�c�/l��ir�,f�P �a�l/���GC�.�t� ���- :rte✓ —. G�2t'�
O
/L =i��(� (/K= 'ilk'/ '/, f f �� 1 • J /�h I �' *-(;-
el—
J
0 January 28,1987
----!/�, Sterling Wolfe, Chairman PB &R Commission
John Cox, MaPr City of Newport Beach
% City of Newport Beach
3300 NewportBoulevard
P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, Calif'. 92658
Dear Sir:
We have owned our home on the ocean front for thirty years.
For some time we had a pleasant walking path where families and
their children had access to the beach.
Without notification., the path suddenly became a bile trail,
and we had speeding bikes. Families were constantly warning
their children to "watch out for bikes." Regardless of where
a bike path is put, the danger will still be there.
. There are many miles of safe bike trails in the county
but beaches are limited. Please leave the beaches for the
enjoyment of bathers, children and families. she bike trail
on the ocean front should be eliminated!
Sincerely,
J. Wm. Miller
814 W. Ocean Front
Balboa, Calif. 92661
0
Please ADD .YOUR thoughts to these arguments against the City proposal for an
Ocean Front bicycle trail
COST If the proposed trail costs from 3 to 4 million $, it is a total waste of money.
Maintenance will be costly as well as original costs, due to weathering, erosion
and misuse
CITY LIABILITY The City would be opening the door for bike related injuries and
resulting litigation. Building a.trail labelled specifically for bicycles means
extra 1•i ability:
Bikes will travel faster if there is a special trail, and they will 'kxpect a
wuality of trail that will be difficult or impossible to maintain on*the beach
SAFETY Pedestrians will still have to cross the path
Bikes will be going even faster and with' less regard for walkers, so safety will
be diminished rather than helped
ACCESS Where would the access be? Does that mean MORE street end concrete? We dont
want more concrete on the beach
TRAIL without beginning or end: This trail (so- called) starts nowhere and goes nowhere!
If money is going to be spent, it should be spent extending the trail in botB
directions. Can we get people in West Newport and on the point to help us in
this fight to'avoid this possibility?
USE BY AUTOMOBILES and other vehicles..._ especially speeding motorcycles and other
motorized vehicles.- A strip so'wide will be an invitation to joy riders, drunks
and all sorts of cars. ' It is frightening enough now—this would be a terror
4OFFIC SITUATIONS -- with a "path" this wide we have the beginning of a road down the
Ocean Front!
LIGHTS Would the "trail" have to be lighted? Surely "no one wants a string of lights
out on the beach!
MAINTENANCE Impossible, for most of the time the trail would be covered by sand and would
ndt be useable. It would have to be swept at least daily to keep it clean. The
HARD CORE bikers done use the trail anyway because they dont want to expose their
machines to sand.
ENFORCEMENT -- Pedestrians, skaters, tricycles, motorized cycTes ... all would feel free to
use the proposed walk'. There is no enforcement of rules on the present walk and we
would anticipate no enforcement on this proposed addition.
TRAIL through the Parking lots at the Piers and around the School grounds...have no continuity
or reasonableness in regard to the rest of the trail. As proposed, these areas would
stay about as they are... so there is no reason to clutter up the rest'of the sidewalk
COUNTY Money - Advisory Committee tries to mect County standards for bicycle trails so they
can get County money to help pay! Do we want County involvement in this beach. NO!
STATE bike trails map. ONLY the City Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee voted not to have the
Ocean Front removed from the State map. After their- (7 man) decision, the issue was
droppea. No J-nput from citizens or residents was sought or desired. We must pursue this
outside the bicycle 'advisory committee!
TRASH ano LITTER problems would increase. The space between the existing and the proposed
trail would invite more trash and litter which would be impossible to keep clean unless
each householder took care of it. You and I will ;•ick up the trash... but how about
.. A I9 P7
0
Lt%2 CU,z. -4/
r
•
0
(fig`?
�Oc.�tiJ
A. t
1
Z �
�s
�,:•_�- es.�-- � -��_�5 i:�1_-?r14 - - �.�tn�vrite4 -, � oti� iti�- FC��ti \c� s :,
E X)o it�ti\, s�fti
Ta
'�..-
•ct.r" a.Qy�. Li:
J.v �..1 <C.�"
^•:r.: 'F4�
e:4 :.,+ _ >.'
". -. r.-
+• ,'m:.,
.,�._ _a.'
..y
_
=t
•
•
F1 C K E R & RU F F I N G ARCHITECTS
ii 10 Newport Center Drive • Swto 6,IG • Nrv., -11 81 a• b Calil !Q660 • 714844.1581
February 3, 1987
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, CA
Dear Committee Members:
Approximately three years ago the Central
Community Association, which I am and have
the Board, embarked on a review of our are
William Fide%AIA
Paul J Rulhng, AIA
James L Van Dallsen, AIA
Arnold E Mmon, AIA
Newport Beach
been a member of
as infrastructure.
During that review'we, obviously, observed the poor
condition of the Ocean Front promenade. Knowing that much
of the promenade would have to be replaced and repaired, we
embarked on a review to determine if there is some
opportunity to make that walk safer for both pedestrians and
bicycle riders, and at the same time address the
beautification of the Ocean Front promenade and some other
issues,, such as keeping bicyclers and pedestrians away from
residents walls and fences, gates, etc.
I and my firm donated our professional planning expertise
and we proceeded to develop some options which we presented
to the community. These options took into consideration the
practical aspects of the type of use the promenade should
and does have, as well as some practical considerations with
regard to aesthetics and beautification which are very
important to any plan.
We came up with a plan that we felt,best served everybody in,
the community. It did not fully meet the demands of those
who would disregard or eliminate bicyclers, nor did it fully
meet the demands of some bicyclers who felt that everything
should be ignored in order to meet the requirements of a
"class one" regional bicycle trail. Peak traffics are not
the only criteria by which design might be judged.,
At any rate, we worked very hard to develop a plan which
would maintain the character of the Peninsula and the
residentual user as well as providing additional safety and
convenience for bicyclers.
• February 3, 1987
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page Two'
We sent out over 250 questionnaires with plans and
.alternatives, and received an overwhelming endorsement for
a plan, and that plan was endorsed'by our Community
Association.
We also felt that the trail, should be confined to the,
existing area and that it should not be extended to the West
or the East in front of Ocean Front homes. These
communities have been established for a long time without
sidewalks in front of them and good planning would dictate
that they should not be changed to the degree that the
imposition of such additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic
would cultivate.
The Plan which you have before you for consideration, titled
"Ocean Front Boardwalk Improvement Feasibility Study", I
• feel, has lost all sight of reasonable planning or concerns
for beautification. It does not address the improvement of
the existing Ocean Front walk or the beautification that a
meandering walk might provide, but merely addresses putting
a, "bicycle freeway" down the Ocean Front. It is also a pin
that would put more future pressure on extending it to the
wedge or expanding it to carry other vehicles.
It is even more disturbing when you realize that this
bicycle freeway doesn't start anywhere or go anywhere. It
is not directly connected to any similar bicycle path and
dead ends at the Peninsula. Anybody who wants to take this
path and then take the "fairyboat" across to further bicycle
down the coast will be met on Balboa Island by not being
able to ride on the sidewalks, but may share the road
without even a bicycle path on Balboa Island. The
discontinuity of the bicycle path at the Newport Pier and
the commercial parking lot is an example, where the planners
merely ignore requirements for a bicycle trail.
In brief, I think, the scale of this bicycle trail, its lack
of sensitivity to beautification and cost, make it totally
unacceptable to the community. Although, I am disappointed
that the action,I will suggest will also mean that the
improvements to the promenade that our Community Association
worked so very hard to secure, will also be lost
11�,
February 3, 1987
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Page Three
I strongly recommend that you reject the proposed Ocean
Front Bicycle Trail and that further consideration be
abandoned for the reconfiguration of the bicycle trail,
except as proposed by the Central Newport Beach Community
Association, or that a simple 12 foot meandering sidewalk be
considered to be shared by pedestrians and bicycles, as is
the present walk.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this
subject.
Very truly yours,
r
WYlliam P. F
E
WPF:sw
CC: Robert Wynn, City Manager
0
3cealn Frcint
smug, "IMMINIF, V,
I All,
OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK IMPROVEMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
A
I
IPrepared for:
August 1986
[I
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Prepared by:
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
August 1986
[I
A
I
:�� 1
OCEAN 'FRONT BOARDWALK IMPROVEMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
INTRODUCTION,
The City of Newport Beach maintains a 2.5 mile long combination
pedestrian/ bicycle facility along the public beach from 'E' Street to 36th Street,
known as the Ocean Front Boardwalk (see Vicinity Map in Figure 1). This
facility is a 12 -foot wide concrete boardwalk which is currently in need of
localized maintenance and rehabilitation. Several alternatives have been
identified to improve the existing facility, ranging from a 'do nothing' option up
to and including construction of a separate bicycle trail which would parallel,
possibly on, a meandering alignment, the existing concrete sidewalk. The entire
'
subject of rehabilitation and /or improvement of the existing Ocean Front has
been, a difficult and controversial issue, and the purpose of this study is to
examine that issue and determine the feasibility of improving the Ocean Front
compared with simply repairing the existing facility.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY
The existing Ocean Front Boardwalk is a 12 -foot wide concrete path which
serves pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters and skateboarders. In many locations,
the concrete is in a state of disrepair. The facility extends along the ocean
front from 36th Street to 'E' Street. Although the facility itself is 12 feet wide
for virtually its entire length, the existing use of lighting standards effectively
reduces the usable width to 10 feet. A centerline stripe and appropriate
signing and marking delineates pedestrian from bicycle traffic, but this line is
generally ignored by bicyclists and pedestrians alike. The Ocean Front has
been designated as a Class I regional bicycle trail on the Orange County Master
Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) and is eligible for regional bicycle trail
funding. Similarly, the Ocean Front facility has been adopted as a bicycle trail
in the City of Newport Beach portion of the State's Coastal Plan.
I
:�� 1
4g aD.R n I sp d�ebfii g... �N,sRDSr i..-4` sa: •� 4 3'S ty'h 07 i!ti
61j 1 J ' `� 'Y[ND/ MIKIAK R Lw \
Lwa ARDOR 3DMVS' •3 lN1 a >VL'Lf.R,, ,f 1WDRXIMRw ^`
Z V • IarN �sr3. �_ �,, \ilam._� ST da`!�,,r� !\hr•.!y�
"' '< w MIJ ; W' ` i sr 3 < +, r a tN. ' +i'''Et,. �r
tom_ .�j. �,f� oI fi 40
Mulymt I ti ^ w �txnR 44 f xnR rOKxF wLi1D1'— —�z^'I LUM ♦��.~ �fl I I scGn °" ' i\
urx I l sa.. sT � 1 � a Jr J sT• �r �h/
tAMti 51 MOK Da'i MRgyt / �14 � ♦ f N'f4 i 4p 3?i
rasa suxsn ExAluup° ^oR jiDR: a �� .,� d ry a ` o`,/ M
tlIMA0. '
j s._xY Y,q-1 ``N ♦ 4a/ o r Nr o,r Nw
17rx sr� . i I 'Tr r. G4i� ry �` J♦ \93'Nkv\D `ti
a♦ ♦3�DfL or
A : .
NFWXALL q 1' MRAD StI /q Y ! .ta, "N ,C• 4ei / '`O ���W�� ,�t�, � \x
8 _ ' Dx.NS +� �� / 4q�'rj / r�r`NFr? "D' \ •? "h4\¢`�pm'µgscyA..'
I ?
ST $) �• °4 F a>h yv 9ip� Jr
ARP R s`�k4 \AiAN�R:I R
4rf b 3�s<X rr MFR DR _rn?
da �4 aAa qee ry vailiE �stait .
M 10 0. a }� N FR MARC r 7'
! I � �> / 4 � •'� vPA\rr v ♦ f41� / r�\qY 4rtM1p5
NIWRDar
CNRISrnN OaY 'R% L�{r fly
il6 S[N(gl IsiN ..
'� 'qif_ te�''4p M o- � IJ \. rr '1gi'O'Y1 ea• N` �: f 09 p�,f r0,� ,j'frDl� .Y]� �`/
ALYAR M( U \: ,{'VJpSl�/ ITS' J•M�` T4 a \•T 44 2f� f rG �,•"AK,��N rN
cr��N,�ti,l!t�a Ol �r\ "C /r%"?b4q ~ t rs A/� o� / Oq'�frr 40 O P,y�M ifMlQgl `�? •..
a✓' 0 4 . + �Y �4kf qS"` c�. Gl t> aaI Rqy yr, 4f R : rQy o*�,�ha y/ =o /!Nd//
N(WMRI r(b I Nosvlrgt
VAgK )' ♦ Lx r /'�di `i�)./ 'b
a�e.�
'"R. v Oyu d @r MNEMMORIA / EurFO v r a o-> ti -.7117 - fy , o fv
�' J,- rN fy9 XDSPITA i0 rJ 1 m ♦ r >�'` r•/ NEWPDR7 y ��Y=`
✓IP Js J` HARBOR 3 Lx � rod
s fib• a' .rq� = A I =[r 3 4 �¢a N xIGH SCNODI WFSiCLIfN`f NIF
ryi' h .fir 5 INNk "1 a J 1 \ /[s %f Sig S PARR '1TRq�lN
V •' %SS yt. f lip F
Pjftq,Nl" �Lil S.. swowrg1 /♦ `do-♦/ %••YR 1. 1RMO5
A J I`I�K'v Sa f4 K I�SR:N w ♦ ♦ [
xtwrot o:i es '"' S-i ., vlFw rl, o-yeFxsxsK� g.- a �
A ♦ tSr' f�. I� WV �fLNf i� 5 � _ /
RrADI y f/ i� y9pja• Si •'1 /�^ L° w �kIN / /� / 1
BEGIN
36TH ST = SIST.rRST�rrupARKV' B Shores \DR. '' "•
AO,( jt S]TS 1� a d Y / VI 1 D4 A 11LY \TNy�ISLf. f�
t S ♦.'$S1f ST,gpAA ` tC �{'WI
t `�rlost TD.TTTTiiTTTT��`.Nrr}^ "'e�g A 1 070 a "ro UNDA�9uf�,,� `�'
aa5a c T 73 x� 4b I z' ys7 b` d� �^.� ISLE IS_ 1 16 _
\ h, t4 is1AN0
HARBOR S"$p�^ agucDl
N �Msw. ISLAND ffS �J
lC0 '�avF��usA xAS L' t(J t I IsLA o jLAa3lllA�NDRM
OCEAN FRONT TRAIL.0 RI aAt A DAY
I �, ��' DA�� ISLAND
t � � LYOA � �I�fwIR�
I ♦T AV / �' �! t� p P
S'i'r' •� ~ JG °prow � NT�JD :� � ®' • YOav't,
ueWPO °T _ _ h ^+� w� W. zrF:a C: ♦ •.t,+y
�•�vi3'?4 �M xlwxMf
alboa , ,.
