Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - Relinquishment of Coast Highway in CDM0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 29 March 23, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department, Stephen G. Badum 949 - 644 -3311, sbadum @city.newport- beach.ca.us City Manager's Office, Homer L. Bludau 949 - 644 -3000, hbludau @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: RELINQUISHMENT OF COAST HIGHWAY IN CORONA DEL MAR RECOMMENDATION: Accept the State's offer of $3,511,000.00 "State of Good Repair" estimate and direct staff to negotiate a Cooperative Agreement with the State to relinquish Coast Highway between Newport Coast Drive and Jamboree Road. or Decline the State's offer of $3,511,000.00 "State of Good Repair" estimate and direct staff to terminate negotiations for the relinquishment of Coast Highway between Newport Coast Drive and Jamboree Road. DISCUSSION: Over the years, the State's ownership of Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1) and Newport Boulevard (SR55) has been a constant source of frustration for City staff and the citizens of our City. Caltrans' strict design standards and permit processes have limited the City's ability to improve, upgrade, and beautify these important transportation corridors which also serve as the City's "Main Street ". Excessive design standards and long permit processes have stalled current efforts to implement Corona del Mar Business Improvement District's Vision 2004 projects. On February 8, 2000, City Council authorized City staff and the CdM Business Improvement District (BID) to meet with Caltrans to discuss the possible relinquishment of a portion of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. During the spring of 2000, the CdM BID developed a conceptual improvement plan for the CdM business district called "Vision 2004 ". On April 10, 2001, City Council passed a resolution supporting the . relinquishment of Coast Highway from Seaward Drive to Avocado Avenue. In September of 2001, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 290 which enabled the California Transportation Commission to relinquish a portion of State Highway SR1 (Coast Highway) between the southerly City limits and Jamboree Road. After the SUBJECT: Relinquishment of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar March 23, 2004 Page 2 annexation of Newport Coast in 2002, the limits were revised to include the portion of this State highway between Newport Coast Drive and Jamboree Road (approximately 3.3 miles). Current State relinquishment policies dictate that the State evaluate the condition of the proposed highway to be relinquished, determine the cost to improve the roadway to a "State of Good Repair' and either upgrade the roadway or compensate the accepting agency for the cost to do the work. In accordance with State procedures, Caltrans has prepared a Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) which evaluates the proposed highway to be relinquished (See attached Exihibit A, summary portion of PSSR dated June 2003). Over the course of several meetings with City staff, the cost to bring this segment of highway to a "State of Good Repair" was agreed upon and set at $3,511,000. The proposed estimate includes upgrades to paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, access ramps, minor traffic signal modifications, striping, signs, catch basin filters, and minor miscellaneous items. The majority of the proposed payment represents the cost to repave portions of Coast Highway in accordance with the Caltrans Pavement report. The relinquishment does not transfer the responsibilities of the ongoing "cease and desist" order which was issued to Caltrans by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the State Highway in the vicinity of Crystal Cove. it is staffs understanding that this issue primarily involves drainage issues along the Coast Highway segment from Los Trancos to Muddy Creek which are beyond the boundaries of this relinquishment. The existing State policy governing the relinquishment process does not allow any 1011 consideration for future maintenance expenses that the City will be assuming as a result of taking ownership of this segment of State highway. City staff compiled an estimate of annual maintenance costs for this segment of Coast Highway which resulted in an annual cost of approximately $620,000. In addition to the annual maintenance costs, City staff estimated that the annual liability cost would be approximately $100,000 per year. The liability estimate was based upon a 10% share of annual insurance costs of $1 million per year. The total annual cost for this segment of Coast Highway was estimated at approximately $720,000. On January 14, 2004, City staff met with high ranking Caltrans officials in Sacramento to explore the potential of revising the State's relinquishment policy to include some maintenance costs. Staff presented the attached presentation, Exhibit B, to the Relinquishment Resolution Committee. In general, the City's proposal asked that the State share the maintenance savings over a 15 year period. We felt that this proposal represented a win -win situation for the State and our City which could ultimately be applicable to other State highways statewide. We believe a statewide program could result in a potential savings of up to approximately 50 million dollars each year. Based upon the $720,000 per year maintenance estimate, the potential savings over a 15 year period is $10,800,000. Our proposal asked for 50% of the 15 year saving in addition to the PSSR recommendation resulting in a total request for $8,911,000. On January 30, 2004 the City received the attached correspondence, Exhibit C, which declined the City's request for additional funding related to future maintenance. Caltrans officials cited that they believed the maintenance and liability costs to be much SUBJECT: Relinquishment of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar March 23, 2004 Page 3 lower based upon recent expenditures (annual maintenance, $72,000 and $235,000 in liability claims paid since 1993). While we would agree that these amounts were consistent with what was actually spent, the true costs of deferred maintenance, overhead, administrative costs, legal costs, and depreciation of current infrastructure were not addressed. Additionally, the State typically does not maintain their infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with City standards. Past discussions (see attached minutes for 2/8/00 & 4/10/01 City Council meetings) indicate that there are many reasons that could be advanced to support and to oppose the relinquishment of Coast Highway in CdM. A brief summary of those issues are as follows: Support Relinquishment: • The State's mission is to promote regional transportation. They see Coast Highway as a transportation facility and not as a "Main Street" for CdM. Therefore, they do not have a customer focus that supports residents and businesses in Corona del Mar. • City ownership may allow currently prohibited activities such as sidewalk cafe dining, sidewalk sales, non - standard paving treatments (crosswalk, sidewalks, etc.), street furniture, hanging planters, decorative lighting, and more extensive landscaping within new and existing medians. State highway standards prohibit certain activities as listed above and strictly controls others such as lane widths affecting landscaped median widths. • The City will control the timing and budget of new improvements and replacements. Caltrans paving projects are often delayed several years due to budgetary constraints. Freeway improvements are generally prioritized over State highway improvements. • The City will be more responsive to the needs of the businesses and residents for repairs and improvements. The current lengthy State permit process will no longer be necessary. The current process has varied from a minimum of eight weeks to as long as a year. • The City would be in control of the traffic signal system. With the signals under City jurisdiction, the adjacent streets could be better coordinated with Coast Highway signals. However, the relinquishment requirements do not allow the City to modify the signal coordination to the extent that regional traffic flow is impaired during peak hours. • The City would be paid $3,511,000 for improving the existing roadway to a "State of Good Repair ". Oppose Relinquishment: • Relinquishment will obligate the City to fund and maintain the roadway in perpetuity. City staff estimates $620,000 per year may be needed to maintain . and fund periodic replacements. • Potential costs in liability. During the period between 1998 and 2001, Caltrans reported 327 accidents with one fatality and 111 involving non -fatal injuries. The SUBJECT: Relinquishment of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar March 23, 2004 Page 4 claims history is sporadic and the State's cost to defend against claims is unknown. Based upon a share of the City's insurance, staff estimates that the cost would be $100,000 per year. Most, if not all, the Vision 2004 streetscape improvements could take place with PCH under Caltrans' jurisdiction. PCH in CdM will not look very different regardless of which agency (City or Caltrans) has the jurisdiction. Vision 2004 Projects The City has currently funded two Vision 2004 projects: CdM Coast Highway Pedestrian Improvements, $71,100; and Coast Highway Channelization — CdM Median Improvements, $446,595. The pedestrian improvements study will be complete this month. The report will detail potential projects such as a flashing crosswalk or signalized intersection at Iris and Orchid. It is anticipated that Caltrans may be resistant to either project due to various concerns regarding the conformance with State standards. The CdM median project is currently under design; however, staff has gotten feedback from Caltrans that they are concerned about the width of the current traffic lane immediately adjacent to the proposed median. Should Caltrans prevail in upholding their standard lane width, the proposed landscaped medians may need to be reduced in width up to 4 feet. The CdM BID has proposed approximately $2.3 million in future CIP projects over the next five years (see attached Vision 2004 Proposed 5 year Worksheet). The proposed projects include decorative streetlight replacements, enhanced sidewalk resurfacing, entry monuments, and additional street furniture. Funding for these projects has not been identified. A portion of the relinquishment payment could be used to offset some of the costs in areas where repair work would overlap new improvements; however, staff strongly recommends that the funds designated for roadway repair be preserved for that purpose. Submitted by: yL�oe. %44, - G. Badum Homer L. Bludifu Works Director City Manager Attachments: Exhibit A — PSSR dated June 2003 Exhibit B — City's presentation dated January 14, 2004 Exhibit C — Caltrans response letter dated January 30, 2004 Exhibit D — City Council Meeting Minutes dated February 8, 2000 & April 10, 2001 Exhibit E — Vision 2004 Proposed Budget 5 yr Worksheet thru 2008/09 i '.'efrrc PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT a ai PROJECT AREA y��µricin R! vuaEnxnnorno coven :PUN d NVE0.51pF ro.ro "t VUCENN 9 t M.. CAWn IaHEW # tLY } ` wr'F M, GRANGE4* . TOnx (rff f� unnxt J t ?