The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSS04 - Balboa Pier Parking Lot RedesignSeptember 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1 N TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans, specifications and engineer's final estimate for redesigning the Balboa Pier parking lot in general conformance with Alternative 6A. DISCUSSION: On June 22, 1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Parking and Circulation Study of the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street/Central Balboa area. A Professional Services Agreement was executed with the engineering firm of Austin - Foust Associates for the preparation of this study. A copy of the study is included as an attachment for your review. This study includes a detailed engineering analysis of possible alternatives for re- designing the existing parking lot and access. The goals of any re- design would be to improve pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus circulation. The other primary goal of the study is to address parking concerns and needs in the area. The study was coordinated with the preparation of the peninsula -wide Parking Management Plan, prepared by Meyer - Mohaddes Associates. The 1997 Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 report included a recommendation to redesign the Balboa Pier parking lot and to close Main Street, south of Balboa Boulevard, to pedestrian use only. This study analyzes the feasibility of that proposed plan. In 1991, the Balboa Pier parking lot and Central Balboa area was also studied in detail. A parking lot re- design plan was developed after a series of public meetings were held to develop a community consensus. The 1991 recommended plan is also included as an alternative in this study. The 1991 concept was incorporated in the adoption of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 1994. The Public Improvement Component of the Specific Area Plan classifies the modifications to the Balboa Pier Parking Lot as a Priority I improvement to be implemented within 2 years. SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN September 13, 1999 Page 2 The approach for the new study was to review the plans developed for the Balboa Pier parking lot area, to craft new alternatives, and to compare the alternative plans against each other and the existing parking lot layout. The design process included a community outreach component so that residents and business owners would have input throughout the preparation of the study. Three public workshops were held to solicit the public's input. At the first workshop, the public was invited to comment on the BPPAC proposal and the 1991 Central Balboa Study proposal. The main component of the BPPAC proposal was the conversion of Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard to pedestrian use only, and the channeling of exiting vehicles from the parking lot out Washington Street to Balboa Boulevard. This plan would require a new traffic signal at Washington Street and Balboa Boulevard. Comments at the workshop indicate that area business owners are very interested in providing more parking for their customers and layover spaces for tour buses. The business owners raised concerns about restricting vehicular access on Main Street. Residents are concerned about tour buses, which currently park in the residential areas. The residents also support the construction of tour bus layover spaces to take the tour buses away from the residential areas. Both groups oppose the closure of Main Street because it would require a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street. Residents are strongly opposed to the installation of a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard. Residents also indicated that they were opposed to expanding the physical size of the parking lot, and that they supported additional landscaping around the perimeter of the lot. In response to these and other comments, a total of 7 alternative plans were identified and evaluated. These plans are presented and discussed in more detail in the attached study. The alternative plans are numbered 1 through 6 and 6A, with 6A being a minor variation of Alternative 6. Alternatives 2 and 4 ( BPPAC alternatives) were eliminated from consideration during the process because of the inability of using i the one -lane Washington Street as the only egress street during peak periods. Both alternatives also included the installation of a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street, which is strongly opposed by the residents. None of the other alternatives include a new traffic signal. Towards the end of the project, Alternative 6 was developed from a concept plan presented to the City by the Balboa Performing Arts Theatre Foundation. Their goal was to provide more short-term metered parking outside of the pay lot. Alternative 6 was presented at the final public meeting on February 10, 1999. Subsequent discussions with business owners and