6111 1
N DAER
PIER
END
'E'. ST
Figure 1
AM W_ VICINITY MAP
®®®
AUSTIN -MUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
m
I
IUSAGE OF EXISTING FACILITY
I
3
Usage
of the Ocean Front Boardwalk varies
significantly from
a peak
from Improved Facility (est. LOW
season on
summer weekends to winter weekdays.
Typical traffic
counts
conducted
on warm to hot Sundays indicated the
following typical
hourly
exceed 500 riders per day. The Ocean Front has more than that in one hour.
volumes:
A count of the 'Strand' in Hermosa Beach and the Ocean Front trail in
Huntington Beach indicates bicycle volumes of 500 -700 bicycles per hour are
typical.
------------- - - - - -- HOURLY VOLUMES____;;_____________;__
•
USER
Sept 21,185 Jan 12,186 June 22,186
July 5,t86
Pedestrians
200
190 250
525
r
Bicycles
400
725 650
675
I
3
Skates /Skateboards 20 70 50 75
•
Increased Bicycle Traffic resulting Negligible
from Improved Facility (est. LOW
A more complete listing of actual volume counts is presented in Table 1.
Such volumes are considered high by bike trail standards. For example,
typical inland bicycle trail volumes in Orange and Los Angeles Counties do not
exceed 500 riders per day. The Ocean Front has more than that in one hour.
A count of the 'Strand' in Hermosa Beach and the Ocean Front trail in
Huntington Beach indicates bicycle volumes of 500 -700 bicycles per hour are
typical.
•
A survey of users of the Ocean Front facility was conducted to determine
user characteristics, travel patterns and attitudes. Bicyclists and pedestrians
alike were stopped and asked to complete a simple questionnaire. This survey
was conducted on two different weekends when the weather was pleasant. The
L
survey was conducted by setting up a station along the boardwalk with a large
sign stating that an "Official" City of Newport Beach survey of bicycle and
pedestrian users was being taken. Users were encouraged to complete the
simple questionnaire illustrated in Table 2. The purpose of the survey was to
determine user attitudes and practices.
I
3
f
l
1
i
r
Table 1
OCEAN FRONT BICYCLE COUNTS
Location: Palm
Street
Date:
Saturday,
Sept. 21, 1985
Bike
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
Other
12:00 -1:00 PM
287
177
7
16
7
2:00 -3:00 PM
299
273
8
11
3
Location: 6th
Street
Date:
Saturday,
Jan. 11, 1986
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
Other
11:00 -12:00 Noon 432
70
12
2
12
12:00 -1:00 PM
724
186
10
14
10
1:00 -2:00 PM
626
136
50
14
18
2:00 -3:00 PM
576
108
16
10
20
Location: 6th Street
Time Period Bike
11:00 -12:00 Noon 256
1:00 -2:00 PM 646
3:00 -4:00 PM 590
Location: 31st Street
Time Period Bike
11:00 -12:00 Noon 522
1:00 -2:00 PM 608
3:00 -4:00 PM 528
Date: Sunday, Jan. 12, 1986
Peds Skates Skateboards Other
72 2 2 4
186 34 12 8
222 24 10 10
Date: Sunday, June 22, 1986
Peds Skates Skateboards
324 14 32
220 4 12
240 8 30
Location: 20th
Street
Date: Sunday,
June 22, 1986
Time Period
Bike
Peds Skates
Skateboards
12:00 -1:00 PM
642
244 6
28
2:00 -3 :00 PM
612
162 12
30
(continued)
H
(Table 1 continued)
Location: 6th
Street
Date:
Sunday,
June 22, 1986
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
12:00 -1:00 PM
608
220
4
12
2:00 -3:00 PM
554
180
16
16
Location: 31st
Street
Date:
Monday,
June 23, 1986
(overcast day)
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
12:00 -1:00 PM
188
214
4
32
2:00 -3:00 PM
180
180
2
44
Location: 20th
Street
Date:
Monday,
June 23, 1986
(overcast day)
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
12:00 -1:00 PM
220
216
2
10
Location: 6th
Street
Date:
Monday,
June 23, 1986
(overcast day)
1:00 -2:00 PM
182
88
2
14
Location: 30th
Street
Date:
Saturday, July 5, 1986
Time Period
Bike
Peds
Skates
Skateboards
12:00 -1:00 PM
696
466
14
36
1:00 -2:00 PM
672
570
18
66
2:00 -3:00 PM
542
620
20
52
3:00 -4:00 PM
488
596
12
62
61
Table 2
City of Newport Beach
OCEAN FRONT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE SURVEY
RESULTS, July 1, 1986
(148) (27 %)
1. Place of residence: Ocean Front 19 Balboa Peninsula 37
(24 %) (35 %)
Elsewhere in Newport Beach 32 Other city 47
(72 %,) (40 %) (61 %)
2. Purpose of ride: Recreation 97 Sightseeing 56 Exercise 83
(6%) —
Going some place in particular (specify) No Answer 9
3. Limits of ride:
Furthest point
'Begin location
End location
(66 %) (16 %)
4. Frequency of use: More than once per week 89 Once per week 22
(9%) (4%) (2%) T3%)
Once per month 12 Few times /year 5 Infrequently 3 No Answer 4
(10 %) (40 %) (20 %) (15 %)
5. Places stopped /visited: None 13 1 or 2 54 3 -5 27 More than 5 21
(15 %) — — — No Answer 20
Locations stopped
6. Opinion: Do you feel the existing Ocean Front is safe for pedestrians and
bicycles together? Yes 25 No 105 No opinion 3 No Answer 2
(18 %) (78%) (2%) (2 &)
If no, how should it be improved?
(58) (45 %) (38 %)
Repair existing 8 Widen existing 75 Separate bike trail 63
(12%)' — No Answer 20
7. Questionnaire completed by: Pedestrian 17 Bicyclist 95 Both 20
(13 %) (70 %) (15 %)
No Answer 3
(2%)
H
I
Analysis of the survey indicates that 65 percent of the people surveyed
were residents of the Balboa Peninsula and the City of Newport Beach. These
residents use the facility rather frequently, more than once a week, for a
purpose which is largely recreational. These users expressed the over- ,
whelming opinion that the existing facility is not safe for the combined use of
pedestrians and bicycles together, and indicated that they preferred the
existing facility be widened rather than construction of a, separate bike trail.
The survey was conducted at three locations: 31st
Street, 20th Street, and
6th Street. One hundred and thirty -five
(135) people,
approximately 5 percent
locations were not directly in the center of high
of the people using the boardwalk at the
time of the survey, responded to the
Personal interviews with the users of the Ocean Front indicate the typical users
questions. The results of the survey are
presented in
Table 2.
Analysis of the survey indicates that 65 percent of the people surveyed
were residents of the Balboa Peninsula and the City of Newport Beach. These
residents use the facility rather frequently, more than once a week, for a
purpose which is largely recreational. These users expressed the over- ,
whelming opinion that the existing facility is not safe for the combined use of
pedestrians and bicycles together, and indicated that they preferred the
existing facility be widened rather than construction of a, separate bike trail.
A field investigation was conducted , on the usage of comparable Ocean
' Front pedestrian and bicycle facilities in other Los Angeles and Orange County
coastal communities. The 'Strand' in Hermosa Beach, as the combined
pedestrian /bicycle trail along the beach in the South Bay area is called,-was
w
The Ocean Front appears to be used more by
bicyclists than pedestrians.
However, to draw such a conclusion is somewhat
misleading since the count
locations were not directly in the center of high
pedestrian activity areas.
Personal interviews with the users of the Ocean Front indicate the typical users
are mostly residents of the area using the facility
for both recreational and
1
minor shopping /browsing trips. Tourist usage of
the facility for recreational
purposes appears to be moderate. Relatively little
of the present usage, either
pedestrian or bicycle, can be considered 'commuter
traffic' which has neither an
origin nor a destination in the area. In fact, in
excess of 95 percent of all
user trips have both origin and destination in the area. Virtually no
professional cyclists (characterized by head gear
and riding attire) were
observed. On weekdays, a large number of children (approximately 100) were
observed using the trail to and from school.
Comparable Facilities
A field investigation was conducted , on the usage of comparable Ocean
' Front pedestrian and bicycle facilities in other Los Angeles and Orange County
coastal communities. The 'Strand' in Hermosa Beach, as the combined
pedestrian /bicycle trail along the beach in the South Bay area is called,-was
w
i
The 'Strand' provides an example of both separated bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and combined facilities. Volume counts on the 'Strand' at one of the
highest activity points, the Pier in Hermosa Beach, indicate pedestrian and
bicycle volumes comparable to those on the Ocean Front Boardwalk. These
volumes ranged from 600 -800 bicycles per hour and 400 -500 pedestrians per
hour.
The cross - section of the 'Strand' at the Hermosa Pier consists of a single
24 -foot wide concrete trail with a 2 -foot high seawall on the ocean side and
numerous commercial shops on the inland side. The cross - section of the
'Strand' in Hermosa Beach is two separate 14 -foot wide trails separated by a
identified as somewhat analogous to the
Ocean Front in Newport
Beach. The
'Strand' was also cited by several users
of the Ocean Front during the survey
Boardwalk. Photos showing typical cross - sections of the 'Strand' are presented
interviews as a suggested alternative.
Bicycle volume counts
were also
collected on the Ocean Front bike trail
in Huntington Beach for
comparison
portion of the 'Strand' is about the same as at the Pier, averaging 600 -700
purposes. It is recognized that the Huntington Beach bike trail
is not lined
with homes or businesses as is the Newport
facility, is from
Beach trail or South
Bay's 'Strand'
and not comparable that
point of view.
The 'Strand' provides an example of both separated bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, and combined facilities. Volume counts on the 'Strand' at one of the
highest activity points, the Pier in Hermosa Beach, indicate pedestrian and
bicycle volumes comparable to those on the Ocean Front Boardwalk. These
volumes ranged from 600 -800 bicycles per hour and 400 -500 pedestrians per
hour.
'� 8
The cross - section of the 'Strand' at the Hermosa Pier consists of a single
24 -foot wide concrete trail with a 2 -foot high seawall on the ocean side and
numerous commercial shops on the inland side. The cross - section of the
'Strand' in Hermosa Beach is two separate 14 -foot wide trails separated by a
variable width landscaped sand median. The bike trail is asphalt while the
pedestrian walkway is concrete. This segment of the 'Strand' is lined with
ocean -front homes similar to those in Newport Beach along the Ocean Front
Boardwalk. Photos showing typical cross - sections of the 'Strand' are presented
in Figures 2 and 3.
The pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes counted on this separated
portion of the 'Strand' is about the same as at the Pier, averaging 600 -700
bicycles per hour and 400 -500 pedestrians per hour. Formal interviews with
several residents and users of the 'Strand' indicated almost complete satisfaction
with the existing cross - section and general concurrance that the separated
facilities were preferable to the combined trail.
'� 8
I
r
r
r
r
I
I AUSTIN- FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
C
Figure 2
TYPICAL PHOTOS 'THE STRAND'
,COMBINED BIKE /PED TRAIL
MANHATTAN DEACH, CA
ar.
10
Figure 3
TYPICAL PHOTOS 'THE STRAND'
SEPARATE BIKE /PED TRAIL
HERMOSA BEACH, CA
A
i
A third example of a bike trail cross - section exists where the 'Strand'
extends across Isadora Dockweiller State Beach near LAX. A 16 -foot wide
concrete bicycle trail is constructed along the ocean front through the State
Beach, joining with the 'Strand' in Manhattan. Beach. This facility is located
approximately 200 -300 feet from the shore. There are no homes or commercial
businesses located adjacent to the trail except for occasional restrooms and
snack shops, and the bicycle volume is about the same; averaging approximately
600 cyclists per hour, but there are no pedestrians using this trail. The
16 -foot cross - section is divided into two 7 -foot wide bike lanes separated by a
yellow centerline and a 2 -foot wide shoulder on the inland side where lighting
standards are placed.
In addition to field observation, a number of Cities were contacted
regarding their use and standards for bicycle facilities, particularly ocean front
bicycle/ pedestrian trails similar to the Ocean Front in Newport Beach. The
tfollowing is a summary of the responses received.
City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach has implemented 11 miles of beach front bike trails. For
exclusive bicycle trails, the City uses a minimum of 12 feet in width including
two foot wide shoulders on both sides. The bicycle trail and shoulders are
both paved with asphalt because the shoulders are required to carry bicycles
and sand will not meet this requirement. The City has no specific volume
criteria, but experiences heavy bicycle traffic (up to 1000 veh per hour) at
peak times. They consider volumes in excess of 500 bicycles per hour to be
regarded as a 'heavy' bicycle volume.