� t LO�t� ca-'b• 'e. 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 PM 14.1/1 12840 -OC66 Relinquishments 20.10.201.160 June 2003 On Route 1 from Newport Coast Drive to Jamboree Road In the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California Roadway Rehabilitation to place the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to relinquishment to the City of NewpogiBeach I have reviewed the right of way information contained in this Project Scope Summare y Rp //o t and t e Data Sheet attached hereto, and find the data to be complete, current and accurate. Kath nderson Date Righ of Way Project Coordinator APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY., '&Nooshin /� o Gary Sla er ate Branch Chief, Project Studies Unit Project A APPROVZD BY.• 4u -7 t d� Mare �X 03 Date 0 0 i a�wE�Nre a , ccvun SAN JUNE 4 GM91n.�W i � EnaO � 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 PM 14.1/1 12840 -OC66 Relinquishments 20.10.201.160 June 2003 On Route 1 from Newport Coast Drive to Jamboree Road In the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California Roadway Rehabilitation to place the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to relinquishment to the City of NewpogiBeach I have reviewed the right of way information contained in this Project Scope Summare y Rp //o t and t e Data Sheet attached hereto, and find the data to be complete, current and accurate. Kath nderson Date Righ of Way Project Coordinator APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY., '&Nooshin /� o Gary Sla er ate Branch Chief, Project Studies Unit Project A APPROVZD BY.• 4u -7 t d� Mare �X 03 Date 0 0 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7 /28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840-OC66OK-20.10.201 . 160 Roadway Rehabilitation/Relinquishment PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT (PAVEMENT REHABILITATION) 1. Project Limits: This Pavement rehabilitation project is on the Pacific Coast Highway, SR -1, in Orange County, in the City of Newport Beach. The project is from Newport Coast Drive, KP 22.7 (PM 14.1) to Jamboree Road, KP 28.0 (PM 17.4) as shown on the attached strip map and location map. Please refer to Attachments A R B. 2. Brief Project Description: This project proposes to put the facility in a "state of good repair" in preparation for the relinquishment by rehabilitating the existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement (Attachment Q by overlaying or grinding and overlaying, repairing broken sidewalks and constructing some drainage improvements which consist of replacing existing curb and gutter and replacing/repairing cross gutters at some locations. This project is being prepared as a financial contribution only (FCO), to the City of Newport Beach. The California Department of Transportation (Department) is not proposing a construction contract and will not be involved in any pavement rehabilitation activity after the relinquishment of the highway. Background: This Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) is prepared to place the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to relinquishment to address the portion of Senate Bill No. 290 (Attachment D) that pertains to this facility. Senate Bill No. 290 authorizes the California Transportation Commission (CTC), to relinquish to the City of Newport Beach, a specified portion of State Highway SR -1 that is located between Jamboree Road and the southern city limits of the City of Newport Beach. The bill allows the CTC to relinquish the highway, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the State. Before the annexation of Newport Coast, the old southerly limit of the City of Newport Beach was approximately 305 in (1000 feet) south of Cameo Highlands Drive (KP 23.571PM 14.65). This point is Approx. 91 in (300 feet) north of Pelican Point Drive (KP 23.51PM 14.60). Page I of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 23.5/28.0 (PM 14.6/17.4) 12840- OC660K The old southerly relinquishment limit of the project was the intersection of SR -1 and Pelican Point Drive and hence old relinquishment limits were from Pelican Point Drive (KP 23.51PM 14.7) to Jamboree Road (KP 28.0/PM 17.4). Newport Coast annexation occurred in January 2002 and the new southerly limit of the City of Newport Beach is Muddy Canyon Creek. Therefore, the new southerly relinquishment limit of the project has been chosen and agreed upon by both, the City of Newport Beach and the Department, to be the intersection of SR -1 and Newport Coast Drive and hence new relinquishment limits of the project are from Newport Coast Drive (KP 22.71PM 14.1) to Jamboree Road (KP 28.01PM 17.4). The relinquishment would become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. The portion of State Highway SR -1 relinquished as specified would cease to be a State highway on the effective date of the relinquishment. The bill would impose a State- mandated local program by requiring the City of Newport Beach to perform specified functions. This segment of SR -1 is located in the City of Newport Beach. It is a six -lane facility from Newport Coast Drive to Pelican Point Drive, four -lane facility from Pelican Point Drive to MacArthur Blvd., and a six-lane facility from MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road. The median is paved, varies in width and has continuous left -turn lanes at various locations. The median between Newport Coast Drive and Pelican Point Drive is paved (no curb and trees). The median between Pelican Point Drive and Jamboree Road is raised (curb and trees) at some locations and paved (no curb and trees) at other locations. There are no inside shoulders and the outside shoulder varies in width. The outside shoulder is used as a parking lane from Seaward Rd. to Dahlia Ave. in northbound direction and Avocado Ave. to Seaward Rd. in southbound direction. The outside shoulder is used as a bike lane from Jamboree Rd. to Avocado Ave. and Seaward Rd. to Newport Coast Drive in both, northbound and southbound directions. This segment of SR -1 is surrounded by businesses, commercial and residential developments. A Pavement Rehabilitation Project (EA 030004) was accepted on July 7, 1998 from Cameo Shore Dr. KP 23.8 (PM 14.8) to MacArthur Blvd., KP 26.1 (PM E 3. EN 0 l� 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840 -OC660 16.2). A Major Maintenance Project (EA OA0004) was awarded in May of 2001 from MacArthur Blvd. KP 26.2 (PM 16.3) to Dover Dr., KP 29.6 (PM 18.4) and was accepted on November 16, 2001. Environmental Status Categorical Exemption/Exclusion (CEQA) : This project was approved as Categorical Exemption/Exclusion on 8/12/2002. Please refer to Attachment E for a copy of the environmental documentation. Traffic Data: Traffic Volumes and Characteristics: Present ADT: 48,000 1 % Truck: 12.7% 5 -Year ADT: 49,500 T.I (5 Year) 19.0 10 -Year ADT: 51,000 T.I (10 Year) 19.5 DHV' (I-Way Direction) 2,394 Accident Data: (Attachment F) Latest 3 -Year Accident Data from 08/01/98 to 07/31/01: (Actual vs. Average Rates) The TASAS Table B, representing the three -year period from 08/01/98 to 07/31/01 indicates an actual accident rate of 2.13 MVM in northbound direction and 1.83 MVM in southbound direction. The actual rate is 1.98 MVM and average accident rate is 2.06 MVM in both, northbound and southbound directions. The TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL, for the three -year period from 08/01/98 to 07/31/01, indicates there were 327 total accidents in both directions, 176 accidents were in the northbound direction and 151 accidents were in the southbound direction. The TASAS Table B, also indicates there were 1 fatal, 111 injury and 215 non - injury accidents in both directions. Page 3 of 19 Total Accidents per Million Kilometer Post (Post Mile) Vehicle Miles (MVM) Traveled Actual Average NB & SB SR -1: 08/01/98 to 07/31/01 KP 22.7 (PM 14.1) to KP 28.0 (PM 17.4) 1.98 2.06 The TASAS Table B, representing the three -year period from 08/01/98 to 07/31/01 indicates an actual accident rate of 2.13 MVM in northbound direction and 1.83 MVM in southbound direction. The actual rate is 1.98 MVM and average accident rate is 2.06 MVM in both, northbound and southbound directions. The TASAS SELECTIVE RECORD RETRIEVAL, for the three -year period from 08/01/98 to 07/31/01, indicates there were 327 total accidents in both directions, 176 accidents were in the northbound direction and 151 accidents were in the southbound direction. The TASAS Table B, also indicates there were 1 fatal, 111 injury and 215 non - injury accidents in both directions. Page 3 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K Safety Enhancements: Two Traffic Safety Analysis were conducted by Traffic Studies branch on 07/02/02 (New project limits) and 11/28/01 (Old project limits). (1) A Traffic Safety Analysis was done on 07 -02 -02 for new extended portion of project limits from Newport Coast Drive to Pelican Point Drive: There are no traffic safety issues from Newport Coast Drive to Pelican Point Drive. (2) A Traffic Safety Analysis was done on 11/28/01 for old project limits from Pelican Point Drive to Jamboree Road. Traffic safety issues are described as below: As per Traffic Safety Analysis, all the signing and the striping appeared to be in the place and visible, and there were no apparent safety deficiencies throughout the project limits. There are two Table C locations within the project limits. The recommendations for the two Table C's are the following: A Intersection of SR -1 and Orchid Ave. at PM 15.531 A992 -104A 0 To install two (2) advance Intersection - warning signs (W9) in each direction of SR -1. The location of this Warning Sign W9 is at approximately 200 ft before intersecting Orchid Ave. B Intersection of SR -1 and his Ave. at PM 15.901 A004 -106A To install one (1) Advance Intersection- Warning sign (W7A) in the northbound SR -1 direction. The location of this Warning Sign is at approximately 200 ft before his Ave. Conclusion: Since there are no apparent roadway safety deficiencies throughout this segment, and the only safety improvements will be addressed in the two Table C investigations. The Department Maintenance department will implement the recommendations in a separate project and need not to be incorporated in this pavement rehabilitation project. 