residents at both informal meetings and the August PROP meeting show support for Alternative 1 and Alternative 6A. A table is included on Page 14 of the study that compares the alternative plans to the existing parking lot. It should be noted that the existing parking lot has approximately 20 parking "spaces" which are currently being used for interior lot landscaping. There was significant discussion of the benefit of additional parking spaces vs. the loss of interior parking lot landscaping. The general consensus was that if additional SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN September 13, 1999 Page 3 landscaping was provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, then the interior landscaping spaces should be converted to additional parking spaces. Alternative 1 is the 1991 Central Balboa Study recommended plan. This alternative produces the most net parking space gain of 84 spaces. The metered parking area adjacent to the boardwalk is eliminated, and the additional new bus parking spaces are closer to the residential area. The pedestrian access from the lot to Main Street is improved, and landscaping is added around the perimeter of the lot. The engineer's estimate for Alternative 1 is $ 750,000. Alternative 6A is the recommended plan in this study. This plan provides for: 40 additional parking spaces, an expanded metered parking lot to serve the theatre and businesses, moving the bus parking further away from the residential area and providing for 10 bus spaces, improving the pedestrian access from the lot to Main Street and adding landscaping around the perimeter of the lot. The proposed improvements would require the reconstruction of the entire parking lot as it exists today. The engineer's cost estimate for Alternative 6A is $ 663,000. The FY99 -00 budget includes $430,000 from the Off- Street Parking Fund for design and construction of this project. Additional funds are available in the Off- Street Parking Fund for this project. Respectfully submitte PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: & - Anton Senior Civil Engineer Attachment: Austin -Foust Balboa Pier Parking Lot Final Report, May 1999 CWsers\ obw% haredbounUlUy99- Ofteptember- 13tbalboa pier parking lot redesign.dx BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Final Report Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 May 12, 1999 BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS FINAL REPORT rraII3U111149liCOW On June 22, 1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Parking and Circulation Study of the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street /Central Balboa area. This study is one of the first steps in the Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Program. This studyincludes an engineering analysis of possible alternatives for re- designing the existing parking lot and access. The goals of any re- design would be to improve pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus circulation. The other primary goal of the study is to address parking concerns and needs. The City's approach to completing the study included a community outreach component so that the residents and business owners would have input at the start and at key milestones during the study. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) held a series of public workshops on behalf of the City to solicit resident and business owners input. This study has been coordinated with the preparation of the peninsula -wide Parking Management Study. BACKGROUND In 1991 a Parking and Circulation Study for Central Balboa was conducted at the direction of the City Council. Five public workshops were held to develop a community consensus on the traffic problems and solutions for this area. The key parking recommendation was to increase the amount of parking in the existing Balboa Pier parking lot. The parking lot redesign proposal developed in the 1991 study was incorporated into the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan as approved by the City Council in 1994. More recently, both the Urban Design Camp Peninsula Planning Study and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 reports include an improvement to the Balboa Pier parking lot as well as a proposal to reconstruct Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard for pedestrian use only. Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Aocess Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd The City's current budget includes funds for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street pedestrian access. The design process includes a community outreach component so that residents and business owners would have input in the process. The two parking lot concept plans previously developed, the 1991 Recommended Plan and the BPPAC Recommendation, were used as a starting point for this study. This study analyzes and compares the previous proposals, and outlines new alternatives developed to improve Central Balboa parking and circulation. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing Balboa Pier parking lot contains 609 parking spaces in the main lot and 56 spaces in metered lots for a total of 665 parking spaces. Parallel spaces for OCTA bus layovers are provided. The existing parking lot layout is illustrated in Figure 1. Inbound parking lot traffic: approaches the lot entrance via Palm Street. Palm Street is a two -lane one -way street southbound south of Balboa Boulevard. There is an existing signal at the intersection of Palm Street and Balboa Boulevard. Outbound traffic exits the area via Main Street or via Washington Street if the motorist has not entered the main parking lot area. Main Street is a two -lane one -way street northbound south of Balboa Boulevard. The intersection of Main Street and Balboa Boulevard is signalized. Washington Street is a one -lane one -way street northbound south of Balboa Boulevard. Traffic counts along Palm Street, Washington Street and Main Street were collected during summer weekends in 1998. On a typical summer weekend (July 24 -26) the parking lot attracts approximately 5,400 trips daily. During the Fourth of July weekend, the parking lot attracts approximately 5,600 trips daily. During the Labor Day weekend, the parking lot attracts approximately 4,300 trips daily. Figure 2 illustrates the existing traffic in the study area. These streets are currently operating at capacity during the peak arrival and departure periods. Balboa Pier Parking lot and Main Street 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Access Improvements Final Report 017058rptwpd A NEW „ „ a I „ ti „ r „ „ I - I NEW „ „ a I „ ti „ „ „ I - I i 5 t. - - - - — 5 C — C — C r J 5 z 11 a E O a Z Ito k• a z z w Balboa Pier Panting Lot and Main Street 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Acres Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd C BALBOA — no scale z 0 �0 a z 0 z0 Q o a = ao r� L6 a 3 TYPICAL SUMMER WEEKEND BALBOA — no scale z 0 g 0 CD C~7 o z O O ao =a00 <O Ln —1110- 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND BALBOA — no scale z O o (~ry O Z O a — 0 g 0 in LABOR DAY WEEKEND Figure 2 EXISTING ADT VOLUMES Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 4 Austin•Fousl Associates, Inc Aoxss Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd C PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A total of seven parking lot alternatives have been developed and evaluated. These alternatives are numbered 1 through 6 and 6A, 6A being a relatively minor variation of Alternative 6. There is no enlargement of existing asphalt area in any of the alternatives; therefore, there is no encroachment into the beach or park areas. Alternative 1 is the plan that emerged from the 1991 Balboa Pier parking study with a minor modification to incorporate diagonal OCTA/tour bus parking. Alternative 1 requires separate attendants for traffic entering and exiting the lot, provides four bus layover spaces, and improves pedestrian access to Main Street; however, Alternative 1 reduces storage for vehicles entering the lot. This alternative produces the most net parking spaces (84) while at the same time costing $750,000 or about $9,000 per space. On the basis of cost per parking space alone, Alternate 1 is perhaps the optimum choice. Figure 3 illustrates Alternative 1. Alternative 2, shown in Figure 4, is the BPPAC recommendation. This plan eliminated any vehicular access to Main Street and introduced a new signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street. Alternative 4, shown in Figure 5, modified the BPPAC plan to partially retain vehicular access, at least for local businesses, to Main Street which was reduced to one lane. However, public reaction to a proposed third traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard overwhelmingly negative, thereby eliminating both Alternatives 2 and 4 from further consideration. Other reasons for eliminating Alternatives 2 and 4 were related to the question of whether Washington Street is wide enough for two lanes of traffic, whether buses can turn on Washington Street and whether traffic could be handled with one lane on Washington Street. Alternative 3 is the modified existing plan which largely retains the existing parking lot layout and circulation. The central parking area has been redesigned to provide 10 tour bus spaces (in addition to OCTA buses) and make better use of an area of the current lot deemed relatively inefficient by some people. Other than tour bus parking this design does not increase automobile parking. However at a cost of `only" $281,000 it is also the least expensive. Some people expressed that $281,000 for 10 tour bus spaces was quite high. Nonetheless, several residents, who did not favor Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 5 Austin -roust Associates, lnc Aoaess Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd E r ®E a u � E S a t I r I e IIIIII m'-111 m................ z 0 6 z „z w 0 U W m as (r w 6E m m Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 6 Austin-Foust Associates, Ine. Access Improvements Final Repon 017058rpt.wpd J Balboa Pier Parking Ut and Main Street Ao Improvements Final Report z 0 E NQ d �W :3 zo m aU w Wa a 6U a a a w Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 017058rpt.wpd -M is -M fi iii IM 1. as C illlllllllllliliil I It Z Balbm Pier Puking Lot and Main Street 8 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc Access Improvements Fine( ! Report 017058rpe.wpd I . ............ zr-;r,�O i al- ................. .... t . ................... . .... . .............. .......... ................. ........... 1. as C illlllllllllliliil I It Z Balbm Pier Puking Lot and Main Street 8 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc Access Improvements Fine( ! Report 017058rpe.wpd any change at all to the existing lot, did indicate this option was the least objectionable. Figure 6 illustrates Alternative 3. Alternative 5 was the outcome of a public workshop discussion regarding the placement of the bus parking. This plan merely shifted the tour bus layover spaces to a point in front of the hotel instead of existing residences. The owners of the Balboa Inn strongly opposed this alternative because of the potential impacts to their hotel. While this option was initially supported by some business interests, that limited support was quickly withdrawn when it became apparent the issue simply boiled down to residents versus hotel uses. Statistically, Alternative 5 is quite similar to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is illustrated in Figure 7. Alternative 6 also emerged from the public workshop process, only this time a group representing the theater and other businesses sought more short -term metered parking. Alternative 6 provided such an option but at a very high cost, $818,000, with essentially no gain in total parking. Alternative 6 provides for bus layover spaces which are located further from the residences than currently or with any of the other alternatives. Figure 8 illustrates Alternative 6. Alternative 6A, illustrated in Figure 9, was developed in response to the criticism of the high cost but otherwise appealing aspect of the added short -term meters of Alternative 6. A significant cost reduction (down to $663,000) is achieved through retention of the northerly third of the existing lot, and only affecting new construction of the remainder of the lot with the exterior landscaping. Table 1 presents a matrix comparison of the alternatives. Table 2 summarizes the cost of each alternative. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS The first public workshop was held September 9, 1998. The subject of the first workshop was development of alternatives for the Balboa Pier parking lot. Approximately 45 residents and business owners attended the workshop. A questionnaire was circulated to the workshop attendees seeking their opinions on the main concerns with the Balboa Pier parking lot, their solutions to the parking lot problems, and which features of the BPPAC recommendations they oppose or support. The main component of the BPPAC recommended plan is the conversion of Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard to pedestrian use only and the channeling of exiting vehicles out Washington Street to Balboa Pier Parking tat and Main Street 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Ine. Access Improvements Final Report 019058rpt wpd 101 z 2 8 M tl So 0 a 4— Miss 911:2 0 E. z 1r E N Balboa Pier Puking Lot and Main Street 10 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc Aocess Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd . . . t t . . . . . . .... 173 .. ........ . ................ 45 •--- 1.1414f."n, .1.4 I 1 W1 I f -I-fl 1-11, I Hill L._....__ w._.................._. ........... . ...... . ............... . ......... . ....... ............. Lw ...... .. 911:2 0 E. z 1r E N Balboa Pier Puking Lot and Main Street 10 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc Aocess Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd M� •I+A -i e >t .y Y � 3 N N V C - U U Y 2 a H 3 a x � W W N f nla I �! 1 �r 1 fr J r I aoaolaxa.. _ MM4 .V% t"rtt s I R w �aln t t I II N 8 T} n y O G"s 4y1 � �LS y V ry Qq $I N N U L = II II II I I II IIIII I II 111111 L I = Illllvilll Ili = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII � IIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIII � III IIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII II I I I I I I 1 1I1II J II II II 111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIII IG II �IIIIIII�H H i Mi 1111111111111 L lIL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ; 1111111 ll IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII1111 Ililll " IIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIII V101 -.