City of Costa Mesa
The City of Costa Mesa used the State standards as their guide for design
of bicycle facilities. They use the minimum 8 -foot width on sparsely traveled
11
A
I
trails, and the 12 -foot minimum width on bicycle trails with any significant
volume.
r
rCity of Hermosa Beach
The City of Hermosa Beach uses the State standards for design of bicycle
facilities. They specify a minimum width of 12 feet, except for their beach
front where a width of 14 feet for separate bicycle and pedestrian trails is
used, or 22 feet for combined facilities.
City of Manhattan Beach
The City of Manhattan Beach has a portion of the 'Strand' which is a
22 -foot wide combined bicycle and pedestrian facility. They consider this to be
a minimum but adequate standard.
aCity of Playa del Rey
I
The City of Playa del Rey maintains a meandering two -way ocean front
bike trail which is 14 feet wide and signed "Bicycles Only - No Pedestrians ".
City of Irvine
The City of Irvine was contacted even though they have no ocean front
facilities because they have been very active in development of bicycle trails.
The City of Irvine developed their own set of bicycle standards in October
1985, which are more rigid than the State standards. The standard bicycle
trail in Irvine is 15 feet wide (i.e., 11 feet of trail plus two 2 -foot usable
shoulders).
County of Orange
The County of Orange was contacted with regards to bicycle design
12
1
3. The County has no quantitative identity of "High Volume" bike trails,
but regards the 14 foot width as a minimum.
4. Separation of bicycles and pedestrians can be accomplished by
separating bicycle and pedestrian trails and limiting access between
1 _ the two.
IAccident Investigation
0
An investigation into the existing bicycle related accident history of the
Ocean Front Boardwalk failed to disclose any significant accident concentrations
or trends. Four bicycle accidents per year were reported in the two year
period 1984 -1985. These accidents were at scattered locations and none
occurred in the Newport Pier parking lot where bicycles comingle with
automobile traffic. The main conclusion of this accident analysis is that while
users of the Ocean Front Boardwalk exprbssed concern that joint use of the
existing facility is. 'unsafe', nevertheless, the overall accident rate does not
constitute a serious hazard. Rather, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are
concerned about a series of 'minor' injuries and mishaps which occur but remain
unreported, which are due to the confined width (10 feet) for bicycles and
pedestrians to pass.
13
standards since the Ocean Front facility is identified as
a portion of
the Orange
County Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB).
The County
replied to
some specific questions regarding design as follows:
1. The minimum width of a bicycle trail is 14 feet
(10 feet plus
two 2 -foot
shoulders).
2. Beach sand is not suitable shoulder material since it cannot
support a
ibicycle
and rider in emergency maneuvers.
3. The County has no quantitative identity of "High Volume" bike trails,
but regards the 14 foot width as a minimum.
4. Separation of bicycles and pedestrians can be accomplished by
separating bicycle and pedestrian trails and limiting access between
1 _ the two.
IAccident Investigation
0
An investigation into the existing bicycle related accident history of the
Ocean Front Boardwalk failed to disclose any significant accident concentrations
or trends. Four bicycle accidents per year were reported in the two year
period 1984 -1985. These accidents were at scattered locations and none
occurred in the Newport Pier parking lot where bicycles comingle with
automobile traffic. The main conclusion of this accident analysis is that while
users of the Ocean Front Boardwalk exprbssed concern that joint use of the
existing facility is. 'unsafe', nevertheless, the overall accident rate does not
constitute a serious hazard. Rather, pedestrians and bicyclists alike are
concerned about a series of 'minor' injuries and mishaps which occur but remain
unreported, which are due to the confined width (10 feet) for bicycles and
pedestrians to pass.
13
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Options for improvement of the Ocean Front facility center around either
simple maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing facility or enhancing the
facility by providing separate bicycle and pedestrian paths. If a separate
bicycle path is provided, then it must by law meet minimum design standards.
Failure to do so would be, in and by 'itself, a minor offense (except where
bicycle account funds were utilized) , which would probably constitute a
misdemeanor. However, the most serious consequence of a failure to meet State
bicycle design criteria is the increased legal liability assumed by the City.
Consequently, if the option to provide a separate bicycle facility is chosen,
then use of the minimum design criteria is predetermined.
One improvement alternative would be to simply reconstruct the existing
facility in its existing configuration. This would improve the surface and
` eliminate several 'hiked up' sections of concrete, thereby removing some
potential sources of accidents and call -outs for maintenance. Otherwise, little
improvement could be expected and no improvement in the physical separation of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
A second option is to widen the existing facility. However, if a separate
bicycle facility is desired, other than simply a 'wider sidewalk', then State
standards dictate the minimum width. In addition, a simple widening alongside
the existing facility is not practical in a number of locations where vegetation
or physical improvements have occurred. If the existing facility were to be
widened, then the existing lighting standards would be in the shoulder area of
the bicycle path. Relocation of the light standards would be a major cost item.
The third option is to provide a bicycle path physically separated from the
existing facility. The intent would be to bypass all existing vegetation and
minor encroachments with the new bike trail. The distance of the separation
from the existing facility would vary, but generally the separation would be
kept between three to eight feet.
14
I
D_
I
U,
I
I
i
i
PEAK VS. OFF -PEAK DESIGN OPTION
In order to minimize the width of the bike path, it has been suggested
that a standard other than 'peak period' be used for design purposes. The
design criteria proposed are based on the minimum allowable standards. These
standards are suitable for the minimum conditions, such as those typically
encountered during the off - season along the Ocean Front Boardwalk. The
design standards proposed are not intended to provide a high level of service
in the summertime, only an improvement in the existing level, but not by any
means a free -flow condition.
15
I
' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK
Description of Alternatives
1 ALTERNATIVE NO.1 - REHABILITATE EXISTING FACILITY
The existing 10 to 12 -foot wide combination sidewalk /bicycle trail would be
reconstructed in its existing configuration to level the surface. No existing
improvements or trees would be removed.
IALTERNATIVE NO.3 - CONSTRUCT PARALLEL MEANDERING BIKE TRAIL
The existing walkway would be rehabilitated and a new 12 -foot wide bicycle
trail constructed. The bicycle trail would meander generally within three to
eight feet of the existing sidewalk but would jog around existing improvements
and trees to preclude any disruption to these facilities. Special alignments
which would go around critical areas adjacent to the two piers and would
bypass the elementary school are proposed. School officials have indicated they
I would be supportive of a trail located on the oceanside of their property, but
would be steadfastly opposed to a trail alignment which cut through their
I
1 16
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
- WIDEN EXISTING
FACILITY
The existing 10
to 12 -foot wide walkway
would be
rehabilitated and
widened to a width of
22 feet to provide
a 10 -foot walkway
and 12 -foot bicycle
trail. Existing street
lights would be
retained in their
present location
approximately ten feet
from the seawall.
This would leave
them in the shoulder
area of the bike trail.
Several existing
improvements and
some trees would be
removed or relocated.
IALTERNATIVE NO.3 - CONSTRUCT PARALLEL MEANDERING BIKE TRAIL
The existing walkway would be rehabilitated and a new 12 -foot wide bicycle
trail constructed. The bicycle trail would meander generally within three to
eight feet of the existing sidewalk but would jog around existing improvements
and trees to preclude any disruption to these facilities. Special alignments
which would go around critical areas adjacent to the two piers and would
bypass the elementary school are proposed. School officials have indicated they
I would be supportive of a trail located on the oceanside of their property, but
would be steadfastly opposed to a trail alignment which cut through their
I
1 16
I
F1
facilities between their classrooms and the athletic field. The bike trail would
connect with the existing broadwalk at all street ends by paving a small portion
of sand area that separates the two facilities. These connectors would be
designed so as to not interfere with any existing use of the beach at these
locations.
A number of suggestions have been presented regarding an alignment
which passes under the two piers as a means of circumventing problem areas in
jand about these two congested areas. Field investigation reveals there is
insufficient height clearance unless the bicycle trail were located at such a
tpoint near the water as to be washed away by high tide.
The alternative to provide a separate bicycle trail provides an opportunity
�. to address a safety issue associated with gates situated along the bulkhead
side of the Ocean Front Boardwalk. Presently, most of the homes located along
the Ocean Front have gates from their yards out onto the Boardwalk. A
number of residents have indicated that a potential safety problem exists when
they open their gates which swing onto the boardwalk and conflict with bicycle
traffic proceeding at relatively high speeds. Bicycles are supposed to stay on
the coast side of the Boardwalk, but do not necessarily do so. Provision of a
separate bicycle facility would remove bicycle traffic from the Boardwalk
adjacent to the bulkhead. In such a case, the opening of private gates would
not be a hazard either to pedestrians or bicycles, and the pedestrians would
have more room.
' Design Standards
Design standards for use on bikeways in the State of California are
established by law and published by Caltrans. In addition, since the Ocean
Front is designated as a Class I facility by the Orange County MPCB, a set of
County design standards, which are in some respects more rigid than State
Istandards, are applicable if County funding is to be used for construction.
I
1 17
I
I
tMuch discussion has occurred regarding what the design standards for the
Ocean Front should be. Some people, particularly residents, believe a simple 8
foot wide parallel bike trail is sufficient. The State design criteria requires
that if a separate bicycle facility is constructed, it must be a minimum of 8 'feet
of pavement with two 2 -foot wide shoulders for a total width of 12 feet. Sand
does not qualify as shoulder material.
I
I
Further, to satisfy Orange County standards, the bike trail must be a
minimum of 10 feet wide with two 2 -foot shoulders. Deviation from the State's
mandatory standards are possible, but only under the following conditions:
1. When a deviation is the safety equivalent of the mandatory standard.
2. When a lesser standard does not jeopardize safety and where
mandatory standard cannot be met.
In addition, it must be emphasized that this discussion of standards
addresses only the minimum requirements. As bicycle traffic increases, use of
even wider minimum standards is indicated. The guideline for using even
higher standards is when bicycle and /or pedestrian volumes become 'heavy'.
Heavy is not quantitatively defined, but no one would dispute that the
pedestrian and bicycle volumes experienced on the Ocean Front are heavy.
Therefore, the dimensions being considered for the Ocean Front bike trail,
i.e., 8 feet of bicycle trail with two 2 -foot paved shoulders, is the absolute
minimum permissible standard. Some opportunity exists to reduce the width of
the pedestrian facility.
18
E
.1
i
I
I
[I
!
!
I
!
I
I
'!
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
The recommended alignment for the separated facility is presented in the
following figures. These figures illustrate the general alignment as well as
specific details in key areas such as the two piers and elementary school.
The recommended improvement program incorporates all three alternative concepts,
including rehabilitation of existing facilities, widening of the existing
boardwalk, as well as construction of a separate bike trail on a parallel
meandering alignment. For purposes of discussion, the Ocean Front facility has
been subdivided into seven segments with limits as follows:
Segment
Limits Description
1
36th Street to 24th Street
(west end of Newport Pier parking lot)
2
Newport Pier
Parking Lot
(24th Street to 21st Street)
3
Newport Pier
to Lifeguard
Station Road (21st Street to 20th
Street)
4 20th Street to Newport Beach Elementary School (20th Street to
13th Street)
5 13th Street to Balboa Pier Parking Lot west end (13th Street to
Adams)
6 Balboa Pier Parking Lot to 'A' Street (Adams to 'A' Street)
7 'A' Street to 'E' Street
"The recommendation for each of these segments is discussed individually
below.
The recommended geometric cross - section for the Ocean Front Facility is
illustrated in Alternatives 2 and 3 (pages 20 and 21) for both the widening and
separate bike trail concepts. The widening concept essentially leaves the
existing 12 -foot wide boardwalk intact and adds an additional 10 feet of
19
I
I
I
C
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
20
4'
a
9i;,.,.
�rq,,,
H
N
�
4
W
2
z
ivy
E
a
°
N
7
g
�
H
A
W
?
C4 7t�
�
3
0 0 rj
3
a
o
4
a p
O�
N
IF
e
3
? �
+c
W` 0
�'Nr7 lore
u
s
N
F
t
u
0
M
t
20
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
a
H
E
H
z
r
�a a
E
C1 � a
a
_ a z
2
M
oQ ::
Q
_ a
N N O
e a a
V
N O
w � W
ro �
u, v
a o
0 •1 N
t
aa�.jj �® °
1®
21
pavement on the ocean side to serve bicycles. The existing street lights are
left in place two feet from the existing edge of the boardwalk, resulting in a.
bike trail which just barely satisfies minimum design standards for a bicycle
facility. As illustrated in Alternative 2, widening the existing boardwalk by 10
' feet essentially results in a 9 -foot wide sidewalk and a 12 -foot wide bike trail
(which includes two 2 -foot shoulders). In effect, this alternative concept
' provides a 22 -foot wide combination pedestrian /bike trail facility which is
precisely the same geometric cross- section as, used on the 'Strand' in Manhattan
Beach.
The other improvement concept recommended for use along some segments
of the Ocean Front, other than mere rehabilitation of the existing facility,
involves construction of a 12 -foot wide bike trail separated from the existing
boardwalk. This is the 'preferred' alternative in terms of its effect on physical
separation of pedestrians and bicycles. Field observation along with
conversation with officials having responsibility for the operation of ocean front
pedestrian /bicycle facilities, confirms that separate bike and pedestrian trails
produces relatively good separation of trail users whereas combined facilities
' result in practically no observance by users of signing and /or striping design
to separate pedestrians and bicycles.
Although the separate bike trail concept may be regarded as the
'preferred' alternative, the width of the beach at a number of locations and
limitations within the parking lots at the two pier parking lots necessitates that
another alternative be selected.