0 Page 4 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K 5. Roadway Geometric Information: Facility Through Traffic Lanes Paved Shoulder Median Width Width (M) (M) # of Lanes Lane Type Left Right Width (AC or PCC) (M) Existing K.P. 6 both 3.6 AC 0 0 -2.4 and 0 -3.6 and VAR 22.7/23.5 directions VAR Existing K.P. 4 both 3.4 to 3.6 AC 0 0 -2.4 and 0 -3.6 and VAR 23.5/26.2 directions VAR Existing K.P. 6 both 3.6 AC 0 0 -2.4 and 0 -3.6 and VAR 26.2/28.0 directions VAR Min. 3R Stds - - - - - -- 3.6 AC 2.4 2.4 3.6 There are non - standard lanes and shoulder widths within the project limits. As discussed with Jim DeLuca, Project Development Coordinator, on 2/26/02, "A Mandatory Design Exception fact sheet" is not required for this project for the . following reason: "If the scope of the project is to bring the facility up to a "state of good repair ", as required prior to relinquishment, then yes I would agree that a Mandatory Design Exception fact sheet is not required. State of good repair would mean that the project is not making any improvements and not changing any geometric features, but simply overlaying (and or grinding) pavement, possibly repairing broken sidewalk, curb, etc. All construction work will occur after relinquishment and the facility will no longer be a State highway. I concur that the fact sheet is not required since it is an FCO for relinquishment." Section 73 of the Streets and Highways (S &H) Code requires that the "highway" must be placed in a "state of good repair' (which includes maintenance as defined in Section 27, S &H Code) prior to relinquishment of routes superseded by relocation. On State highways deleted by legislative enactment, the Department places the highway in a "state of good repair" prior to the date the relinquishment becomes effective. Section 73 also specifies that Department is not obligated for widening, new construction, or for major reconstruction, unless specifically directed by the CTC. As defined in Section 23, S &H Code, "highway' includes bridges, culverts, curbs, drains and all works incidental to highway construction, improvement, and maintenance. • 6. Structures Information: N/A Page 5 of 19 7 Q 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) . 12840- OC660K Condition of Existing Pavement: Pavement condition survey data is shown below: (Attachment G) PMS Category (1 -29) 10 Priority Classification: 0_4 IRI (MAX): 210 PCC Pavement: AC Pavement: 3`d stage Cracking % N/A Alligator B Cracking %: 15% Faulting N/A Patching %: None Joint Spalls N/A Rutting: None Pumping N/A Bleeding: None Corner Breaks % N/A Raveling: None Location(s) of subsurface or ponded surface -water problem: . The following drainage improvements should be considered including replacement of existing cross gutters and curb and gutter on southbound SR -1 between Fern Leaf Avenue and Poppy Avenue. In addition, replacement of existing cross gutters should be considered on northbound SR -1 at Hazel Drive, Poppy Avenue, Marigold Avenue, Larkspur Avenue, and Jasmine Avenue and southbound SR -1 at Dahlia Avenue and Seaward Rd. Estimated cost for drainage improvements is $108,350 Deflection Study Data: (Attachment H) Two Deflection tests were conducted by the Office of Materials Engineering and Testing Services (METS) personnel: (1) On June 13, 2002, for new extended portion of project limits from Newport Coast Drive (KP 22.7 / PM 14.1) to Pelican Point Drive (KP 23.5 / PM 14.6). (2) On November 14, 2001, for old project limits from Pelican Point Drive (KP 23.5 / PM 14.6) to Jamboree Road (KP 28.0 / PM 17.4). In both Deflection tests, a pavement surface distress evaluation study was made at . the time of deflection testing to assess the type and severity of pavement distresses. Page 6 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) • 12840- OC660K The survey, from Newport Coast Drive to Pelican Point Drive (KP 22.7/23.5 - PM 14.1 -14.6) indicates that the pavement surface do not show any major distress. • • The survey, from Pelican Point Drive to MacArthur Blvd. (Part 1 of 2, KP 23.5/26.2 - PM 14.6 -16.3) indicates that the new overlay does not have any distress. The survey (Part 2 of 2, KP 26.2/28.0 - PM 16.3 -17.4) indicates that a thin rubberized overlay has been placed recently and there is no sign of distress on the pavement surface. For both Deflection tests, the proceeding recommendations in Attachment H are based on the five and ten -year Traffic Indices (TI5 and TIio), type of material, thickness of the existing Asphalt Concrete (AC), and evaluated 80`h percentile and tolerable deflection levels. The rehabilitation criteria were based on the structural adequacy restoration, reflective crack retardation and ride quality improvement. Page 7 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) . 12840- OC660K 9. Cost Estimate: ALTERNATIVE 1: "No Build" Alternative ALTERNATIVE 2: Structural Section Work Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Pavement Repair (Local distress and digouts) Lump Sum - $11,000 Cold Plane AC Pavement 120,945 in $2.50 $302,400 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Type G (RAC-G) Overlay of AC Pavement 16,207 tonne $70 $1,134,500 SUBTOTAL (1) $1,447,900 Non - Structural Section Work Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Adjust Frame and Cover to Grade 5 EA $300 $1,500 Drainage Improvements Lump Sum - - $108,400 Minor Concrete (Miscellaneous Construction) Lump Sum - - $5,000 Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Improvements Lump Sum - - $120000 Access Ramps Improvements Lump Sum - - $83,100 Battery Backup System for Signals 12 EA $5,000 $60,000 Pacific Coast and G -93 bike route signs 6 EA $300 $1,800 Traffic Control Lump Sum - - $126,900 Traffic Stripes & Pavement Marking (Paint & Thermoplastic) Lump Sum - $43,300 Pavement Markers Lump Sum $31,500 Loop Detectors 150 EA $350 $52,500 NPDES Catch Basin Upgrade 70 EA $1,000 $70,000 Preparation of WPCP Lump Sum - - $2,000 Implementation of WPCP Lump Sum - - $5,000 Supplemental Work of WPCP Lump Sum - I - $1,500 SUBTOTAL (2) $712,600 SUM OF SUBTOTALS (1) & (2) $2,160,500 10% MOBILIZATION $216,100 20% CONTINGENCY $432,100 TOTAL COST $2,808,700 25 % ENGINEERING SUPPORT COST $702,200 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,510,900 -ALTEgNA k. gig Page 8 of 19 • 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7128.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K 10. Other Agencies Involved This is a FCO project. Only the City of Newport Beach is involved. 11. Other Considerations NPDES /Storm Water Quality Compliance: The NPDES/ Storm Water Unit recommends this project will be performed under Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) due to the fact that the soil disturbing activities involved in this project will disturb less than 0.4 ha (1 acre). No other native soil disturbance activities are involved in this project besides pavement rehabilitation. Hazardous waste disposal site required: Iwo 0 Materials and or disposal site needs and availability: The project involves grinding and disposing of the pavement. The project Engineer should notify the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region Santa Ana and define how and where the material will be disposed. The drying or storing of wet residue from grinding asphalt concrete pavement will not be permitted within the project limits or elsewhere within the State right of way. Residue from grinding operations shall be disposed of outside the highway right of way in accordance with the provisions in section 7 -1.13, "Dispose of Material Outside of the Highway right of Way," of the Standard Specifications. Any repair of concrete curbs and/or sidewalks shall be in accordance with Section 73, Concrete Curbs and Sidewalks, of the Department Standard Specifications (July 1999). Right of Way: The proposed project is within the existing State right -of -way. No acquisition is required. Please refer to Attachment I for Right of Way Data Sheet. Railroad Involvement: This project does not involve railroads. Page 9 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K Utility Involvement: This project will not require public utilities relocations. The contractor must perform the construction in such a manner that all the existing utilities are preserved and protected. Consistency with other Planning: The following project is within or adjacent to the relinquishment limits of this project. Coordination with this project is necessary. Expenditure Route KP Project Description Authorization (PM) (EA) OC380K 001 19.47 -21.56 Crystal Cove Storm Water Quality (12.1 to 13.4) Salvaging and recycling of hardware and other non - renewable resources: None anticipated Prolonged temporary ramp closures: None Effects on bicycle traffic: SR -1 has been officially designated as "Pacific Coast Bicentennial Bike Route" in 31 & 143 by the State Senate and Assembly. In addition, the Department Deputy Directive 64 (DD64) accommodates the need and importance of non - motorized travelers. In accordance with these resolutions, the Department is requesting to maintain adequate and appropriate signs for the use of bicycles on SR -1. At minimum, there shall be erected a total of six (6) signs. This shall consist of three sets of signs, SB/NB, to be placed in three locations along SR -1. One set of signs shall be placed near the intersection of MacArthur Blvd., another at Marguerite Ave. and the other at Buck Gully. All the existing bike lanes within the project limit should be maintained, and must be restored after any resurface work. The gap between Avocado Ave.. and Seaward Rd. should include G -93 BIKE ROUTE signs. Recycling of AC: Recycling of AC is not a viable alternative for this project due to the small quantities involved. Page 10 of 19 1 9 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K Environmental Issues: No significant environmental consequences are anticipated with this project. Permit: All entities, other than the Department