► } W 0 z a w FF Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd pd- ldi8SOLTO -3uT •satepossy isnog -unsny a r a c M m W uodaa Ieu!d sluawaeoidwl ss=v iT taaitS umw pue io-I SuiVed jay eoqlep a 0 9 n Oros s n ti n g F 2 pd- idigSOLIO �uI •salemssy isnag -unsny £I a H W z00 a ; H CD t0 a � � IV/,, P! A %_ 4 QoQ� O$ N N n n + ptli Z n = o x N uodaa jeuU sjuawaeoJdwl ss=V pang weK put! Io18un Jed Ja,d eOQIeH b R. I i I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I i , I I I ,tea , C I 4 111 pg t E C i 0 I I 111 1 � r 1 , \ w A %_ 4 QoQ� O$ N N n n + ptli Z n = o x N uodaa jeuU sjuawaeoJdwl ss=V pang weK put! Io18un Jed Ja,d eOQIeH b R. I i I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I i , I I I ,tea , Table 1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX CONDITION EVALUATED EXISTING ALT.1 ALT.3 ALTS AL,T.6 ALT. 6A 1. Additional Parking Spaces +20• +84• +21' +83• +28' +40• No interior landscaping 2. Additional parking spaces N.C. +49 -2 +50 4.2 +16 With interior landscaping 3. Tour Bus Spaces 0 4 10 4 8 10 4. Accommodate OCCA YES YES YES YES YES YES 5. Landscaping in Front of Residential N.C. YES Partial N.C. YES YES YES 6. Main Street Pod Mall NO Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial 7. Impact on Ferry Access N.C, N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. 8. Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.G N.C. 9. Improved Ped Access from Parking Lai N.C. YES YES YES YES YES 10. Engineer's Estimate of Probable -- $750,000 $281,000 $732,000 5818,000 $663,000 Construction Cost • Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces N.C. - no change Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd BID ITEMS ALT Table 2 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE ALT3 ALTS ALT6 ALT6A 1. Asphalt $150,000 $50,000 $150,000 $150,000 $100,000 2. PCC Curb $100,000 $50,000 585000 $120,000 S90A00 3. Landscaping $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 4. Ticket Booth $100,000 - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 5. Striping $50.000 $5000 350.000 $50.000 $40_000 Sub -4otal $600,000 $225,000 $585,000 5620,000 $530,000 Contingencies 15% $90,000 $34,000 $88,000 $136,000 $80,000 Engineering & Program Admin 10% $60.000 $22.000 559.000 $62.000 553.000 TOTAL $750M 5281,000 $732,000 $818,000 $663,000 Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd Balboa Boulevard, which would require signalization of the intersection of Washington Street and Balboa Boulevard. Nine new parking spaces would be added to the Balboa Pier parking lot. Comments at the workshop indicate that area business owners are interested in providing more parking for their customers, increased nighttime lighting, and layover spaces for tour buses. The business owners also raised concerns about restricting vehicular access to Main Street. Residents are concerned about tour buses which currently park in residential areas. The residents would like layover spaces provided for tour buses also. Both groups oppose concentrating exiting traffic onto the narrow Washington Street and signalizing the intersection of Washington Street at Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Point residents strongly oppose signalizing the intersection. Residents also oppose expanding the physical size of the Balboa Pier parking lot, support removing interior parking lot landscaping to gain additional spaces, providing perimeter landscaping to screen parked vehicles, and support raising parking fees and prohibiting overnight parking in the parking lot. The second workshopwas held December9,1998 and was attended by28 people. Alternatives 1 through 4 were presented to the residents and business owners. The residents and business owners in attendance were surveyed to determine their preferences for the alternatives. Out of 30 questionnaires, Alternatives 1 and 3 received 25 (83 percent) and 22 (73 percent) votes, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 4 were eliminated based on the infeasibility of using Washington Street as the only egress street from the lot during peak hours. Also the strong objection from residents to an added signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street was a secondary factor. Approximately half the residents would prefer perimeter landscaping to landscaping within the parking lot. Residents between Palm Street and Washington Street do not want the tour buses parked directly in front of their homes, but the hotel owners do not want the tour buses parking directly in front of their pool area. Theater and business owners requested more short -term metered parking. Based on comments received at the meeting and from the questionnaires, two additional alternatives were developed. The final workshop was held February 10, 1999. Thirty-two residents and business owners were in attendance. Alternatives 5 and 6 were presented. Business owners sent letters indicating their support for Alternative 1(AppendixB) prior to this workshop and the discussion of Alternatives 5 and 6. Results of a survey at the third workshop indicate that the majority of the residents and business owners support Alternative 3 (48 percent) and Alternative 1 (37 percent). Alternative 6 received support also (19 percent). Balboa Pier Palling Lot and Main Street 16 Austin•Foust Aucidates, Inc Aoom; Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the public workshops indicates there is support for both Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 1 provides the most additional parking spaces while Alternative 3 provides only an increase in OCTA/tour bus layover spaces. The bus layover spaces in Alternatives 1 and 3 would have to be modified to provide handicapped access. Alternative 6A provides a compromise between Alternatives 1 and 3. Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Across Improvements Final Report 0170.98rpt.wpd APPENDIX A WORKSHOP PRESENTATION Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street A -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc A Improvements Final Report 017058rpl.wpd BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT DESIGN STUDY WORKSHOP NO, 1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT B Y: JOE FOUST, P.E. AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES9 INC. 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (714) 667-0496 PENINSULA REVITALIZATION BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP NO. 1 SEPTEMBER 9, 1 99B PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 DESIGN ENGINEERING FOLLOW-ON TO BALB❑A PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 2. IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE PARKING LOT DESIGN A. EXISTING LAYOUT B. BPPAC 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS C. "WORKSHOP" CREATED ALTERNATIVE(S) TAS KS 1. EVALUATE BPPAC RECOMMENDATIONS A. BALB ❑A PIER PARKING AND CIRCULATION? B. MAIN STREET "PEDESTRIAN ONLY" PLAN? 2. SOLVE IDENTIFIED PARKING MANAGEMENT ISSUES A. OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROBLEMS - TOUR BUS LAYOVER B. IMPROVE AESTHETICS C. OTHER ISSUES 3. DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES FROM COMMUNITY INPUT C BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRIE WORKSHOP NO. 1 WHAT IS (ARE) YOUR MAIN CONCERN(S) REGARDING THE CURRENT BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? 2. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, COULD SE DONE TO IMPROVE THE PARKING LOT? ". DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION REGARDING THE BPPAC RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? YES_ NO_ IF SO, WHAT FEATURES DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE? 4. WHAT OTHER TRAFFIC OR PARKING RELATED CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE REGARDING THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT DESIGN STUDY WORKSHOP NO. 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION BY: JOE FOUST, P.E. AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (71 4) 667 -0496 �C OU� z� r� H I� O q0T^ q r� U + oo : a z z d z 9w`R R a. d z z a. a R a. c zu) CN ON c cn g m R o Q+ + Y O Z .r-° 0 0 c eo rn E EU to � W Y C o. -� • ° p ° U U + + z z z O R z o N V W W O U O U V U C R y UF] z O z z z z z z 52 x+ > ` N C � v b _ Y s F n o R c o a E cz 00" H.y.. u _ O t ►� fA r 3 w N O w o o Cw Q. V s o cc bo co o C R R c �. a s I- 00 O. O ti • BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WORKSHOP NO. 2 1 WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES COULD YOU SUPPORT (INCLUDING USE OF LANDSCAPED SPACES IN I EXISTING LOT)? 2. D❑ Y❑U BELIEVE ANY ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES NEED TO BE EVALUATED? IF SO, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE. 3. DD Y❑U SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING AND IMPROVING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALBOA PARKING LOT IN EXCHANGE FOR INCREASED PARKING ATTAINED THROUGH REMOVAL OF THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPING (I.E., PALM TREES)? 4. DO YDU SUPPORT INCREASED NIGHTTIME LIGHTING, PERHAPS WITH LOW LEVEL MOUNTING HEIGHTS, FOR SECURITY PURPOSES? S. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PROVIDING TOURING BUS PARKING IN THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? 6. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION WORKSHOP #3 Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 February 10, 1999 �C E� H O� a� p p� N U W U O U U U o 00 C14 00 00 cn rn _ •`-° o; U z U z' y o eq en Ch cn a i 00 Itr t: (cn 4s N U W U O U U U o en + o +' o rn rn _ •`-° o; U z U z' y o eq en Ch cn i Itr t: (cn U a o N �y O z � •y U U o CD a N U W U O U U U 0 + z o z z z z z 0 Ch cn i Itr t: (cn a � N U W U O U U U + z o z z z z z i Y om c. cc .. o` c°3 a �, ,;; U k. Cc rn P. o •.�. C N p c •app" Y �- .V C C O O C CC Ol O H \ / \ \ a \ / / . \ \ / . \ _ .. C \ k k § \ 2 ® k k K&/ co i\ _ § § § 0 � \ ) / CD | d \ \ / \ __ _ _ w 0 En / k § \ Q_ §_ k \ \ § § \ § f E d 2 \� 2 7\ 6 k k k _ \0 ° ®i _ � b _ S 2 2 J ] - \ / w ri ¥ w BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WORKSHOP NO. 3 FEBRUARY 1 O, 1 999 1 . WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES COULD Y ❑U SUPPORT? 2. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALB❑A PARKING LOT? 3. SHOULD THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS BE CONVERTED TO PARKING SPACES? 4. WHERE D❑ YOU BELIEVE BUS PARKING SHOULD BE LOCATED? S. D❑ YOU SUPPORT DEDICATION OF A LARGER PORTION OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO METERED PARKING (SUCH AS ALTERNATIVE 6)? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street B-1 Austin -Poust Associates, Inc. Access Improvements Final Report 017058rptwpd r►.4 % %1 01/19/99 Balboa Merchants(Owners Association Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 N. Tustin Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attn: Joe Foust Dear Joe, The Balboa Merchants/Owners Association Board of Directors reviewed the Alternative Plans for the Balboa Municipal Lot your firm presented at workshop 92 in December of 1998. Our conclusions were unanimous and strongly recommend the following: 1. Alternative #1 is the best choice. 2. Increase the peripheral landscaping around the lot in exchange for increased parking attained through the removal of internal landscaping inside the lot. This would be in addition to the increased landscaping proposed in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums and the additional landscaping on the boardwalk from Palm St to Adams. 3. We strongly recommend increased nighttime pedestrian lighting for security purposes within and around the lot, extending to the entry ways into town on Palm St, Washington St. and Main St. 4. If this plan or another is approved, construction should not take place in the summer months, and should be phased in so that the lot is never completely closed to parking In addition to our recommendation, I have enclosed six other questionnaires completed by various businesses in the Balboa area. If you have any questions please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Britta Pulliam President, BMOA P.O. Box 84-0 Balboa, CA., 92661 Ba.lbna. BIA th.e Seri - A Wom.derfill Pface to Be! J 41106� Oalboa 9nnn O N T X E S A N D A T N E W P O R T December 10, 1998 Mr. Joe E. Foust Austin Foust Associates Inc. 2020 N. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana CA 92705 Re: Balboa Parking Design Study /City Counsel Meeting Dear Mr. Foust, Pursuant to our phone conversation, this letter shall confirm that Balboa Inn strongly supports alternatives 1 and 3 as proposed in your meeting of Dec 9th, 1999. Alternative 5 was proposed to relocate the bus parking area close to the pier and the Balboa Inn swimming pool. We strongly oppose this plan. The bus lay over area in front of the hotel will seriously increase the noise level for the hotel residents and guests using the pool area as well as obstructing the views form all rooms. This change will probably result in substantial loss of income for the hotel operation. I will be looking forward to hearing from you in the next few days. Sinc r ly yours, Raymond artin Pourmussa Property Manager cc:Tony Brian City of Newport (parking and traffic) 105 Main Sneer • Balboa, California 92661 • (714) 675 -3412 'LOG Wet fAS y LOTS A FISH f `PEP �ArBLYD. NEw�� March 2, 1999 Anthony Brine, P.E. Transportation Engineer City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Joe E. Foust Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 W. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92605 Re: Balboa Pier Parking Proposal Action Plan Dear Mr. Brine and Mr. Foust: Following the last meeting on the Balboa Pier Parking Lot, I reflected upon the various proposals and I have reconsidered some of my comments. At that meeting, I may have given t.`.e - pression that $10,000.00 per parking space mmy not be a practical solution. By this letter, I want to make clear that my earlier judgment was in error. Having given further thought to the comments of you, Mr. Foust, and after consulting with other knowledgeable people, I now believe that $10,000.00 per parking space is a very wise and prudent investment for our city. Also, the removal of the small landscaped medians within the parking lot in order to allow for more parking spaces makes a great deal of sense. This parking lot is a needed facility which should be utilized to its greatest potential. We all know that the greatest need of the merchants within our community is an increased number of patrons. We all know that those patrons would include visitors, residents and Anthony Brine, P.E. Joe E. Foust March 2, 1999 Page 2 seasonal renters, all of whom need, make use and benefit from greater parking facilities. As such, increasing the City's ability to provide for more parking and accommodate more people only serves to fill its obligations to the public as a steward of our beautiful beach lands. I thank both of you for your time and effort in conducting a most fine and useful meeting. Very truly yours, Robert Roubian DJG:vaa f: \client \00809 \63 \briafous.302