Segment 1 - 36th Street to 24th Street
This western end segment of the Ocean Front boardwalk is characterized
by a relatively narrow beach. Beachgoers typically utilize the sand from the
waterfront all the way back to the edge of the boardwalk. Since relatively few
palm trees or landscaped areas exist along this segment of the boardwalk, a
meandering type of alignment to avoid these would not be needed. Observation
of actual use of this beach reveals users typically utilize the entire sand area.
22
' Construction of a separate facility may constitute several impacts on this
particular segment of beach front. To reduce the impact of loss of sand area
in this segment, the alternative of widening the existing facility (Alt. 2, page
20) was selected. The bike trail would end at the west end of the Newport
Pier parking lot at a bicycle parking area. In addition, rehabilitation of the
existing boardwalk estimated to cost $25,000 is recommended. The cost of
construction of the widening for the bike trail is $105,000.
Segment 2 - 24th Street to 21st Street
i
This segment of the boardwalk is the Newport Pier Parking Lot and the
Pier itself. This area is characterized by a large parking lot with one-way
counter - clockwise circulation, a very narrow beach area, the 'Dory' Fleet and
' restrooms, with a number of small shops located along the narrow boardwalk
sidewalk. Bicycles are prohibited from using the boardwalk in this segment.
This is an area where little other than maintenance of the existing sidewalk
can be performed. The area is an origin or destination for many bicycle and
' pedestrian trips, thus the design concept of terminating the bicycle trail at a
bike parking area on the west side of the parking lot is a viable alternative.
Bicyclists would be required to utilize the parking lot circulation system to pass
through the area, but since vehicle speeds are slow (creeping speeds) and
' traffic patterns are one -way, this does constitute a safe path for bicycle use.
The feasibility of providing a separate bike trail around the parking lot was
investigated, but determined to be impractical due to the extremely narrow
' width of beach and palm trees on the ocean side of the parking lot. Field
observation reveals beachgoers routinely fill this entire beach from the
waterfront back to the parking lot, and sit on the wall. There is constant
pedestrian traffic from the parking lot to the beach. Any bike trail
constructed adjacent to the parking lot would not only intrude on an already
narrow beach, but would be subject to constant and heavy pedestrian
' cross- traffic from the parking lot, thereby negating any benefit provided by a
separate trail.
1 23
I
' The design concept for the Newport Pier parking lot calls for terminating
the bike trail on each end of the parking lot by providing bicycle parking
areas. The Newport Pier is a major origin- destination area for many users.
Ramps between the parking lot and bicycle trail would be provided on both
ends of the parking lot. Cyclists would 'be required to comingle with vehicles
and utilize the parking lot circulation system to transverse this area. Bicycles
would continue to be restricted from the sidewalk adjacent to the shops on the
north side of the parking lot. Investigation of ,potential widening of the
sidewalk shows this to be unfeasible due to the narrow beach width in this
' area. The estimated cost of providing the two bicycle parking areas on each
end of the parking lot and for constructing the access ramps is $10,000.
Segment 3 - 21st Street to 20th Street
This segment of the boardwalk in the vicinity of the lifeguard station on
' the east side of the Newport Pier is characterized by commercial shops and
homes on the north side of the boardwalk with a wide beach, bike parking,
picnic area, and is the planned area for new restrooms. The access road to
the lifeguard 'station from 20th Street also crosses this segment.
' The improvement concept for this area calls for widening the existing
boardwalk by 10 feet, rehabilitation of the existing sidewalk and restriping to
' direct bicycles to bike parking and the intended access to the Newport Pier
parking lot circulation system. Some palm trees will require minor relocation.
The purpose of this segment is to provide a transitional area between the
' Newport Pier parking lot, where no separate bike trail will exist and the
proposed separated bike trail situated between the two piers. The cost of the
widening in this segment is estimated to be $25,000 and the rehabilitation of the
existing sidewalk is estimated to cost $40,000.
Segment 4 - 20th Street to 13th Street (Newport Beach Elementary School)
' The segment of boardwalk between 20th Street and the Newport Elementary
24
L
L!
School (13th Street) is characterized by a wide beach, ,particularly as
' contrasted with that from the Newport Pier westerly, an increased number of
palm trees adjacent to the boardwalk in some areas, the showers /restrooms at
' 15th Street, and the elementary school. The boardwalk (sidewalk) presently
transverses the school grounds and school officials request for safety reasons
that any bicycle trail go around the school and not cut between the classrooms
and playground. Such an alignment would cause a serious conflict with large
numbers of children who frequently pass between these two school facilities.
' Observation reveals a number of school children ride bicycles to /from school
and when school dismisses, approximately 100 children use the boardwalk.
The proposed design concept in this segment is to provide a 12 foot wide
separated bike trail which meanders along the general alignment of the
boardwalk. This separate bicycle trail would have access to public street ends
which terminate on the north side of the boardwalk. The bike trail would be
kept close to the existing boardwalk, meandering from 3 to 8 feet away, but
would attain wider separation where necessary to avoid existing palm trees as
' well as several other existing 'uses' which have developed on the ocean side of
the boardwalk. The intent of the bike trail is not to disturb any existing uses
along the beach and to intrude as little as possible. With the wider beach that
exists between the piers, it appears that a separate bike trail is feasible within
' this segment. The existing boardwalk would also be repaired where necessary.
For the segment between 14th Street and 13th Street, it is proposed to
construct the 12 -foot wide trail around the school playground. The existing
boardwalk between the school grounds and the playground area will be repaired
as necessary.
The estimated cost of construction of the separated bicycle trail in this
segment is $160,000 and the cost of rehabilitation of the existing boardwalk is
estimated at $25,000.
1 25
Segment 5 - 13th Street to Adams Street
The segment of the Ocean Front from 13th Street to Adams Street is
similar to the previous segment (Segment 4). It is characterized by a wide
beach with houses fronting on the boardwalk. In addition, this segment has a
' number of large areas of vegetation and sand dunes.
The proposed improvement calls for future widening of the existing
facility to a minimum of 22 feet. Since much of it is already 20 feet in width,
minimal widening will be required. Widening will require relocation of some
1 26
The proposed improvement in this segment is the same as for Segment 4,
i.e., a separate 12 -foot wide bike trail which meanders adjacent to the existing
boardwalk except it avoids all palm trees and activity areas which have
'
developed within many of the dunes areas. The primary difference between
this segment and Segment 4 is that this segment is considered somewhat lower
in priority for implementation, particularly because the elementary school is
'
situated in Segment 4. In addition, general observation of pedestrian /bicycle
activity appears to be somewhat less in this segment although perhaps not
appreciably so. The estimated cost-of constructing the bike trail is $205,000
and the cost of necessary rehabilitation is estimated at $32,500.
'
Segment 6 - Adams Street (Balboa Pier) to 'A' Street
Segment 6 is the Balboa Pier segment of the Ocean Front boardwalk and is
'
characterized by the high visitor /pedestrian /bicycle activity associated with the
pier. Within this segment, the existing boardwalk varies in width from 16 to 20
feet with some opportunity to provide limited additional widening to achieve a
'
minimum standard width of 22 feet. The feasibility of providing a separate bike
trail around the parking lot and passing under the pier itself was found not to
be possible since the required minimum 8 feet of clearance under the pier could
not be provided.
The proposed improvement calls for future widening of the existing
facility to a minimum of 22 feet. Since much of it is already 20 feet in width,
minimal widening will be required. Widening will require relocation of some
1 26
i7]
1
street lights and narrowing of the landscaped setback of the parking lot.
' However, when considering that a phased implementation of construction of the
bicycle trail is probably required, it is recommended that Segment 6 be
' considered low priority.
' The estimated cost of widening the existing boardwalk is $50,000.
Virtually no rehabilitation is required in this area.
Segment 7 - 'A' Street to 'E' Street
Segment 7 is the last segment on the eastern end of the Ocean Front.
This segment is characterized by the relatively wide beach with residents
fronting on the north side. The sand has large areas covered with dunes, ice
plant, and several activity areas. A grass park area exists between 'A' and 'B'
' Streets.
The proposed improvement in this segment includes providing a separate 12
foot wide bike trail which meanders adjacent to the existing boardwalk and
through the ice plant, but avoiding all activity areas which exist. A circular
turn- around could be provided at 'D' Street where access to /from Balboa Blvd
already exists. In addition, considerable rehabilitation of the existing
t boardwalk should be provided in this segment. In terms of priority, this
segment constitutes the east end and least used segment by bicycles, and
should be considered low in priority.
The estimated cost of constructing the separate bike trail is $95,000 and
' the cost of rehabilitation of the existing boardwalk is $47,000.
' PRIORITY OF IMPLEMENTATION
' Construction of a bicycle trail and rehabilitation of the existing Ocean
1 27
1'
Front Boardwalk is a major cost
undertaking (estimated total cost
of $827,500),
1
and is therefore expected to require a phased implementation program. Based
on observation of activity and
continuity of improvements, a two stage
implementation is recommended.
Top priority would be given to
Segments 1
through 4, with lower priority assigned to Segments 5, 6 and 7.
Segment 1
'
could be implemented separately,
but Segment 3 should preceed or
be completed
concurrently with Segment 4.
1
i
i
1
1
u
i
1
1
1
n
U
i
28
1
'
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
'
LENGTH
NEW CONSTRUCTION
REHAB.
BOARDWALK
TOTAL
SEGMENT
(feet)
Priority Cost*
Priority Cost **
COST
'
1
(36th - 24th)
2,680
1 $105,000
3
$ 32,500
$137,500
2
(24th - 21st)
--
- 10,000
-
--
10,000
'
3
(21st - 20th)
250
1 25,000
2
40,000
65,000
4
(20th - 13th)
3,730
1 160,000
3
25,000
185,000
t5
- Adams)
4,940
2 205,000
3
32,500
237,500
(13th
'
6
(Adams to 'A')
300
2 50,000
-
--
50,000
7
('A' to 'E')
2,080
2 95,000
1
47,500
142,500
13,980
$650,000
$177,500
Totals
$827,500
*Includes 25 percent for
contingency and engineering, $2.50 /SF cost of
concrete
construction and
provision of three (3) bike parking areas in each segment.
*
*Includes 25 percent contingency and engineering,
$0.50 /SF
removal cost
and
'
$2.50/SF reconstruction
cost.
1
29
November 5, 1986
TO: PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: Bicycle Trails Citizens' Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: OCEAN FRONT BOARDWALK FEASIBILITY STUDY
I The Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee ( BTCAC) has completed
the subject study and it is now ready for a public hearing before the Parks,
Beaches & Recreation Commission. The report was prepared by the civil engi-
neering firm of Austin -Foust Associates of Santa Ana. A Bicycle Trails Ad Hoc
Subcommittee, composed of representatives from the BTCAC and the homeowner asso-
ciations on the peninsula worked with the consultant and their comments and
comments from Mr. Bill Ficker have been attached to the study.
The BTCAC is pleased with the study and makes the following recommen-
dation: Approve the Ocean Front Boardwalk Feasibility Study with the following
additions:
1. Incorporate a speed study and establish speed limits for the proj-
ect.
2. As stated in the study, all new improvements should avoid existing
improvements, landscaping and sand dunes where possible.
3. Provide bike parking facilities and a means of incorporating them
as access from street ends to the proposed bike trail whenever
possible.
r4. Use Alternate 3 (separated trail) for segment I (36th Street to
24th Street).
5. Make every effort to coordinate Ocean Front boardwalk with• the'
MacFadden Square Specific Area Plan.
I 6. Make every effort to coordinate with the Ocean Front homeowners
and associations who may wish to participate in the project finan-
cially for landscaping and design modifications.
Ray Melissa
Chairman, Bicycle Trails Citizens' Advisory Committee
I
I
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
OCEAN FRONT BIKE TRAIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
Meeting of September 23, 1986
A meeting of the Ocean Front Ad Hoc Subcommittee was held at the Newport Beach
City Hall Fire Department facilities. A number of comments were offered by mem-
bers of the Subcommittee regarding the feasibility report prepared by
Austin -Foust Associates and about a potential project to improve the existing
ocean front facility. They are summarized as follows:
COMMENTS:
1. The business owners along the ocean front near the Balboa Pier would
like to see the bicycle traffic diverted from the boardwalk out into
the parking lot, if possible.
Dona Colombero, Balboa Improvement Association
2. The Balboa Peninsula Point Association would like to see the bikes
removed from the ocean front east of the Balboa Pier. If bikes are to
remain, they would prefer a double trail system which is not a ribbon
of concrete a long way out in the sand like the trail in Playa del Ray.
Dona Colombero, Balboa Peninsula Point Association
3. There should be provisions for ample bicycle parking all along the pro-
posed project. Part of the congestion on the existing trail near the
Balboa Pier is due to parked bicycles on or adjacent to the boardwalk.
iDona Colombero, Balboa Improvement Association
4. The proposed project should address the issue of controlling speed and
defining what is reasonable. The report should address the questions
of pedestrian cross traffic and ways of controlling bike speed.
5. The proposed project should preserve the existing pedestrian walks out
' toward the ocean and should add bicycle parking at the ends. This will
provide some secur ty for cyclists who use the beach and will help keep
large number of bikes from being locked to the lighting standards or
near the ocean front residents' fences.
Bill Ficker, Central Newport Beach Community Association
6. lnvestigate removal of parking in the first row of the Newport Pier
parking lot adjacent to the existing boardwalk. This would provide for
a complete trail system versus a piecemeal or partially completed
trail.
Bill Ficker, Central Newport Beach Community Association
I
C
J
3
Page 2
7.
A great deal of thought and planning has gone into a proposed meandering
parallel walk and bicycle path as recommended by Bill Ficker and the
'
Central Newport Beach Community Association. It should not be ignored
in an evaluation.