Forces, working within the State right -of- way, are required to obtain the Department encroachment permit(s) prior to commencement of work. A fee may apply. Allow a minimum of two weeks to process and issue an encroachment permit provided the application package is complete. Consequences of not doing this entire project: This portion of the SR -1 will remain a part of the State Highway System if SR -1 is not relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the State has to continue to bear the cost of maintenance and liability. Also, the Senate Bill No. 290 permits the CTC to relinquish the State highway and the Department concurs to relinquish the portion of State highway. Other issues: Need to include "Relinquishment - Cooperative agreement' for future project. The PSSR will serve as an authorized document for the Department in agreement with the City of Newport Beach. Traffic Management Plan (TMP): Please refer to Attachment J for a Lane Closure Chart provided by Traffic Operations. Elements expected to be recommended or discussed in the project TMP include: • Public Awareness Campaign • Detour or Alternative Routes with signing • Fixed and Portable Changeable Message Signs • Traffic Management Center (TMC) • TMP Coordination and Review • Coordination with local cities during construction closures These elements are included in the various bid items of the project and no separate bid items are included. Page 11 of 19 Page 12 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K 12A. The project has been field reviewed by: Protect field review by District 12 Sudu Chalan, Project Engineer, Project Studies Unit Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Shilpa Panchal, Project Engineer, Project Studies Unit Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Keith Samson, Maintenance Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Majid Movahed, Maintenance Date: 11/08/01 Kambiz Zanjani, Materials Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Behdad Baseghi, Materials Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Sunil Gupta, Hydraulics Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Dave Bhalla, Hydraulics Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Alain Wahabi, Traffic Studies Date: 11/08/01 & 05/31/02 Please refer to Attachment K for Seeping team field review roster. Project field review by District 12 and the Citv of Newport Beach District 12: 1\ooshin Yoosefi, Project Manager, Project Management Date: 03/18/03 Gary Slater, Branch Chief, Project Studies Unit Date: 03/18/03 Sudu Chalan, Project Engineer, Project Studies Unit Date: 03/18/03 Shilpa Panchal, Project Engineer, Project Studies Unit Date: 03/18/03 Majid Movahed, Maintenance Date: 03/18/03 Sunil Gupta, Hydraulics Date: 03/18/03 Henry Pham, Branch Chief, Traffic Electrical Systems Date: 03/18/03 Rahim Monajemi, Traffic Operations Date: 03/18/03 Page 12 of 19 9 0 0 The City of Newport Beach: Bill Patapoff, City Engineer Richard Edmonston Transportation & Development Services Manager 12B. Project Reviewed by: District Maintenance District Safety District Materials HQ Division of Design Type of Federal Involvement: Masooud Tajik Jason Osman Behdad Baseghi Jim DeLuca 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1/17.4) 12840- OC660K Date: 03/18/03 Date: 03/18/03 Date: 05/21/02 Date: 05/28/02 Date: 05/31/02 Date: 05/15/02 This Project is considered exempt from FHWA oversight 23 USC sec. 106 (c) (1) according to the Department Project Development Procedures Manual. 13. Proposed Funding The project is proposed to be funded through 2002 SHOPP amendment or in the 2002 mid -cycle State Highway Operation and Protection Plan ( SHOPP) as "Relinquishments, under program code 20.10.201.160 ". This project is proposed as Financial Contribution Only (FCO), to the City of Newport Beach to place the highway in a "state of good repair" for relinquishment to the City of Newport Beach to address a portion of Senate Bill No. 290. This project will be a State/Federal funded project. An FCO- Cooperative agreement will be required between the State and the City of Newport Beach. 14. Project Support and Schedule Please refer to Attachment L for a detailed estimate of the project PY's corresponding to the proposed project schedule. Proposed Program FY District PY'S Engineering Service Center PY'S FY Total PY'S Other Costs ($) METS and Others Structures Office Design R/W Constr Deli n Constr Design Constr En r 01/02 .02 .02 02/03 0.43 .0 .43 03/04 1.11 .48 .03 1.61 04/05 .279 .28 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT PY'S AND OTHER SUPPORT COSTS PY'S Page 13 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1117.4) 12840- OC660K 15. Remarks: The following Alternatives are considered for the project area: Structural Section Work for Alternatives: Alternative 1: "No Build" Alternative "No Build" (to do- nothing) alternative would not be a viable alternative due to further deterioration of the pavement and increased cost of maintenance. Alternative 2: This Alternative 2 proposes to: - From Newport Coast Drive to Pelican Point Drive: RAC -G overlay only strategy because of no raised median. - Pelican Point Dr. to Jamboree Road: Both, Cold Plane and RAC -G overlay strategy because of raised medians 9 As described below, this ten -year rehabilitation strategy proposes to: Locate specific areas of severe distress such as rutting greater than 15 mm (0.6 in) and/or loose pavement or potholes. From KP 22.7 to 23.5 (PM 14.1 to 14.6): • Northbound and Southbound directions: Cold Plane the existing AC pavement 0-45 mm (0 -0.15 ft), 1.5 in (5 ft) from the existing lip of the gutter (or edge of pavement (EP), if the gutter does not exist). This will ensure that the existing lip of the gutter (or EP) and the edge of the proposed AC pavement are flush which will allow water to sheet flow from the street effectively. Then repair the localized distressed areas and seal all cracks wider than 5 mm (0.2 in). Then place 45 mm (0.15 ft) of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Type G (RAC -G) overlay. This will increase the existing profile grade of mainline by 45 mm (0.15 ft). 40 Page 14 of 19 12 -ORA -001 KP 227 /2S.0 (PNI 24.1117,4) • 12540- (K'660K From RI' 23.5 to 26.2 (I'M 14.6 to 16.3): • Northbound and Southbound directions: Cold Plane the existing AC pavement 45 mm (0,15 ft), repair the localized distressed areas and seal all cracks wider than 5 mm (0.2 in). Then place 45 rnm (0.15 ft) Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Type G (RAC -G) overlay. `Phis will maintain the existing profile grade of mainline. From hP 26.2 to 25.0 (PNI 16.3 to 17.4): Northbound direction: Cold Plane the existing AC pavement 60 mm (0,20 ft), repair the localized distressed areas and seal all crack: w'idcr than 5 mm (0? in). 'then place Ell mm (0.20 ft) Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Tvpc G (RAC -G) overlay. This will maintain the (:xisting, profile grade of mainline. Southbound direction: Cold Plane the existing AC pavement 45 mm (0.15 ft), repair the localized distresed areas and seal all cracks % idcr than 5 mm (0.2 in). Then place 45 mm (0.15 ft) Rubbcrired Asphalt Concrete Type G ( RAC -G) overlay. This will maintain the existing profile grade of mainfinc, This Alternative 2 will cast approximately S3,51 1.001). Non- Structural Section Work for Alternative 2: • Adjust frame and cover to trade: Adjust frame and cover (storin drain tnanttoles) to grade to match proposed profile grade, • Drainage Improvements: The folluwint, drainage improvements should be considered including replacement of existino cross gutters and curb and Rutter on southbound SR -1 between Fern Leaf Avenue and Poppy Avenue. In addition, replacement of existing crows gutters should be considered on northbound SR -1 at Hazel Drive, Poppy Avenue. %farigold Avenue, Larkspur Avenue, and Jasmine Avenue and on southbound SR- 1 at Dahlia Avenue and Seaward Rd, Pace 15 of 19 1_ -ORA -001 KP 22.7/28.0 (PM 14.1117.4) 12540- 00660K • Minor Concrete (illiscellaneous Construction): Rcpair broken sideu alks, curbs, and ;uttcrs. • Curb. Gutter, and Sidewalk improvements: \/13 PCII: Construct new curb and gutter (T)'pc A2-200) from Pelican Point Drive to Cameo Shores Road. Construct 2.41 m wide gap closure of existing sidewalk between Newport Coast Drivc and Pelican Point Drive. S /13 PCII: Remove existim,, curbs with AC overlaid gutters and replace with new curbs and gutters (Tppc A2 -200) from Dahlia Avenuc to Cameo Shores Road. Cold plane. 0 -100 min depth and 3 rn width from the fare of the curt), at all affected locations. Rcpair minor crack, on cxit;6n, asphalt con rcie sidcv alk fr om J =iborcc Road to Avocado Avenue. • Access Ramps: Remove all 119 csistinL non-compliant ADA access ramps and replace with compliant ADA access ramps. Construct m o new compliant ADA access ramps (t ) on northbound SR -1 at southeast comer of Fern Leaf Avenue (2) on Southbound SR -I at northwest corner of Seaward Road. • Bike Route Suns: Install six Pacific Coast and G -93 bike route suns. At minimum. there shall be erected a total of six (6) signs. This shrill consist of three sets of signs, SB /1B, to be placed in three locations along SR -1. Onc set of suns shall be placed near the intetscction of MacArthur Blvd., another at Maroucrite A%c.- and the other at Buck Gully. Page 16 of 19 E 0 • !' -OR A -0G 1 KP 22.7/2S.0 1Pbl 14.1117.4) 1'84() GC66(.1K • Traffic Control: Traffic control will be required during Construction. • Traffic Desi!n: Replace Traffic stripes. Pavcment Alarkin, and Pat cment Markers. • Electrical Work: Replace Inductive Loop Detectors. Install hatters backup system for all twelve siLnals. Also. all Model 170 controllers were reccntiv up_raded on September 26, 2001. N'PDI,:S! Storm ycater: This project %\ ill bo perf(mned under Watcr Pollution Control Pn?lIram (WPCP). IIPerade total 70 catch basins as per NPDES requirements. 16. ListofAttachments: :attachment A \ttachmcnt B Strip %lap Location Map Attachment C Tvpic:d Cros Sections .v1: :-homy 1) 1 copy of a pornf,n of Scnatc Bill No. 91) Attachment E Catcgoric:tl IxctnptiitnJLsrlusiun Document Attachment 1= TASAS'lable D Accident Table Attachment G Pavement Condition Survey Atwchment 11 Deflection Study Report for AC Pas'Cntcnt Attachment d Right of wav Data Sheet AILIAnnent J A Lane Closure Chan from Traffic Opera(iun, lu hmcnt K Scoping Tcam Field Rcvictt Attendance Roster .;twchnlent L Project Schedule Poe 17 of 19 Gail Farber (949) 124 -2599 Depute' District Director Plannimr Pee l3 of 19 12- ORA -00 t KP 2_.7/2S.0 tP1`i 14.1/17.4) I2840- OC660K 17, District Contacts: Sudu Chalan (949) 724 -2069 Project Engineer Project Studies Unit Shilpa Panchal (949) 756 -7897 Project Engineer Project Studies unit Gar} Slater (949) 756 -76S5 Branch Chief Project Studies Unit MaSSaud Tajik (949) 724 -2478 Program Advisor Maintenance Nooshin Yoosefi (93r>171-4 -2131 Project Manager Project Management George Kopjak (949i 714 -2233 District Program Mana_cr Program ManaLement Pravicen Gupta (949) 724 -2243 Branch Chid' L•n%ironmcntal Haa;nim: Kathy J. Anderson (949) 724 -2407 Ri =ght of Way Project Coordinator Frank Lin 94`>) 724-2 126 Office Chief Office of De�ian Gail Farber (949) 124 -2599 Depute' District Director Plannimr Pee l3 of 19 x t W a v o � z I f o U • -. M3k : W t Ft 1 ti U 4 LU _ LL o W cc W C O w _ a - Q cc 0 • U LU W i c . LL co A 6 _.._._T "- an 33tlOBwYf � --- - -__ -- `u �— ..._.. _._. _� l.r.^._._ ".... � r r: r+rtr drt :oxw.. _._ .IIOIIIIi➢dSYIYI O tY3VlIYd'JO 11WD1�. x t W a v o � z I f Senate Bill No. 290 Passed the Senate September 14, 2001 Secreran of Me Senate Passed One assembly September 12, 200) Chie /-Clerk- of the 9ssom6 /r 0 This bill v:as rcciced be tha Gocemo. tivs _ (.Li o{. 2(Y) 1, at _ .. o'clock Private Sec•retati of the Governor F SB 290 — 2 -- 0 CHAPTER An act to amend Section 5410 of, and to add Section 5442.11 to, the Business and Professions Code, to amend Section 11011.18 of, to add Section 14102 to, and to repeal Section 14529.3 of, the Government Code, to amend Section 20351 of the Public Contract Code, to amend Sections 120222 and 125223 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 302 and 325 of, and to add Section 301.5 to, the Streets and Highways Code, and to amend Sections 4000.6, 5014.1, 5017, 6700.2, 9400.1, 9410, 9862.5, 12509, 16020, 16028, 20002, and 34672 of, and to add Section 24612 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to transportation. LEGISLATIVE CUU:SEUS DIGEST SB 290, Committee on Transportation. Transportation. (1) The Outdoor Advertising Act regulates the placement of advertising displays adjacent to and within specified distances of highways that are part of the national system of interstate and defense highways and federal aid highways. The act, except as specified, prohibits any advertising display from being placed or maintained on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that has been landscaped if the advertising display is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main - traveled way of the landscaped freeway. This bill would additionally exempt from that prohibition. and would subject an advertising display to special removal and relocation provisions, not more than 4 nonconforming advertising displays located in the Mid -City Recovery Redevelopment Project Area within the Ciy of Los Angeles, if the displays meet prescribed conditions. The bill would set forth facts and declare that the provisions specified above constitute necessary special legislation. (2) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to Furnish to the Department of General Services a record of each parcel of real property. where available, or identified .transportation project. which it possesses, except certain existing properties or projects. Existing lave further requires certain other descriptions to be provided. 'N) F SB 290 —4— required to seek a minimum of 3 quotations which permit prices and other terms to be compared. This bill would increase the above - described threshold from $1,000 to 52,500. (7) Existing law requires the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to any city or county any portion of any state highway within the city or county that has been deleted from the state highway system by legislative enactment. These relinquishments become effective upon the first day of the next calendar or fiscal year, whichever first occurs after the effective date of the legislative enactment. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Newport Beach a specified portion of State Highway Route 1, upon terns and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. The relinquishment would become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. The portion of State Highway Route I relinquished as specified would cease to be a state highway on the effective date of the relinquishment. The bill would impose a state- mandated local program by requiring the City of Newport Beach to perform specified functions. (8) Existing law authorizes the California Transportation Commission, upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so, to relinquish. upon terms and conditions approved by it, that portion or portions of State Highway Route 2 located within the City of west Hollywood or the City of Santa '`Monica, or both, to that city or cities, upon agreement by the city or cities to accept the relinquishment or relinquishments. A relinquishment under this authority is effective on the date specified in the commission's approved terms and conditions with the respective city, and, thereafter, State Highway Route 2 may not include the portion or portions so relinquished, nor may the portion or portions be considered for future adoption by the state. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the City of Los Angeles a specified portion of State Highway Route 2, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. arid would require the City of Los Angeles to maintain within its jurisdiction certain directional signs. thereby a� — 11— SB 290 20351. Contracts for the construction in excess of fifty thousand dollars (S50,000) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding, except in emergency declared by the vote of two- thirds of the membership of the board. SEC. 5.2. Section 120222 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read: 120222. Contracts for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid after competitive bidding, except in emergency declared by the vote of two- thirds of the membership of the board. When the expected purchase contract exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars (52,500) and does not exceed fifty thousand dollars (550,000), the board shall seek a minimum of three quotations, either written or oral, which permit prices and other terms to be compared. SEC. 5.3. Section 125223 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read: 125223. Contracts for the purchase of supplies, equipment, and materials in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding, except in an emergency declared by the vote of two- thirds of the membership of the board. SEC. 5.7. Section 301.5 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read: 301.5. . The commission may relinquish to th2 City of Newport Beach the portion of Route 1 that is located between Jamboree Road and the southern city limits of the City of Newport Beach, upon terms arid conditions the commission fords to be in the best interests of the state. (a) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing, the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (b) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment, both of the following shall occur. (1) The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall eease to be a state highway. (2) The portion of Route I relinquished under this section shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. W 0 SB 290 — 12— (c) The City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 1, includine. but not limited to, any traffic signal progression. (d) For those portions of Route I that are relinquished, the City of Newport Beach shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1. SEC. 6. Section 302 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read: 302. (a) Route 2 is from: (1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits of the City of Santa Monica at Centincla Avenue to Route 101 in Los Angeles. (2) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada Flintridge via Glendale. (3) Route 210 in La Canada Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood. (b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interests of the state to do so. the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish that portion or portions of Route 2 located within the City of West Hollywood or the City of Santa Monica, or both, to that city or cities, upon agreement by the city or cities to accept the relinquishment or relinquishtncnts. A relinquishment shall be effective on the date specified in the commission's approved terms and conditions with the respective city. Thereafter, Route 2 shall not include the portion or portions so relinquished, nor shall the portion or portions be considered for future adoption in accordance with Section 81. For portions of Route 2 that are so relinquished, the City of West Hollywood or the City of Santa ?vionica, or both, shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of State Highway Route 2, (c) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the commission may relinquish to the City of Los Angeles the portion of Route 2 that is located between Route 405 and .Moreno Drive in that city. upon terms and conditions the commission Finds to be in the best interests of the stag. (2) A relinquishment under this subdivision shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the rclinquishment. 9.. I 0 AM L 0 • c O 0 U� 0 a a� m z o 0)-0 z M 0 U) ry 0 U � co • 0 0 0 \ k E a � k / E \ CL CL / 2 / \� /$ \� § 0 e ® o� ® - r &� § /, � t�5 / §� §-0 @ =E o�� o722 ° °7 @ Eo E/% E1) — & \m % R t \ \- c CD i_ b 2m co k� m3/ 0 o == £ _D :sf § @ MM 5« k 2 ®E _r &�2 0 CD ® ^EU) \ ® 22 g§ CD (D / //\ § \ \§ /k7 \_ ® �k\ ƒo -t _ \ I mac = "= .2 2m CL � = f >\ //� _ °%% « \_E _%( m� ®Z « E3c E ° _ £ ®2= ƒ °� £ -7 a2E %«£2 ® 0 g ®$ 2§0 §\\ �' U� k�\ f ±R% d� \ 5 CD 220 §3E -0\\ E/ \ \�\ 7 \/ M: _� f/ / _ e/W \E E Q) CL = &CL " 0 =_ —u f L6 m 0 / _0 �c — _ § J I o _® : ® 2 _ —® /� C .5 ® o @( /§ E:= CL W �\ / 0 -� _Vs._� ® ®� -0 c° U) E� ©%f E ®2 : $® -Cm §E \ #q 2�2 /£�/ £\ % 2 /E %¢ ƒf \ \ = ±/k _� :3 0. 532\ Q) _a �CE 2(® §_Sa ° em =� ag ).R - E \ \/\ \\\ ƒ /// // \ k E a � k / E \ CL CL / 2 / \� /$ 0 J2 • C C a cz • CY) O r f-- � r-- CO OD f� 0O 0 M N 6% O O M N 6% O O f.- N 6% O O 00 60, O O It � O O 00 60, O O M � N O fl O O N 60, LO M O 69 O In fR O N O O fR fR W C w N C C.) fA O) C N O C C d • r-- ` C) � C CO • � CO ca C ° E >, C`6) N co O 3 7 Q O 69 M c0 _H •C c lL) (O c0 a) co T M LL J o N y w .a) c`o 'O c Q O . E oc 70 4-0 c0 N .- O 6 ca 3 O E E O N CO) • c C C >+ c0 "' c0 U a) T N Lo � a) 4— cz ' ._. 