Bill Ficker, Central Newport Beach Community Association
8.
The 15th Street School is in favor of the proposed trail alignment
around the playground area as it is proposed. Some consideration
during the design stage should be given to a method of preventing bike
traffic from using the existing trail between the school facilities and
the playground.
Gary Schniepp, West Newport Association
9.
The trail segment between 36th and 24th Streets should be proposed as a
separated trail system similar to the other segments. A single widened
1
trail section is not effective in isolating bicycle traffic from
pedestrian traffic.
Sterling Wolfe, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Bill Ficker, Central Newport Beach Community Association
10.
The City staff should coordinate the efforts of the Planning
Department in i'ts work on the McFadden Square Specific Area Plan which
is now being studied by a private consultant.
Sterling Wolfe, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
11.
Final trail design with regard to construction of new sidewalk, new
bike trail and landscaping should be coordinated with the homeowner
associations for financial participation.
Sterling Wolfe, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
C
J
3
'I
1
ii
J
Anna Pistole (excused), Tom MacKinnon„ Rob Patterson
I. CALL TO ORDER (Ray Melisa)
1 II
I
lJ
l7 "
1
4
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
B. Reading of the minutes of the last meeting was waived. The were
approved as written.
C.. The Chair discussed the purpose of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee and what
was expected of the members.
1. That they are charged with representing and conveying the
interests of the Associations from which they were appointed.
STUDY REPORT (John Wolter)
A. A brief summary of the Feasibility Study Report was given. Several
key points of the study were discussed.
1. The volume counts for summer and winter.
2. The user interview survey.
3. The segmentation of the trial and the assigned relative priori-
ties for construction and rehabilitation.
4. General observations of trail use and the study report.
B. Several photographic slides were presented to illustrate other bike
trails in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
1. The examples shown were discussed. General observations about
the uses, widths and traffic volumes were also discussed.
'
BICYCLE
TRAILS CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: September 23, 1986
7:00 p.m. TOPIC: Ocean Front -Bike Trail
THOSE IN ATTENDANCE:
Sterling Wolfe
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Ray Melissa
Bicycle Trails Citizens' Advisory Committee
Fran Farrer
Bicycle Trails Citizens' Advisory Committee
Bill Ficker
Central Newport Beach Association
Dona Colombero
Balboa Improvement Association
Gary Schniepp
West Newport Beach Association
John Wolter
City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department
Jeff Staneart
City, of Newport Beach, Pjublic Works Department
THOSE ABSENT:
'I
1
ii
J
Anna Pistole (excused), Tom MacKinnon„ Rob Patterson
I. CALL TO ORDER (Ray Melisa)
1 II
I
lJ
l7 "
1
4
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
B. Reading of the minutes of the last meeting was waived. The were
approved as written.
C.. The Chair discussed the purpose of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee and what
was expected of the members.
1. That they are charged with representing and conveying the
interests of the Associations from which they were appointed.
STUDY REPORT (John Wolter)
A. A brief summary of the Feasibility Study Report was given. Several
key points of the study were discussed.
1. The volume counts for summer and winter.
2. The user interview survey.
3. The segmentation of the trial and the assigned relative priori-
ties for construction and rehabilitation.
4. General observations of trail use and the study report.
B. Several photographic slides were presented to illustrate other bike
trails in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
1. The examples shown were discussed. General observations about
the uses, widths and traffic volumes were also discussed.
' Bicycle Trails Citizens' Advisory Committee
Summary of Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meeting of September 23, 1986
Page 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
g. City of Los Angeles
III. ROLE OF PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION (Sterling Wolfe)
A. The function of the Commission was discussed. Sterling spoke about
the budgetary process and scheduling of proposed projects through
the Commission. He also discussed the public hearing process.
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
A. A number of key points and issues were discussed 'by members of the
Committee and the City staff representatives.
1. Refer to the attached "Summary of Comments ".
2. These comments will be forwarded to the Bicycle Citizens' Trails
Advisory Committee ( BTCAC) and to the City Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission for review and public hearing.
V. ADJOURN
A. There being no further comments or discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
941516- z ko-�
Jeff Staneart
BTCAC City Staff Liaison
JS:jd
Att.
2. Trails photographed included those in:
a.
Playa del Ray
b.
Isadora Dockweiler State Beach
c.
Manhattan Beach "The Strand"
d.
Hermosa Beach
3. Others
discussed, but not photographed included:
a.
Huntington Beach
b.
Costa Mesa
c.
Irvine
d.
County of Orange
e.
Venice Beach
f.
Santa Monica
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
g. City of Los Angeles
III. ROLE OF PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION (Sterling Wolfe)
A. The function of the Commission was discussed. Sterling spoke about
the budgetary process and scheduling of proposed projects through
the Commission. He also discussed the public hearing process.
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS
A. A number of key points and issues were discussed 'by members of the
Committee and the City staff representatives.
1. Refer to the attached "Summary of Comments ".
2. These comments will be forwarded to the Bicycle Citizens' Trails
Advisory Committee ( BTCAC) and to the City Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission for review and public hearing.
V. ADJOURN
A. There being no further comments or discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
941516- z ko-�
Jeff Staneart
BTCAC City Staff Liaison
JS:jd
Att.
F I C K E R & R U F F I N G • ARCH IT E C T S
610 Newport Center Drive • Suite 630 • Newport Beach, Calif. 926GO • 714.544. 1581
September 23r 1986
IFrom: William P. Picker
William P. Porker, AIA
Paul J. Rulhng. AIA
James L. Van Dallsen, AIA
Arnold E. Maron. AIA
'
1. The following comments are not intended to cover every
aspect of the report, but to provide some input#
particularlyr from a community planning standpoints and
hopefully# will be helpful in committing the residents
'
of the Ocean Front and the community to a mutually
beneficial improvement of the "boardwalk "'.
1.1 I was pleased to see that the Ocean Front boardwalk is
primarily used by residents of Newport Beach. I
believe a lot of us feel that is the main purpose of
the boardwalk, and that it should be encouraged for a
more casual riding.
It is also obvious from Page T of the report and from
our observations that the bicycle traffic is not a
"commuter" type of traffic, and virtually no
"professional" cyclists use the path.
I think this brings up an important subject in
analyzing our final criteria, because this.report only
seems to be concerned with "peak" usage.
Probably# 300 days out of the year the sidewalk is
virtually empty and we should consider whether we wish
'
to design the sidewalk for those particular "peak"
Sundays. Normally# roads in local areas are not
designed for peak crowds# such as football games, etc:
1
We merely put up with some inconvenience and slow our
speeds, etc. during these peak Saturday or Sunday
traffic times.
You will recall at an earlier meeting almost a year
ago# there was a comment made that the speed must be 20
' miles an hour for bicycles. I would strongly suggest
that some other speed be considered# design or
limitations put on the path that would restrict -this
speed. That is certainly one way of making the walk
safer and smaller.
6 '
I .,
September 23, 1986
Ocean Front Boardwalk
Page Two
2.
I hope we don't compare our Ocean Front walk with the
"strand" at Manhattan Beach or Hermosa Beach. I would
not like to see us get into the syndrome of saying,
"What is good enough for them, is good enough for us ".
These are very ugly walks and bicycle trails.
'
3.
There is one area I think that has been overlooked in
the report and we should consider strongly in the
design. On weekends when our very heaviest bicycle
traffic occurs, there is also extremely heavy
pedestrian traffic at street ends and from houses, etc.
across the boardwalk. The point is that consideration
must be given to everyone, and perhaps, in our earlier
meetings and in the report, there seems to be only
total consideration given to bicycle traffic. .
'
4.
With regard to "Bicycle Trail Standards ", I believe a
10 foot wide or even 8 foot minimum would be adequate
and would easily fulfill the requirements. I believe
the original intent of 2 foot shoulders was, in fact,
to have a 2 foot clear area, so if you went off of the
bicycle trail you would not plow into boulders,
concrete buttresses, plants, etc. If you keep ,
considering that 2 foot shoulders are required, there
is no limit to the width that will finally occur. In
'
an emergency maneuver I see people go off into the
sand and there doesn't seem to be a problem. I am sure
they would go off of the 2 foot shoulder into the sand
just as well.
iI
see no requirement in any information I have that
says that shoulder must support a bicycle... I also find
no justification for the quantitative identity of high
volume ,and a 14 foot width as a minimum. High volume
should have something to do with 365 days of the year
use, not with an occasional event like a hot Sunday 25
'
times a year.
5.
With regard to the "accident" investigation, I think
the occurrence of accidents further supports a trail
closer in dimension to that proposed by the Central
Newport Beach Community Association.
6.
Improvement Alternatives.
I hope we can reach a reasonable conclusion that will
improve both the functional capabilities of the
'•
boardwalk for pedestrians and bicycles, and the
aesthetic qualities of the Ocean Front as well.
September 23, 1986
' Ocean Front Boardwalk
Page Three
7. Page 15.
Peak vs. Off -Peak Design Option, I think is a
very valid consideration.
' 8. Page 16.
I think there is a gross error made and there should be
a fourth alternative added to the report. A great deal
of thought and planning has gone into the proposed
meandering parallel walk and bicycle path recommended
by the Central Newport Beach Community Association. I
don't believe this should be ignored in an evaluation.
9. Design Standards.
Here again, I think there is an opportunity to discuss
and analyze these. There are, I believe, opportunities
to provide a safe yet reasonable dimensioned walk and
bicycle trail.
10. Recommended Alignments.
I would agree that the alignment should not go under
the piers and that Ocean Front sand should not be used
for bicycle trailse such as near the Newport Pier and
areas where the beach is narrow. If these were.
'
"commuter" type trails, then perhaps, in order to avoid
interference, that might be a more reasonable
alignment. However, I think keeping the bicycle trails
close to the users, that is the homes and businesses in
Balboa, is valid. People will still want,to use the
walks in front of the Balboa Inn, etc. for casual
'
bicycling.
I would feel that, perhaps, we are too concerned about
the bicycle path in front of the grammar school. I am
'
as much concerned as anyone about the safety of the
children crossing the sidewalk at any place along the
Peninsula. However, at the highest time of use, the
school is locked Saturdays and Sundays and I believe it
is fair to. say that there is virtually, no bicycle on
the Ocean Front sidewalk during school hours, perhaps,
a few older residents who are bicycling slowly and
probably quite carefully. Maybe during school hours or
"recess there could even be some type of control, or we
could have strong posting and slowing of bicycles in
that area, special signing marks on the sidewalk, etc.
1:
i
September 23, 1986
i
Ocean Front Boardwalk
Page Four
10. Conclusion.
I hope the above remarks with the very good report
prepared for us will help us to reach a reasonable
conclusion, and I would also strongly recommend that
i
there are many considerations, such as aesthetics that
need not compromise a reasonable design for efficient
and safe pedestrian and bicycle use.
iEvery
location has special needs, and good planning
will provide some compromise for everyone and some
opportunities for everyone. Problems arise in a
i
community when any segment of the community is ignored
or considered superfluous to a decision. Planning must
include all of the users, including those who live on
the Ocean Front and those whom are physically and
i
visually impacted by the sidewalk and those that merely
come to the beach for the day, park at the street end
'
and cross the bicycle trail.
I have attached a copy of the proposed alternative
suggested by the Central Newport Beach Community
Association and which has received almost unanimous
support by the residents. This should not be ignored
in our deliberations. It is not considered a "final"
plan, but does take into some consideration details and
i
opportunities of planning.
I hope the above is constructive and helpful in.
i
reaching final conclusions for an improved Ocean Front
boardwalk.
i
iJ
i
i
WPF:sw
Enclosure
I
1
1
1
0
U
U
v
O
1
.i
I
9
I
tip 1�xU.� hlxK,
-u,
C�
1
.i
I
9
I
tip 1�xU.� hlxK,
-u,
A- -, y -J
JOHN F. HEYDORFF
• Furniture Design /Consultant
0
January 29, 1987
Mr. Sterling Wolfe, Chairman
City of Newport Beach
Parks Beach & Recreation Commission
City Hall
3300 Newport Beach Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Re: OCEANFRONT BOARDWALK
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
As a long -time Newport Beach resident, I would like it to
be known that I disapprove any expansion of the current
Boardwalk, and would like it to remain as is!
I would be interetted and supportive of the controlled
use of summer bike thoroughfare on the Boardwalk.
In addition, I would prefer to see public funds spent in
controlling the flooding problems along Balboa Blvd., i.e.
especially in the area of Newport Elementary School. These
problems are especially evident at high tide (salt water),
rainy days, and on Sundays after several car washings by
area residents. This flooding is a traffic and safety hazard
since cars unfamiliar to this area drive right into it and
can cause accidents.
Also, I believe we would be better served if more tennis
courts were built rather than more ,parking lots!
I appreciate your time and your attention to this letter, and
the possibility of limiting the growth of the Boardwalk.
Co dially yo urs,
John F. eydorff
JFH:mv
cc: Committe Personnel
(See Attached)
908 WEST OCEANFRONT • BALBOA, CALIFORNIA 92661 • (714) 675 -5069
E
¢°, �'i}
�N ��� "y,'� ���f aqy�ry3o^
Jr\
c
I,
I
0
7sIL
����%
January 28,1987
�—� Sterling Wolfe, Chairman PB &R Commission
John Cox, Mayor City of Newport Beach
% City of Newport Beach
3300 NewportBoulevard
P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, Calif. 92658
Dear Sir:
We have owned our home on the ocean front for thirty years
For some time we had a pleasant walking path where families and
their children had access to the beach.
Without notification, the path suddenly became a bilfe trail,
and we had speeding bikes. Families were constantly warning
their children to "watch out for bikes." Regardless of where
a bike path is put, the danger will still be there.