7 CO c0 >+ O Lo L U * <N- * O • a ca c ca �a m Y u°)) � ca >, y ca o U U c `0 m Y O o 3 ca ca L. 0 0) 8 C� a) a) T O LO N T 3 a) T M d O (� w U O L U �••� U e- CA c0 '0 0) •E • " w w a) y «y c y y c O. • • < cc 0 U) Cn w a) tT o •C o m 0 .- y t1 CO Q 0 W a C .3 �, 0 E O ti( U O E y C N 0) y O . 7 M C c 2 c) co (O E y N U O O O C4 LO M 'O p c0 0 C1 7 n N 0) N c0 a) tR U N 699 N • cc L L L a O y a) c 0 o In 0 O c E .L-. 0 `CO � N O o o o m E v y a) CL u _ E u ° 0 a) U C Y a) Lo j y Lo 0 y CL w a m CL o c_V 0- ° N L � D CN a) N C N 69 M Cn �$ACIt p Z U rn a) C a) (D m 'a U LL m d 2 3 n C •= U 05 U) U) U) C-) U) F- :D W U) D O U 0 0 0 171 El I • ClJ L LO r O O U) U (1) c c� C N C E L O L CL L- r O O LO r L LO Irl- X O O O O 6F} cn U J E L O L a LO L r O O O W O F— c ca L Off' W oE O � O N O T-- T cu O� in 2 O 0 U U.� C � •L ( U O m � � U U U to (0 U U N � ca c O O o Q. � O a� is m m e� 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C5 �-- o �-- Ld M T II II EC} I -j I O j O U o U E E N F= c: o L c o- O -0 •- LO N 4- m U o (1) w � � o H Lo U ST'4TF OF CALIFORNIA— BUSNESS 7RANLQQBT9TION A VD HORSING AGENCY ARNOLD SC1 W\R7ENFCGFR G DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF DESIGN 1120 N STREET P, 0, BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273 -0001 PHONE (916) 654 -3858 FAX (916) 654 -5881 TTY (916) 654 -4086 January 30, 2004 Mr. Homer L. Bludau City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Bludau: Ate.. Flnryourpower! Be energy efficient! is On behalf of the Relinquishment Resolution Committee I would like to thank you for your January 14, 2004 presentation on the proposed State Highway 1 relinquishment within the City of Newport Beach. Attached for your information is the memorandum to the Chief Engineer, which includes the Committee's recommendation to support the "State of Good Repair" estimate outlined in the PSSR approved by District 12 on July 1, 2003. The Committee does not support additional compensation being provided beyond the amount of $3,511,000. Should you need additional information or desire to proceed with this relinquishment based on the above level of compensation, please contact Cindy Quon, District 12 Director at (949) 440 -3440. Sincerely, •�-�^ „ MARS LEJA Chief Division of Design Attachment c: Cindy Quon, District 12 Director 1] 'Cnhrmn irnrrrl-es mobitiiy across Cnlifonaia" Fact Sheet for EA 00660K Relinquishment of Portions of State Route 1— PCH in Newport Beach/Corona Del star ORAA- 001— P.M 14.1117.4 Project Description/Information: • Location & Limits: IN NEWPORT BEACH FROM NEWPORT COAST DRIVE TO JAMBOREE ROAD • Description: PCH Relinquishment by Legislative act • Background: This Project determines the monetary compensation needed to place PCH in a "State of Good Repair' upon relinquishment, in compliance with SB 390 introduced by Asseblyman John Campbell on behalf of City of Newport Beach, and signed into law on Oct 14, 2001. This bill authorizes the California Transportation Commission to relinquish to the City of Newport Beach a specified portion of State Highway Route I that is located between Jamboree Road and the southern city limits of the City of Newport Beach. upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. This project will be a "Financial Contribution Only' (FCOj project. and is on the 2004 SHOPP list. • Project Benefits: The portion of State Highway Route I relinquished as specified would cease to be a state highway on the effective date of the relinquishment. City will have the ability to implement all improvement and beautification plans (Vision 2004 p;ojecl) without approvals and permits From the Department. The benefit !o the Department will be relief of liability and maintenance costs in this segment of highway. • Chronology of Significant Events: l) SS 290 was signed in October 7-001. ') The department received a letter from Assembl M vman John Campbell on arch 6.'_003 stating that the :ntent of SB '90 by the "southerly city limit" was an area near Corona Del filar. Suci�aueridv. Distrct and Citn u--reed an the "Newpur! Caast Drive' as the project southern: limit. i Distric: submitted Draft PSSR :o city for. s on 1116/02 %vith an esuma[ed cost of S i.3 \I including 10 -year rehab. J) On January i:. _003 ma meeting with District and City staff. Cir: sub.mmed in undocumented counterproposal that included items such as 1S -Year liability t$1.311) and }laiutenance costs 63.3M) and other major roadway improvements for a total cost of 313AM. March 1. =003. District submitted a revised cost = nimate of S'-.;NJ :o ;nciucd tome ot'C:r:'s commena on the PSSR mcludine yt-PDES Catch Basin Filters. b� 'vLrch :. '00) _ District 12 Director Cindy Quon me! '.pith the City >lanager and it .gas decided w conduct a ;Dint tieid review :o address the remaining :mproyernenis rrquestcd b:. Ca. . joint held :r.m +y was conducted on :i 13,0:. i; On 6i l'.103. District staff met with City and presented a re-rised PSSR.vith an updated cost estimate of 53.5-1 which included items identified in thejoim field review as well as 25 9c Engtncerinv Support cost. This amount was approved by HQ's relinquishment committee. District staff also provided city with a copy of [hc appeal process from PDP.M. 4; PSSR -.vas shined and approved by Du[rc ;,m UX0t with a cost estimate detailed estimate attached). 10) Draft relinquishment cooperative agreement -.vas Sent :o Cir: ter :r: itw aad - omment --n - G1r01 . Proiect Contact(s): Project Manager: `ooshmYa +,tri.:919i '._. Final Project Cost Estimate Route 1 - Pacific Coast Highway - E?. OC660K .Newport Coast Drive (KP 22.7 iPM 1-4.1) to Jamboree Road ( KP _8.0 /PM 17.4) ALTERNATIVE 2 Structural Section Work Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Pavement Repair (Local distress and digouts) Lump Sum - - $11.000 Cold Plane AC Pavement 120,945 m' $2.50 5)02,400 Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Type G (RAC- G) Overla of AC Pavement 16,207 tonne $70 $1,134,500 SUBTOTAL (1) $1,447,900 Nun- Structural Section Work Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Adjust Frame and Cover to Grade 5 EA 5300 $1,500 Drainage Improvements Lum Sum $108,400 Minor Concrete (Miscellaneous Construction) Lum Sum 55.000 Curb. Gutter. and Sidewalk Improvements Lum Sum $120.100 Access Ramps Improvements Lump Sum 583.100 Battery Backup System for Signals I^ EA '55.000 $60,000 Pacific Coast and G-9' ) bike route signs 6 EA 5300 $1,800 Traffic Control Lamp Sum - 5126.900 Traffic Stripes & Pavement Marking (Paint & Thermoplastic) Lump Sum - I 5-43.300 Pavement Markers Lump Sum j S)1,500 Loop Detectors ; l_0 I EA i 7)0 ! 553.500 NrPDES Catch Basin Upgrade 70 EA 51.000 570.000 Preparation of WPCP Lum Sum - - $2.000 Implementation of WPCP Lum Sum - $5.000 Supplemental Work of WPCP Lum Sum - $1,500 SLBTOTAL (2) $712.600 SUNI OF SUBTOTALS (1) & (2) 52.160,500 101,76 MOBILIZATION $216.100 20% CONTINGENCY $432.100 TOTAL COST $2.808.700 25ro ENGINEERING SUPPORT COST $702.200 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3.510.900 ALTER - NATIVE 2 • FINAL PROJECT COST $3.511.000 lie^11Zerl ;-,), \1 eStlrrlate 0 • 0 0 —9— c'h. x2; t%%o- thirds of (ho membership Lit the hoard. When the expected purchase contract exceeds two thousand Five hundred dollars ($2.500) and does not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50.000). the board shall seek a minimum of three quotations. either written or oral. which permit prices and other terms to be compared. SEC. 5.3. Section 125223 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read: 125223. Contracts for the purchase of supplies. equipment, and materials in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50.000) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding, except in an emergency declared by the vote of two- thirds of the membership of the board. SEC. 5.7. Section 301.5 is added to the Streets and Highways Code, to read: 301.5. The conunission may relinquish to the City of Newport Beach the portion of Route 1 that is located between Jamboree Road and the southern city limits of the City of Newport Beach, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the state. (a) A relinquishment under this section shall become effective immediately following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the conttnission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (b) On and after the effective date of the relinquishment. both of the fallowing shall occur: (1) The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall cease to be a state highway. (2) The portion of Route 1 relinquished under this section shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. (c) The City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 1. including, but not limited to, any traffic signal progression. (d) For those portions of Route 1 that are relinquished. the City of Newport Beach shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 1. SEC. 6. Section 302 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read: 30_2. (a) Route 2 is from: (1) The point where Santa Monica Boulevard crosses the city limits of the City of Santa Monica at Centinela Avenue to Route 101 in Los Angeles. (2) Route 101 in Los Angeles to Route 210 in La Canada Flintridge via Glendale. (3) Route 210 in La Canada Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood. 89 F 58 290 4 4 0 4 m s�JaJ n O� msin)n A•OI I As p)vJm) As °)SIA)tl _.__ .B O)NOiSNJ A b a x J U1 n d Z O cc O U G z Z W x V) Q Z J W a LL O n H N r ? a � J X a H Z W x N_ O Z J W a LL 0 oa F N � a � w J d U U) O Z W E a r'£�o1)noa su U m d 4 w ' en pvpxt e 0] p a owry CL p ey h+o cY�4yG 3 w ex h)A) r 80 1)[.x )n• .yyoy W 3.• n1 p5m0y f �' )n• O�xabp 0 )n• s sny+h K N n. n�vL S•ny 'g �1 +• sva. Y ) n n• ),nwon) povx)px .mAxva IAI xoyxnn 11, 1" 4h's UnOU4040 )A• no•a• s�JaJ n O� msin)n A•OI I As p)vJm) As °)SIA)tl _.