There are many miles of safe bike trails in the county
but beaches are limited. Please 1•eave the beaches for thee-
enjoyment of bathers, children and families. she bike trail
on the ocean front should be eliminated!
Sincerely,
J. Wm. Miller
814 W. Ocean Front
Balboa, Calif. 92661
0
•
•
III
Planning and Design
Criteria
for Bikeways
in California
a
Pursuant to: Sections 2373, 2374,
2375, and 2376 of the
Streets and Highways Code
APPROVED: (�4"w rygal R�
ADRIANA GIANTURCO
Director of Transportation
'DATE: June 30, 1978
State of California
Business and Transportation Agency
Department of Transportation
Design Speed
The proper design speed for a'bike path is
dependent on the expected type of use and on the
terrain. The minimum design speed for Plko paths
chalZ be 90 mph. The following design speeds are
recommended:
Bike Paths with Mopeds
Prohibited
Bike Paths with Mopeds
Permitted
Bike Paths on Long Downgrades
(stee.per than 4 percent, and
longer than 500 feet).
Design Speed (mph)
20
30
30
rnstaZlation of "speed bumps'" or other similar surface
obstructions, intended to cause bicyclists to slow down
in advance of intersections, shaZZ not be used. Such devices
can cause bicyclists to fall and can result in serious
injuries. These devices cannot compen §ate for improper
design..
Horizontal Alignment and Superelevation
Minimum recommended curve radii and superelevations
for various design speeds are shown on figure 2. When
minimum curve radii are selected, increased pavement
width on the inside of the curve is recommended to com-
pensate for bicyclist lean.
A straight 2 percent cross slope is recommended on
tangent sections. Superelevations steeper than 2 percent
should be avoided on bike paths expected to ,have adult
tricycle traffic.
Stopping Sight Distance
Figure 3 indicates the minimum
distances for various design speeds
two -way bike paths, the descending
the design.
Length of Crest Vertical Curves
stopping sight
and grades. For
direction will control
Figure 4 indicates the minimum lengths of crest
vertical curves for varying design speeds.
0
-15-
POOR s
January 26, 1987 v JAN2 ?1987
CITY OF
• N�'PQRT d °!!Cy
Qur'
TO: JOHN WOLTER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -j'
FROM: Moon Milne, General Services Department
SUBJECT: COST OF SWEEPING OCEAN FRONT SIDEWALK
The Ocean Front sidewalk is now being swept 2 times weekly under normal
conditions.
The cost for this, using a small air sweeper, is $130.44 /weekly.
During the summer months the frequency becomes almost daily due to the in-
flux of people at the beach.
Several times yearly we have high winds which blow sand from the beach onto
the sidewalk. During these situations we have to use large front -end loaders,
large street sweepers and man power to clean the Ocean Front sidewalk.
If the new bike trail is to be placed beside the existing sidewalk, I would
suggest a raised medium between the two that would be a minimum of 6 inches
high. This would give the sweeper something to sweep to, and would eliminate
hand cleaning.
•
Merle (Moon) Milne
MM /ib
r
i
Cs Zx -j-e_0 0 97
lLt e ✓.�:� �� e a v l�
✓bl*rA"A
w )d jw�l
PUBLIC HEARING
The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
WILL BE' CONDUCTING. A PUBLIC HEARING ON
WOPOSED OCEAN FRONT BICYCLE PATH ALTERNATIVES.
DATE: ' TUESDAY; FEBRUARY 3; 1987
TIME: 7:30 pm
LOCATION:' CITY -COUNCIL CHAMBERS'
3300 NEWPORT BLVD.'
NEWPORT BEACH; CA
INrORMATION: ' (714)' ' 644 -3151'
1]
Item No. 5.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - NEWPORT -MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recommendation:
If desired, recommend to the City-Council that the attached agreement, as
amended,,be approved.
Discussion:
The Joint Powers Agreement has been a long standing document that has
provided a relationship with the School District that allows an exchange
of facilities, equipment and services.
Of recent concern has been the liability issue as it relates to our use of
• school facilities for community recreation programs. Item 20 is a revised
statement that clarifies this -issue and amends the existing agreement.
Both the County counsel and our City Attorney's office have proposed this
language. If there are any questions, please feel free to call.
•
Kro M1. '' /
0
:L
2I
• 3i JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
41
5 WHEREAS, t-he Newport Beach Department of Parks, Beaches and
Recreation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", and the Newport -
6 Mesa Unified School District, hereinafter referred to as
"DISTRICT" are both authorized to organize, promote and conduct
7 programs for community recreation; and
8 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has facilities and grounds available
for community recreation on the campuses of the schools maintained
9 I by said DISTRICT;q and
10 WHEREAS, it is desired that the CITY have priority to use
said facilities when such facilities are not being used by the
11 DISTRICT for educational purposes, use of school facilities will
be permitted in the following order of priority:
i
121 1. Regular school programs, including Summer School
131 activities.
141 2. CITY sponsored and /or school connected youth programs,
i e.g., Harbor Area Baseball Program.
15' 3. Other oy uth activities
• 16I 4. CITY adult
programs
17 5. Other adult
programs
181 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that cooperative use shall be
19i made according to the following:
20I 1. The DISTRICT will make available its facilities and
grounds, with the necessary* equipment and appurtenances for
21 community recreation on all of its campuses upon proper request
from the CITY, subject to the conditions noted herein.
22
CITY agrees to grant to DISTRICT, upon application, the use
23 of any recreational facility, area, maintenance service, or
equipment owned by the City of Newport Beach which the DISTRICT
24 may require in connection with its public school program, provided
the use of such recreational facility, area, maintenance service,
25 or equipment for public school purposes shall not interfere with
its use by the CITY for community recreational ,purposes.
26 2. Such DISTRICT facilities will be made available as long
27 as the use in no way conflicts with the use of the D'ISTRICT'S
buildings, grounds or equipment for school purposes or interferes
28 with the regular conduct of school work. The DISTRICT reserves
the right to cancel th:e use of its facilities upon seven (7)
• ( working days notice when such planned use is considered to be in
conflict with the use of such facilities for school purposes.
p� ,I
I ! REF. 34.5
I
z
t
• 41
0
•
A
7I
81
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
N
3.. All requests for use of facilities of the DISTRICT are
to be made by the CITY on forms provided, by the DISTRICT.
4. All requests for use of facilities and /or equipment of
the CITY are to be made by the DISTRICT on forms provided by the
CITY.
5. The DISTRICT is to be informed, in writing, of all
policies and procedures of the CITY's operations insofar as they
relate to the use of the DISTRICT'S facilities.
6. The CITY is to be responsible for enforcing the
DISTRICT's policies, pro,cedures and rules relative to its use of
the DISTRICT's facilities as determined by the Board of Education
in DISTRICT Rule and Regulation No. 7410.
7. As the DISTRICT develops facilities on its campuses, its
facilities shall first provide and assist in the instructional
program and second, add-to the CITY's program development,.
8. All requests for use of facilities and equipment of the
DISTRICT shall be in the office of the Business Manager not less
than ten (10') working days before such use.
9. The DISTRICT agrees'to provide at a mutually agreed upon
rate all custodial services, maintenance and operations costs
for the DISTRICT facilities.
10. In the event the DISTRICT enters into a like or similar
agreement to this agreement with the City of Costa Mesa, they
shall provide in said agreement that the City of Costa Mesa shall
be restricted to reserving facilities within their municipal
boundaries and that the City of Costa Mesa shall cooperate with
the CITY in scheduling u-se of the DISTRICT stadium and the
DISTRICT Olympic swimming pool. With the exception of the above
facilities, it is further agreed that the CITY shall restrict its
facility use requests to those DISTRICT facilities located within
the boundaries of the CITY. It is agreed that such cooperation is
for the purpose of resolving any possible conflicts in the use of
the facilities of the DISTRICT by either the CITY or the City of
Costa Mesa.
11. The CITY shall present to the DISTRICT, through the
Superintendent of the Newport —Mesa Unified School District, a
projected annual program for the use of facilities of the
DISTRICT.
12. The CITY shall provide the DISTRICT with an annual
report which shall identify the groups served, the type of program
conducted and the actual cost of operation of CITY programs on
DISTRICT facilities -on or before July 10 for the previous fiscal
year.
REF. 34.6
13. The CITY shall select and provide all paid or voluntary
31 personnel necessary to conduct CITY recreational activities upon
4 DISTRICT facilities.
5 14. If a charge is made in any form, even to cover expenses
for a recreation activity on a DISTRICT facility, advance approval
6 shall be secured from the DISTRICT. Such funds received shall
remain with the CITY to be used to help defray the cost of ,the
7 recreation activity. Such charges shall not preclude any boy or
girl from participation in the program strictly because of lack of
8j funds.
9I "No events for which an admission price is charged
shall be held pursuant to Chapter 10 of the
10' Education Code of the State of California (commencing
at Section 10900), except amateur athletic contests,
111 demonstrations or exhibits and other educational and
non - commercial events."
12 15. The DISTRICT shall provide the CITY with summer
131 maintenance schedules well in advance. It is agreed' that such
cooperation is for the purpose of alleviating any possible
14� conflicts in the use of the facilities and negating any incon-
venience to the citizens of the community.
25i 16. The DISTRICT shall provide reasonable office space at
• 26� swimming pool locations to the CITY during summer months. It is
171 further agreed that the DISTRICT shall provide reasonable storage
facilities to the CITY on a year round basis.
181 17. The CITY shall be responsible for the installation and
191 operational charges assessed for additional telephones installed
on a DISTRICT facility for use by the CITY.
20I CITY. 18. All expendable supplies shall be provided by the
21 19. The CITY shall be financially responsible for damages or
22 losses to DISTRICT facilities and equipment beyond fair wear and
tear during the, use by the CITY, and the DISTRICT shall be
23 financially responsible for damages or losses to CITY facilities
and' equipment during use by the DISTRICT.
24 20. CITY agrees to protect, indemnify and hold harmless the
E5� DISTRICT, its Board Members, officials and employees from any and
all claims, demands, liabilities and obligations of whatsoever
26 nature, including attorneys fees and court costs arising out of or
in connection with any negligent act or omission of CITY or the
27 occupancy or use of the leased premises or any part thereof by
CITY or directly or indirectly from any state or condition of the
28 premises or any part thereof arising out'of the operation amd
• I maintenance of the leased premises.
CITY further agrees that DISTRICT shall not be liable at
I any time for any loss, damage,, or injury to the leased premises or
any person whomsoever at any time occasioned by or arising out of,
°� ` REF. 34.7
11
21
31 any negligent act or omission of the CITY, or directly or
indirectly from any state or condition of the leased premises or
4 any part thereof caused by any negligent act or omission of the
CITY.
5 This Agreement shall supersede all
p previous agreements and be
6 a continuing Agreement in force and effect from the date of
execution by the last party to execute same and shall continue
7 from year to year until its termination. Said Agreement may be
terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written
8� notice.
9IIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused this AGREEMENT to be
executed by the Mayor of the City Council of the City of
10 Newport Beach, acting as the governing board of the Parks, Beaches
and Recreation Department, attested by its Clerk thereunto duly
11 authorized, and the DISTRICT has caused this Agreement to be
executed by its Board of 'Education on the date written opposite
121 their signatures.
13I Dated: 198 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
14
ATTEST: By:
15; By: Mayor, City of Newport Beach
• 16 City Clerk„ City of Newport Beach
17
Dated: January 13 198L NEWPORT —MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
18
19 By .
20 e
21
22
23
Member r bf ducation
24
25
26
27
28
Ll
REF. 34.8
C1
Item No. 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
For information and discussion purposes, the attached communication
describes a cooperative program of "Art in Public Places" proposed
for Inspiration Point in Corona del'Mar. This report was discussed
between the Arts Commission and the•City Council at the Study Session
of January 26, 1987.
Commissioner Herberts and I have been involved in this unique and
creative concept and will continue to provide involvement.
I
•
t
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 26, 1987
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ARTS COMMISSION
SUBJECT: ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
STUDY SESSION NO. 1
ACTION: If desired, authorize Arts Commission to divert $10,700
of budgeted funds from Arts Festival to,Art In Public
Places - Inspiration Point Design Competition.
BACKGROUND: City Council Policy T -1 states that the Arts Commission shall submit
to the City Manager's Office in January of each year a list of Art In Public
Places projects with estimated costs. Said list is to be considered in the
preparation of the next fiscal year budget.
The Arts Commission, after conferring with members of an advisory committee,
• has recommended that this year's project be a joint enterprise with a PBR
Commission project to refurbish Inspiration Point in Corona del Mar.
The PBR Commission is submitting for budget review a $100,000 project to
refurbish the public walkways and benches at Inspiration Point. The Arts
Commission recommends using Art In Public Places funds to augment the PBR project
with artistic elements or design components. In effect, the recommended -art
project will be integrated with the landscape architecture of the site.
To ensure timely consideration of the budget request, and timely completion
of the refurbishment project, the Arts Commission desires to replace the Spring
Arts Festival with a design competition for the Inspiration Point project. The
design competition would take place between now and when the City Council makes
its final budget decisions in June. The Arts Festival funds would be used to
conduct the competition as described below:
INSPIRATION POINT DESIGN COMPETITION
1. Issue a Request for Qualifications:
Arts Commission and PBR staff will jointly prepare and issue a Request
For Qualifications (RFQ) to landscape architects. The RFQ will set
forth both the landscape architecture requirements and the desired
artistic elements of the project. The RFQ will emphasize that the
selected project will blend landscape and artistic elements and that
• accomplished artists will be an integral part of the design team.
Arts Commission
3300 Newport Blvd. - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915
714- 644 -3017
r
• TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Page 2
2. Submit Statement of Qualifications:
Interested firms will submit examples of past work, resumes of
employees, and other items expressing their abilities and experience in,
completing similar landscape and artistic collaborations.
3. Select- Finalists:
Both the PBR and Arts Commissions will review the Statements of
Qualifications and will jointly select six or less finalists who will
be invited to submit designs.
4. Assemble Desion Teams:
The six finalists will be required to assemble design teams with artists
and others. Artists will be notified through announcements and
advertisements of the competition and will be urged to contact and join
with the six firms. The six finalists will be provided with lists of
accomplished and interested artists from which to choose. The landscape
architecture firms will make final determinations on the composition of
their design teams.
5. Submit Designs:
• Each finalist will be paid approximately $1,000 to develop a master plan
level design in the form of drawings or models. These six designs will
be available for review by the City Council prior to final approval of
the 1987 -88 budget.
6. Final Selection:
Should the City Council desire to fund the project, a final selection
process will occur in the first part of the fiscal year. The process
will involve all interested parties, the Arts Commission, the PBR
Commission, and the City Council, which will make the final selection.
•
a�—
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
w
Item No. 7
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Request for Dedicated Tree with Plaque - Edward Starnes
After discussing this matter wi,th-Mr. Starnes, he has determined that,
in accordance with policy, he will provide a Palm Tree for the Wedge
with no plaque.
To clarify this matter for the current Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission, the attached report of April 3, 1984 was approved unanimously
as indicated in the appropriate-minutes.
Ronald A. Whitley
• December 8, 1986
•
Jack Brooks, Park Superintendent
Parks, Beaches & Recreation
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Donation of Palm Tree
Dear Mr. Brooks:
I would Like to request ,permission from the PB &R Commission to plant a
palm tree, in the memory of my newphew, Mark Yeager. Mark passed away
recently after a six year battle with Hodgkins disease. He was an avid
surfer when his health permitted'and particularly liked the "Wedge','.
We would like to donate a palm tree in his name to be planted—at the
street end near the wedge.
I would be more than happy to personally present this request to the
PB &R Commission, upon your notification of where and when.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Personal Regards.
EDWARD STARNES
12801 Barrett Lane
Santa Ana, CA 92705
al
W
Item No. 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
. Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: April 3, 1984
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
4
SUBJECT: 'Dedicated Trees - Development of Criteria
Recommendation:
That the Commission should approve all requests for dedicated'trees in
public parks. Suggested criteria:
1. That the person for whom the tree is to be dedicated
should have made a significant contribution to the
City of Newport Beach.
2. Size, species and location of tree to be planted
should be determined by the;Park and Street Tree
Superintendent.
3. All plaques should be kept to a minimum size and
installed flush with the ground or other surface.
Discussion:
After study, it is felt by staff that if the request for a dedicated tree
does not meet the approved criteria that a tree may be planted in a park
with no plaque or presentation requirements at a location determined by
staff.
It further is felt that staff and the Commission should encourage other
donations, i.e., benches, picnic tables, drinking fountains, outdoor
showers, etc. It may be prudent to develop criteria for this type of
donation.
Action:
1. The Demmer request (attached).
2. Mesa - Harbor Club request (attached).
• �/
Ronald A. Whitley
°d D
Tree
Tree
Tree
Telescope
Flag Poles,
Fountain
Fountain
Fountain
Tree
Tree
2 Trees
1 Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree ,
n
'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
`PARKS,
BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION
;Exi'sting'Dedicated Trees /Equipment
PLAQUES
- Mariners Park
Isabel Andrews Pease
•',
Mariners Park
.Frank G. Tallman III
Mariners Park
Margery Schrouder
a_: Y ,•1' ` •,''
:,Ensign View
D.A.R. Bicentennial
9 school plaques
lCl i ff Dr. Park
"
@ Goat Hill "
Floy M. Cain.
@ Beacon
Ethel
`'�'i „ ' `•,
,.
@ Redlands '� <;''.
;Sadie Kruse
•
•��,
,
'Peninsula Park ; ti
'Coy E. 'Watts
Las Arenas Park ''"
;' Edward Healy
T.
West Newport Park
,.,;,,,; •,,'
Anna McIntyre
City.Hall :,''
:200th Anniversdry of California
City Hall "a
,'Walter Knott
City Hall
''Ebell Club -POW's &MIA's
City Hall
Marvin George
City Hall _
Bill Covent
Carroll Beek Community
Center
Tree
Tree
Tree
Telescope
Flag Poles,
Fountain
Fountain
Fountain
Tree
Tree
2 Trees
1 Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree
Tree ,
n
JI
•,r
i
r.:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches' & Recreation Commission
0
2 OA
G rPage 3
City Council Chambers 7 p.m. INDEX
Capretz moved that the Commission appoint an Ad Hoc
Committee composed of_a Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commissioner, namely Springer, community members and a
member of the Theatre Arts Center group to discuss the
:,`;•'''l,,
problem and make a recommendation to the Commission.
Springer seconded.
Following discussion, Capretz amended his motion to
.,,-•,;;,••,.,.- r,,;,.
continue this item until the Ad Hoc Committee is selected
'4
vnJ? je' .
Springer seconded. Unanimous.
" �♦ei .
'y`:•,•, ";;;;,,;
Cohen reported the Theatre Arts Center Board will meet
on April 4 and she will ask that a representative -for
the Ad Hoc Committee be appointed at that time. It was
decided that Springer will serve as Chair and Mr. Winston
and Tom Line will also serve on the committee.
Moved
x
Item #7 - Dedicated Trees
Dedicated
Seconded
x
' '
Trees
s
x
x
x
x
Ron Whitley reviewed staff's three recommendations con-
cerning criteria to be met for all dedicated tree request
;'..;, •;'.
in public parks. He stated- the,Commission must review
" ': •,
every request for a'dedicated tree and that there are
two such requests before them now, namely, the Demmer
request and the Mesa - Harbor request.
Questions and discussion followed concerning the wording
in the first criteria, i.e., "significant contribution,"
and the question of whether there should be a plaque at
all. Mr. Whitley pointed out that dedicated trees have
plaques and donated trees do not and are also not
documented.
'King motioned the Commission accept the 3 recommendations
of staff. Springer seconded. Unanimous.
;''••,
Applicants for dedicated tree requests will be made aware
of the new policy. Mr. Whitley will communicate the new
criteria to Mr. and Mrs. Demmer to determine if Adolph
Demmer meets them and advise them they can also have a
private ceremony with no plaque. Mr. Whitley will also
ask'the Mesa- Harbor Club for more information to
determine if they meet the criteria.
r'
,;`f,' 4 is •
Item No. 8
Tom Peckenpaugh
• 3620 Ocean Boulevard
Corona del Mar, CA, 92625
January 9, 1987
Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Commission
City of Newport Beach
P. 0. Boa 1768
Newport Beach, CA, 92663 -3884
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is a somewhat late note, as my computer has been out of commission for
a few weeks. Sorry about the delay, because I wanted to promptly thank
you, Ron Whitley, and the department staff for the great strides which have
been made in improving the apearance of Ocean Blvd.! Believe me, the
absence of the multi- trunked tree, the slick look of the railroad ties, the neat
appearance of the hemp and hydormulch on the bluff with the nice new
• steps, and the new sidewalk replacement are tremendous improvements!
Inaword: Thanks 1
Please tell the others in the city and your department who contributed to
these improvements that we and our neighbors really appreciate the new
look on our street. We think others in the community who regularly visit
the bluffs to enjoy the view will definitely appreciate the new neat
appearance. It's easier to be proud of our neighborhood and our city now,
thanks to your Commission and your staff.
You have our best wishes for a, healthy and happy new year!
Sincerely,
0 3 I
Dear Neighbor:
Barbara and I hope you are as pleased as we are with the recently
installed new improvements on the blufftop walkway, area along Ocean Blvd!
We now have our first installation of railroad ties and steps near Inspiration
Point! It is a real pleasure to see the slope cleaned up and to know that it
will soon be planted with a low - growing, low- maintenance ground cover. It
is also nice that this was accomplished without ugly intrusions into views.
We are informed that the City will be removing one large tree which is
obstructing everyone's view, and that the staff is asking some offending
homeowners to remove others. We also learned that the overgrown
vegetation at the jetty end of Ocean Blvd, just above China Cove will soon be
cleaned up.
Finally, we are told that the City will start replacing some asphalt
walkways with sidewalks, and that the Parks Department will be seeking
funds for installation of concrete sidewalks along blufftop areas where none
exist now.
Since the Parks Commisssion and Staff have been so responsive after
viewing the area personally, and after hearing from those of you who wrote
letters, signed a petition, and appeared at their recent meeting, we suggest
that if the opportunity arises, it would be in order for you to tell them all
thanks for the great start on shaping things up!
Thank you for the support! Please call if you have questions or
comments. We will keep you posted as we get more information and as
further developments occur.
Sincerely,
•
•
* 3 3
Item No. 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and-Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: COUNCIL POLICY A -9
The attached report points out recent revisions to the Brown Act which
provides legal guidelines for open, public meetings. By discussing
these points, the Commission will be aware of proper procedures.
Please call if you have questions.
4)e"710,QeZ4(7�
Ronald A. Whitley
0 MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
January 16, 1987
TO: Chairman, Planning Commission
Chairman, Civil Service Board
Chairman, Arts Commission
Chairman, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission
Chairman, Library Board of Trustees
FROM: Robert H.•Burnham, City Attorney
RE: Recent Revisions to the Brown Act: Proposed Amendments
to Council Policy A -9
Introduction:
• The Planning Commission, Parks,. Beaches do Recreation
Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Civil Service Board and
Arts Commission are each subject to the Brown Act. In the past
few years, the legislature has made many changes to the Ralph M.
Brown Act, the state open meeting law. The Brown Act Amendments
that become effective January 1, 1987 can be summarized as
follows:
•
39
1. An agenda containing a brief description of each
item of business to be transacted or discussed must be posted at
a location freely accessible to the public at least 72 hours
before each regular meeting;
2. No action can be taken on an off - agenda item unless
a majority determine that an emergency situation exists or that
the need to take action arose subsequent to posting'of the
agenda;
3. Every agenda for a regular meeting must provide an
opportunity for members of the public to speak; and
4. A lawsuit seeking to void an action taken in
violation of the Brown Act may be filed if, after demand by the
interested party, no cura.tive action is taken.
s
•
Chairmen Various Commissions
Page 2
January 16, 1987
The, City Council has recently adopted amendments to the
Council Policy (A -9) that establishes rules for noticing and
conducting meetings of boards, commissions and committees subject
to the Brown Act. A copy of Council Policy A -9 is attached and I
would encourage you to review it and send copies to each member
of your board or commission.
To conform with Council Policy A -9 and recent amendments
to the Brown Act, we would encourage you to do the following:
1. Assign the responsibility for posting the agenda to
the principal staff liaison to the board or committee;
2. A report from that person confirming the posting of
the agenda should be included in the minutes of ,each meeting;
3. Space for posting the agenda is available next to
the front doors of City Hall. If a different location is to be
selected, please try to insure the area is accessible to the
public for 72 hours ,prior to the meeting;
4. If your board or committee has not already done so,
the date and time of regular meetings should be approved by
formal action by the board or committee;
5. Every agenda must provide an opportunity 'for
members of the general public to speak on items relevant to the
functions of your board or commission. I believe it is
preferable to have a public comment section early in the meeting.;
and
6. No action can be taken on off - agenda items unless
the matter is an emergency or arose after posting the agenda.
Matters that arise during the meeting may, by order of- the
presiding officer, be scheduled for action at a future meeting or
referred to staff. DISCUSSION OF OFF AGENDA ITEMS SHOULD BE KEPT
TO A MINIMUM.
If
revisions to
this office.
RHB /jc
,1
Attachment
35
you have any questions concerning the' recent
the Brown Act and Council Policy A -9, please contact
orerr—H: t;urnnam
ity Attorney
•
Chairmen Various Commissions
Page 3
January 16, 1987
Copies sent to:
Mr. Duane Munson
Mr. Norman L.oats
Mr. T. Duncan Stewart
Mr. Ray Schuller
Mr. Jim Hewicker
Mr. Bill Laycock
Mr. Ron Whitley
Mr. Mark Devon
Ms. LaDonna Kienitz
Carol A. Korade, Esq.
W
11
COUNCIL POLICY A -9
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES
Inasmuch as the Ralph M. Brown Act applies to board and
advisory committees created by charter, or other formal action of
the City Council, these boards, commissions and advisory
committees must be held within the City of Newport Beach and open
to the public and otherwise conducted in conformance with this
policy and the Brown Act. These boards, commissions and
committees shall comply with the following rules for noticing and
conducting meetings:
1. An agenda containing a brief description of each
item of business to be-transacted or discussed must be posted at
a location freely accessible to the public at least 72 hours
before each regular meeting;
2. All meetings shall be open and public, and all
persons shall be permitted to attend;
3. All meetings shall be held in the City of Newport
Beach at a location accessible to the general public. The time
for holding regular meetings shall be established by appropriate
action of the board, commission or committee and., if at any time,
a regular meeting falls on a holiday, the regular meeting shall
be held on the next business day;
4. No action may be taken-on an off - agenda item unless
(a) majority of those • present determine that an emergency
situation exists; or (b) two- thirds of the members, or all of the
members if less than two - thirds are present, determine that the
need to take action on the item arose subsequent to the posting
of the agenda; or (c) the item was included in a properly posted
agenda for prior meeting occurring not more than five days prior
to the meeting at which the action is taken and the matter was
continued to the meeting" at which action is taken. It is
inevitable that subjects will be discussed, either during the
course of consideration of agenda items or during public comment,
on which no action can be taken because the circumstances
outlined in (a) through (c) above do not exist. In such event,
the Presiding Officer shall have the power to refer the matter to
staff, or to place the item on the agenda of a future meeting, or
both.
3�
..
Y � n
•
.'
5. Every agenda for a regular meeting must provide an
opportunity -for members of the general public to speak on an item
of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction
of the board, commission or committee, provided, however, the
agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public
to address the board, committee or commission at a public meeting
wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the
opportunity to address the committee on the item, unless the item
has been substantially changed since the item was heard;
6. Charter created boards and commissions, and any
advisory commission or committee subject to the Brown Act may
adopt rules for the noticing and conduct of meetings• so long a,s
those rules are not inconsistent with provisions of the Brown Act
or this policy.
3�
.0
0
Item No. 10 .a
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DATE: January 23, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Recreation Programs Subcommittee
SUBJECT: Quarterly Meeting Summary
The following information summarized the Recreation Program Subcommittee's
actions at the quarterly meeting of -January 20:
I. Spring Brochure Review
The subcommittee reviewed and approved the following new programs:
Communicate with Credibility
Interfacing With The Opposite Sex
Learning to Increase Your I.Q.
Yellow Balloon Variety Club
Spring Tennis Tournament
II. New Class Suggestions
The following programs were discussed as possible instructional programs
for Fall, 1987:
III. Quarterly Program Review
The subcommittee received and filed a report from the Recreation Superintendent
on Special Events and Excursions,(attached).
IV. Play Equipment Improvements
New play equipment recommended for installation at Buffalo Hills and
Mariners Parks were reviewed and approved.
V. Community Youth Center
3�
Attendance patterns at the Community Youth Center indicate a need to expand
weekday hours by one hour and delete Saturdays-as recommended by the
Recreation Supervisor. The recommendation was approved by the subcommittee.
Clyda Brenner, Chair
Recreation Programs Su committee
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 23, 1987
TO: Recreation Programs Subcommittee
FROM: Recreation Superintendent
SUBJECT: Annual Special'Events /Excursions
As required in the Recreation Program Subcommittee's Goals and Objectives, a selected
major program area will be reviewed in conjunction with seasonal programs. The
selected activity for the Spring, 1987 quarter is the Department's Annual Special
Events /Excursions. All Special Events /Excursions conducted by the Recreation
Division are organized based on the program's ability to generate self- sustaining
revenue or as a youth oriented, General Fund - supported event.
Self- Sustaining Events /Excursions
Self- Sustaining Special Events are presented and marketed through quarterly recreation
brochures and emphasize participant fees. The three major events annually offered
by the Department are the City Golf Championship, Rose Parade Excursion and River Raft
Excursion. Each program has enjoyed'varying degrees of support dependent upon market
conditions and production costs. -As an example, costs associated with the production
•of the Golf Championship rose dramatically in 1986 due to increased tournament fees
charged by the Balboa Bay C1•ub, owners of the'Newport Beach Country C1'ub. The City
will attempt to secure corporate sponsorship for the 1987 event as a means of off-
setting costs. The City also increased the maximum attendance for the Rose Parade
Excursion by purchasing an additional 45' seats and-contracting for an extra bus
based on the significant demand.
General Fund Special Events
Youth oriented special events provided by the Department emphasize traditional holidays
and focus on community spirit. Four annual events include the Mariners Park July 4th
Celebration, Halloween and Holiday Season Celebrations at the'V'ia Lido Plaza and the
Easter Egg Hunt at Eastbluff Parka All events enjoy tremendous community support
and utilize either sponsorship or donations to offset direct costs. City funds
support personnel used for organization, direction and maintenance. Attendance at
each event averages 250; over 500 residents enjoyed the 1'986 July 4th event at
Mariners Park.
Summary
The Department's Special Event and Excursion programs focus on community spirit and
cooperation which is unique to Newport Beach. As successful as the programs are,
expansion in each of the two categories depends upon demand. The self - sustaining
area, special events and excursion opportunities are being evaluated for market
potential, especially with respect to travel and tour packages. In the general fund
area, expansion will depend -upon community support and cooperation. As the Depart-
ment continues to- maintain contact with Community Associations, Chambers of Commerce
and community organizations, the indicators which guide the demand for special events
will be evaluated.
Ma Deven
0
•
n
LA
Item No. 10 -b
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Budget Subcommittee
SUBJECT: Summary of Budget for FY 87 -88
The Commission Budget Subcommittee met on January 22, 1987 to review the preliminary
budget as prepared by staff. The Committee and staff will meet with the City
Manager on February 17, 1987 at 1:30 P.M: to determine the flanager's preliminary
budget.
The preliminary budget for FY 87 -88 is summarized as:
7500 ADMINISTRATIVE
86 -87
$111,235
$113,815
Increase proposed to purchase new office furniture.
7600 RECREATION
$242;928
$282,180
crease due to transfer of maintenance personnel from
7900 to this Division and vehicle replacement.
7700 PARKS
86 -87 87 -88
$1,252,880 $1,385,790
Significant increase due to request for 3 additional full
time employees to retain our level of service. A substantial
number of acres have been added to our park system over the
past five years.
7800 RECREATION - SELF - SUPPORTING
86 -87 87 =88
$525,425 $519,645
Appropriate revenues are generated from fees for this function.
Decrease due to Summer'Sports Camps being again conducted by
the School District.
-2-
7900 SENIOR CITIZEN
86 -87 87 -88 0
$165,167 $151,655
Decrease due to transfer of maintenance personnel to 7600.
8000 STREET TREES
86 -87 87 -88
$707,350 $710,720
No significant change.
The budget committee and staff wil'1 review, in detail, with the Commission any
specifics that should be clarified.
ohn Konwiser, Chair •
0
L1.0-,
0
0
�(3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: STATUS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Bonita Creek Park
In plan check with Building Department.
Community Youth Center
In plan check with Building Department.
Park Facility Improvement Fund
An on going source for a variety'of projects.
West Newport Park
All approvals obtained.
38th Street Park
Road project has begun.
Final plans-being prepared.
Park will follow.
Cliff Drive Park
Construction to begin this month.
Irvine Terrace Park
Completed.
i
Item No. 11
Item No. 12
CITY' OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
TO: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: COUNCIL ACTION ON COMMISSION MATTERS
The City Council, at their meeting of January 26, 1987, approved the
Cliff Drive Construction Contract (report attached) and Amendments
to Council Policy L -6 (report attached).
For information purposes, we are making good progress on the Ocean
Boulevard property adjacent to the Valentine property. The trees
should be trimmed by now and the Natal Plum will be removed from the
parkway this month.
•
Ronald A. Whitley
•
0
•
•
8�
0
.7
�S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
January 26, 9987
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. �G
TO:
Mayor
and City Council
FROM:
Parks,
Beaches and Recreation
Director
SUBJECT:
Cliff
Drive Park Construction
(C -2534)
Recommendation:
Award Contract No. 2534 to Wakeham- Baker, Inc. for the total price of
$232,323.00 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract.
Discussion:
At 11:00 A.M. on January 8, 1987, the City Clerk opened and read the
following bids for this project:
C:
Bidder Total Price
Low Wakeham- Baker, Inc. $232,323.00
2 Hondo Co., Inc. 268,033.00
3 Neff Contracting Corporation 288,686.00
4 Ryco Construction, Inc. 493,394.00
The low bid is 22% higher than the Engineer's estimate of $184,000. The
small number of bidders, together with the disparity between the low bid
and the .Engineer's estimate, appears to be due to the current high volume
of construction activity in Southern California. This has resulted in fewer
contractors bidding projects and higher bid amounts than the depressed
prices which prevailed in the past.
The low bidder, Wakeham- Baker, Inc., is a well qualified general contractor
who has satisfactorily performed previous contracts for the-City.
Adequate funds are available in Account Number 27- 7797 -317 for award.
The project provides for walkways, retaining walls, playground area,
seating areas and lighting for Cliff Drive Park.
The plans were prepared by Cardoza, DiLallo and Harrington of Costa Mesa.
The estimated date of completion is April 30, 1 " "'
n
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
January 26, 1987
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. EIAL 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Council Policy L -6,
Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way
Recommendation:
Amend Council Policy L -6, Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way,
as indicated on Page 2.
Discussion:
The existing policy does not address enforcement of conditions placed on
approved encroachment permits. The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department
• and Commission have reviewed the policy and determined that the proposed
amendment would provide a way to administer the conditions when property
owners do not comply with view and safety clearances of plant material.
The Commission reviewed this amendment at their meeting of January 6, 1987
and unanimously approved that the recommendation be transmitted to the City
Council for consideration. '
0
Ral
PARK AND STREET TREE DIVISION
0 JANUARY, 1987 PROGRESS REPORT
•
q1
Item No. 13
Our Park Crews performed the following tasks in addition to normal
maintenance during the month of January:
Landscaped and'painted the 19th Street restroom.
Layed sod'at Corona del Mar State Beach.
Cleared-sight line for Traffic Department at Placentia and
15th Street.
Installed new bleachers at Mariners Park.
Built new baseball infield at Eastbluff Park.
Graded for bleachers for baseball field —Phase I
Extended slab in picnic area at Irvine Terrace Park.
New shrubs planted at Promontory Point.
Our Street Tree Division performed the following:
Trimmed 1094 trees.
Planted 23 trees.
Completed 6 work requests.
Areas being trimmed this month are the Balboa Peninsula, Marguerite in
Corona del Mar', Via Lido, and the Palms on Balboa Blvd. in the City Hall
area.
•
•
Item No. 14
RECREATION DIVISION
JANUARY, 1987 PROGRESS REPORT
Special Interest Activities
Winter classes began January 19 with significant enrollment in aerobics, volleyball,
Karate, ballroom dance and swing dance. Statistics indicate a trend in programs
for young children. "Extra time classes" for elementary age childrern have in-
creased 73% to 98 students and demand for infant and toddler activities has climbed
as well. The trend towards youth actiVities should continue since enrollment in
Fitness for Expectant Mothers i's al-so on the rise. Tennis classes also opened
January 19. Over 1,100 participants are enrol-Ted in special interest and tennis
classes scheduled over the winter season's first four weeks.
Youth Activities-
As approved by the Recreation Programs Subcommittee, new operational hours at the
Community Youth Center began January26.. The new hours will increase daily super-
vision until 6:00 P.M. and delete Saturday hours. Participation in "drop in"
activities has been steadily increasing. Youth sports participation has shown
a dramatic increase as well, primarily as•a result of "Pee Wee" Basketball registra-
tion. Over fifty 6 -7 year olds are. enrol Ied, an increase of over 100 %.
Sports and Aquatics
The Department's expansion in adult sports continued in the new year's first month.
A total of 22 softball teams will compete in the winter softball program, and over
40 basketball team registrations were accepted for basketball competition. Included
in the basketball totals were eight teams organized from Ford Aerospace.
Seniors.
Following the New Year's holiday, classes, events and committee meetings began
January 3 at Oasis. Special programs focusing on music, arts /crafts and exercise
started the week of January 12. Special health events included dental screening
on January 15 and blood pressure on January 6. Other well attended programs included
the physical fitness program, shared housing mixer, psychology of adjustment class
and national issues forum. The February schedule is attached.
�v
Mar Deven
ISO
d
l
N
Q'
�i
r�
Vl'
Y
ro
v
S-
i m
c O U
n M roC
> ^ d
eq
yV
et-
q
wv
W
2,
•r
I��NN
N
�
r 2
ai
ai
n
W
m^
m
NN
A
IIti
u
}
—
c
1
C) v
t N
r C7
Y
ro
v
S-
i m
c O U
n M roC
> ^ d
eq
yV
et-
q
wv
W
2,
r
N
I��NN
�
r 2
r
n
W
m^
m
NN
A
(D
u
}
—
1
t N
C
A
N
-m�lNV
tmV
r
u J
v V
�
r 2
r
n
W
"v
m
A
(D
a
}
>' rd X > E
1
t N
C
A
{
ICI
E
XOi
f
X O,
E
W
c ¢ 7 CL' P
W U
O O
t
�
r 2
r
n
W
Nm�N•°v
m
�Hr
a
}
ne..m
ANN
A
�
r 2
r
I
4
1
A
{
ICI
E
XOi
f
X O,
W
W U
LLI U
+1
II
I
1
W
1
Q
I
r•
� i
! Y,O
I
I 'f
u•
1 i
I
m
1i
0I
1
I
1
1
I
'
I C•
I r
1
� L
�L
�
i
!
i
I
1
� .t
1 i
�••
i
I Cry
� mi U
I
L � 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Parks, Beaches and Recrdation Department
DATE: February 2, 1987
TO: Commissioner John Konwiser
FROM: Park and Street Tree Superintendent
SUBJECT: Second Park Report, January 5, 1987
MARINERS PARK
1. A tree will be replanted.
2. Additional bleachers have been placed on pads.
3. Valve box has been covered.
WESTCLIFF PARK
1. Steel posts have been painted and turf fertilized.
2. The chain has been reset.
•
3. We are working'on the gophers.
ENSIGN DRIVE VIEW PARK
1. Flag pole base has been removed.
2. Flag has been installed.
3. The area was originally planted with ground cover. Foot traffic
killed it. Planting of sod is being considered.
4. Slope will be planted with i.ce plant when time permits.
6. We have cleaned this area up several times. The Arts Center has been
notified about the area.
7. Lights in turf in front of TAC have been turned over to the electricians
in the Utility Department.
CLIFF DRIVE VIEW PARK
1: Sign has been replaced on pole.
2. Post has been removed.
3. Will be part of Cliff Drive Capital Improvement Project.
4. See X13.
5. Back flow preventer has been moved.
6. The pipe is brown line and meant to be installed on top of ground
in place of galvanized pipe.
7. Will be part of Cliff Drive Improvement Project.
f?' 8. East side of Riverside Drive curb has been edged and will be
maintained in the future.
•
CI
Jack Mrooks