__ .B O)NOiSNJ A b a x J U1 n d Z O cc O U G z Z W x V) Q Z J W a LL O n H N r ? a � J X a H Z W x N_ O Z J W a LL 0 oa F N � a � w J d U U) O Z State of California DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 Memorandum 0 To: MIKE LEONARDO Acting Chief Engineer From: MARK LEJA Chief Division of Design Subject: City of Newport Beach Relinquishment Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Flex your power! Be ene,Ty e/ficientl Date: January 30, 2004 File: 610.22 The purpose of this memo is to update yon on a proposed relinquishment for a portion of State Route 1 in the City of Newport Beach and to provide the recommendation on the next steps in this process. The City of Newport Beach is interested in acquiring ownership of a portion of State Route l from Newport Coast Drive to Jamboree Road, PM 14.1!17.4. This section is also known as the Pacific Coast Highway. On October 14, 2001, Senate Bill (SB) 290 was passed and Section 301.5 was added to the Streets and Highways Code. This section says that the California Transportation Commission may relinquish to the City of Newport Beach the portion of Route 1 between Jamboree Road and the southern city limits of the City of Newport Beach, upon terms and conditions the commission finds to be in the best interests of the State. Attached is a fact sheet prepared by District 12 that highlights the chronology of events since passage of SB 290. District 12 and the City of Newport Beach have met numerous times to discuss the terms of the relinquishment. They have been able to reach consensus on the amount of work and compensation required to attain a "State of Good Repair." This has been documented in a PSSR approved by the District 12 Director on July 1, 2003. The City has requested additional compensation for IS years of maintenance and tort liability that significantly exceeds the "State of Good Repair" estimate. To address this issue we have assembled the Headquarters Relinquishment Resolution Committee to review the City's proposal. On January 12, 2004, the Relinquishment Resolution Committee met with representatives from the City and District 12. The committee consists of Division Chiefs from Design, Maintenance, Planning, Programming and Legal. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" MIKE LEONARDO January 30, 2004 Page 2 Management from District 12 presented the project background and history on the proposed relinquishment. The Department completed a pavement rehabilitation project July 7, 1998 from PM 14.8/16.2. A major maintenance project was accepted on November 16, 2001 that covered PM 16.3/18.4. Given the condition of the pavement near -term maintenance cost should be minimal. The "State of Good Repair' cost estimate in the PSSR is $3,511,000 and a summary is attached. City Manager, Homer Bludau, presented issues for Newport Beach. 1'he City agreed with the PSSR estimate. Additional monies were requested for 15 years of maintenance and liability cost. The City estimated their annual maintenance and liability cost to be $620,000 and $100,000, respectively. This amounted to $10,800,000 over 15 years. The City acknowledged that there will likely be economic benefits to the City as a result of this relinquishment and presented a cost - sharing proposal whereby they will accept 50% of this amount. Their requested relinquishment compensation would be $5,400,000 plus the $3,511,000 PSSR estimate for a total of $8,911,000. Currently the Department spends approximately $72,000 annually to maintain this segment of state highway. The latest liability claims paid occurred in 1993 involving two cases totaling $235,000. Since that time liability costs have been negligible, as no claims have been paid along • this section of state highway. As a result of the January 12 meeting, the Relinquishment Resolution Committee makes the recommendation that the $3,511,000 estimate is reasonable and in the best interest of the State. No additional compensation would be appropriate for this situation. The committee proposes a memo be forwarded to the City and to the District with this recommendation. If the City decides to continue with the relinquishment process they will be requested to contact the District 12 Director for assistance so that the proposal of $3,511,000 may be considered by the California Transportation Commission. Attachmdnts I Concur: 0 "Callrons improves mobilily across California" City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 IPIDEX f • public and visitor signage throughout the City of Newport Beach. Council Member Glover believed that the City needs better sign r/asign e indicated that Mariner's Mile will be coming to the City wpr am that was put together by the businesses in which they The motiaki carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glo , Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor No s Noes: None Abstain; None Absent: Thomson, Dgbay 18. APPEAL OF PARKS, B ACHES AND ECREATION COMMISSION DECISION. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated tha a tries to oppose tree removals; however, in this case, the City needs to move two parkway trees to preserve the sight lines to a stop sign tha s in a drool area. He noted that he would love to see the trees re ma ut believe\cthis is one case in which the City cannot compromise safet nd the safety o 7iloo'erturn children. Motion b Ma or rp Tem Adams to the decision of the • Parka, Beaches ap4 Recreation Commission of 2/2000 to continue a tree removal reques y the Traffic Engineer; and 2) approve the removal of two city parkway )fees located at Eastbluff Drive and Vista 4el Oro. The mot n carried by the following roll call vote: Aye . Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes es: None bstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay — None. CONTINUED BUSINESS 19. COAST HIGHWAY RELINQUISHMENT IN CORONA DEL MAR. City Manager Bludau cautioned Council that this would be difficult to back out of once the City secures a legislator to sponsor legislation for the relinquishment without losing favor of that legislator. He believed that the process should begin but just wanted to make Council aware that relinquishment from Caltrans is an unusual process to undertake. Public Works Director Webb stated that the City and the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (CdM BID) have had many meetings with • Caltrans. He reported that it is Caltrans District 12's preference that the City request a relinquishment for either all of Coast Highway or the portion from the easterly City limits to Newport Boulevard, and not just a small Volume 53 - Page 196 Tree Removal/ Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Oro (62) Coast Highway Relinquishment (74) 1] 11 City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 piece. He indicated that Corona del Mar may have some differences in which a case can be built that the section through the business district is different from the roadway on either side. Mr. Webb reported that it is Caltrans' policy that local agency relinquishment requests be done through the legislature. As part of a relinquishment, Caltrans agrees to bring the roadway section up to a state of good repair (having a ten year life). He reported that Caltrans has recently done a major overlay and reconstruction project, so there may or may not be the ability to receive large sums of money for improvements. He indicated that negotiations will still be needed after the legislative process to define "state of good repair ". Mr. Webb reported that the relinquishment will be good for the Corona del Mar area because everything requires a Caltrans permit that is currently done to the storefronts of the entire right -of -way. If the City were controlling that area, the permit process would hopefully be quicker. He stated that Caltrans does not allow certain activities, like sidewalk sales or outside dining; and are reluctant to allow extensive improvements in median landscaping and paving. The community indicated that they would like the ability to conduct upgrades that are not normally allowed by Caltrans. Council Member O'Neil reported that there is a phenomenon in old Corona del Mar in which both the business and residential communities are in total agreement on one thing, and that this motivates him to do whatever he can to support it. He believed that, if the City accomplishes the relinquishment, it will create a lot of landscaping possibilities, a more village -like character, a more pedestrian- friendly area, and more parking opportunities. He noted that the CdM BID has been working on this and will continue to work on this, and has looked at the maintenance issues and liability exposure. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to propose a relinquishment to Caltrans of the one mile stretch through the Corona del Mar business district; authorize the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District representatives to meet with Caltrans officials and staff to discuss all the issues (i.e. long term maintenance and liability) and come back to Council with their findings; Council reserves the right to secure legislator to sponsor legislation to accomplish the relinquishment; and direct staff to negotiate with Caltrans a "state of good repair" settlement. Don Glasgow, 2620 East Coast Highway, business owner, Chairman of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, stated that he has been working with some incredible volunteers on this project for about three years. He stated that the DIM BID hopes to move ahead with the relinquishment at the same time their Corona del Mar plans move ahead, so that momentum is not lost. He emphasized that they do have momentum, cohesiveness, and ideas for the area. He reported that they need to get Caltrans out of the way if they want to add more trees, improve pedestrian circulation, improve parking management, add more medians, fix sidewalks, add more landscaping and paving, add street enhancements, add more and better park benches, add bike racks and water fountains, improve building facades, improve signage, dean up alleys, improve lighting, add more Volume 53 - Page 197 INDEX City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX • planter boxes and flower pots, add hanging plants, add more decorations, and add more monuments at the City's entrance. He emphasized that they need to deal with one agency, the City, and then they can work with the City to figure out how to get everything done to make Corona del Mar one of the most special places in Southern California. Mr. Glasgow stated that they understand that things cost money but that they are getting creative and researching funding sources. Council Member Ridgeway applauded the CdM BID on all their goals, but cautioned them of the downsides to relinquishment (long term maintenance costs after ten years and the liability risks). He stated that Council needs to evaluate the cost and tort risks to the City prior to proceeding forward. Council Member Glover stated that there will be a cost to the City because it will be handling all the lawsuits that occur there, but noted that the City always ends up being one of the parties affected anyway. She pointed out that, although the cost will be spread throughout the City, this is a real positive thing for the City. She indicated that the City needs to concentrate on improving all the older areas and agreed with Mr. Glasgow that Corona del Mar can be taken to another level. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay i0 BALBOA PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. Balboa Peninsula Parking un rev )) wed Member Ridgeway reported that this item has been re wed both Management by opncil and by Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PFLOP). (85) Tom Hy a President of the Central Newport Community Association, s ed that they have done considerp�ble work with Council Member Ridge n the peninsula parking plarfand that this plan deals entirely with commer ' 1 areas. He believed tliat the determination of what will work best for the b esses is for thebusinesses to explore and that options can be tried at re 'vely lit�expenae to the City. Regarding residential areas, the Associatio Ges not feel there should be meters in these areas. Additionally, the r also not supportive of higher fees or raising the parking permit p gram a residential areas. Mr. Hyans indicated that he review the Balboa plans but expressed concern relative to parking bust near this business. Council Membe idgeway reported that the Balbo Parking lot will be reviewed at ater date. Regarding Option 4 (Implemen usiness Parking Permit Pr am), he indicated that the City will be watching ery closely as to whe er businesses impact residential areas. • otion by Council Member Ridgeway to approve the following op ns and direct staff to implement as soon as possible: Volume 53 - Page 198 11 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session April 10, 2001- 4:25 pm. ROLL CALL Present: Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: Heffernan, O'Neil & Proctor (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item No. 8, Budget Amendment for Deferred Maintenance Projects at the Oil & Gas Field Facility, Council Member Ridgeway stated that he understood the request, but that the item should have gone through the Oil & Gas Field Operations Committee prior to coming to the City Council. Regarding Item No. 12, Appointment to Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC), City Manager Bludau stated that the appointment of Cris Trapp to EQAC should be made as a member at -large and not as a member with expertise in the area of CEQA administration or environmental expertise. 2. VISION 2004 ORAL PRESENTATION. City Manager Bludau stated that the intent of the presentation at the current meeting was to provide information on the Vision 2004 plan for Corona del Mar. He added that a review of the maintenance and impact details was planned to take place at the regular meeting, later in the evening. Ed Selich, Chairman of the Planning Commission and Vision 2004 Plan Coordinator, used PowerPoint to present Vision 2004, a plan for Corona del Mar's centennial. He stated that in August of 1999, the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) hosted a weekend long design charrette, where professional urban designers met with business owners and residents to explore what design changes might take place to improve the Corona del Mar business district and strengthen the village atmosphere in the area. Mr. Selich stated that the results of the charrette were used by the BID, the Corona del Mar Residents Association and the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce to prepare Vision 2004. Mr. Selich stated that in order to make any significant changes in the area, one of the first orders of business was for the City to assume jurisdiction over Coast Highway. He stated that in February of 2000, the City Council authorized the BID to begin the negotiation process with the State. And, in Spring of 2000, the BID commenced the drafting of a concept plan for Coast Volume 54 - Page 184 III v Vision 2004 Corona del Mar Plan (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 10, 2001 Highway. He noted that the Vision 2004 plan before the City Council at the current meeting is still work in progress and a concept plan only. He stated that the final design details would still need to be discussed. Mr. Selich further explained that the plan proposal has been printed on a two -sided poster, with plan and prospective views on the front and text on the back. He stated that the poster is the primary communication document for Vision 2004. He noted that a new logo was also created by the BID with a new motto, "Corona del Mar, the Seaside Garden Village ". Mr. Selich stated that the backbone of the plan is to create a strong median landscaping statement along the length of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. He added that the park -like feeling created by the medians would be further enhanced by sidewalk landscaping and that new paving materials would be used on all of the sidewalks. Mr. Selich stated that it is also proposed to treat the parking lanes with paving similar to the sidewalks, rather than the traditional asphalt. Regarding lighting fixtures, Mr. Selich stated that the current cobra head standards would be replaced with a decorative heritage lighting fixture. He stated that the standards would have permanent brackets for hanging baskets, which would further contribute to the park -like garden theme. He mentioned that the standards would also have permanent brackets for banners. Mr. Selich stated that a coordinated collection of street furniture would also be selected and placed in appropriate locations. Mr. Selich stated that major accents are being proposed for key locations along the business district. He specifically stated that special paving treatment is being proposed for the intersection at Marguerite Avenue and Coast Highway. And, a village green would be created at the parking area at Marguerite Avenue and Bayside Drive, with the parking area moved beneath it. He stated that it is envisioned that a focal point structure would also be placed at this location, making it the village center. Mr. Selich stated that other key locations that would receive enhancement would be the eastern gateway to the business district at Seaward Road and the western gateway at Avocado Avenue. He added that traffic lanes would be moved at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway and other changes made to encourage pedestrian traffic throughout the area. Mr. Selich stated that Coast Highway will remain a major traffic arterial, but the plan envisions the creation of additional pedestrian crossings. He stated that the Vision 2004 plan makes Coast Highway a visual delight for motorists, while also making it pedestrian friendly. Mr. Selich stated that discussions have taken place with Corona del Mar Plaza regarding the upgrading and enhancing of their pedestrian entrance at MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway, as well. Mr. Selich stated that the Vision 2004 presentation has been given to over 2,000 residents since October of 2000. He stated that this outreach program has resulted in modifications to plan proposals to satisfy concerns expressed during the process. He stated that the presentation has also been televised, reaching many more residents throughout the entire City. He stated that as a result of the community outreach program, numerous endorsements have Volume 54 -Page 185 i City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 10, 2001 INDEX been received. Mr. Selich announced the BID's website, which can be accessed at www.cdmvillage.com. Mr. Selich stated that the next step in the process would be to adopt the resolution before the City Council at the regular meeting later in the evening, requesting that the California Transportation Commission (CalTrans) support relinquishment of a portion of State Highway Route 1. He stated that it was important for the City Council to adopt the resolution at the evening meeting so that the item could come before the Transportation Board in June. Mr. Selich stated that the Vision 2004 plan is expected to cost approximately $12 million, with a substantial portion of it proposed to come from the funds that CalTrans will pay as a part of the relinquishment. Mr. Selich stated that the ongoing maintenance of the plan is approximately $222,627 annually, above what is currently paid by the City with CalTrans in control of Coast Highway. Mr. Selich stated that the BID is willing to pay for a portion of the increase, but the balance of it would have to come from the City. He stated that there are many benefits to the City for taking over control of Coast Highway, even if the Vision 2004 plan is not constructed. He added that the annual increase in ongoing maintenance would be approximately $132,200, without the Vision 2004 plan. Mr. Selich stated that the Vision 2004 plan is a unique opportunity to take the Corona del Mar business district to a higher level and one that is equal to the beautiful residential community surrounding it. He stated that the plan's vision is shared by residents, business owners and property owners. He added that the plan is the result of twenty -one months of hard work. Don Glasgow, BID Chairman, stated that the journey has been long and everything is being done to develop a proposal that will be high in quality and value. He urged the City Council to adopt the resolution of relinquishment before them at the regular meeting, noting how important the negotiations with CalTrans are to the process. Referring to the staff report for Item No. 17 of the regular meeting, Mayor Adams asked why the BID would be authorized to work with the City and CalTrans on long -term maintenance and liability issues, and then report back to the City Council. He stated that this process should ideally happen prior to the adoption of the resolution. City Manager Bludau stated that the City has already done the best job it can in identifying the liability risks, given that no other streets in the City are comparable. He stated that the areas of potential concern could be addressed in the engineering phase of the project. Council Member Glover recalled that CalTrans at one point wrote a letter stating their preference for having the entire highway relinquished. She asked for an update on the portions of Coast Highway that were under CalTrans' control. Public Works Director Webb stated that all of Coast Highway, within the City limits, was under CalTrans control. City Manager Bludau stated that the suggestion by CalTrans was not pursued by the City because it wasn't a project defined in the Vision 2004 plan. Volume 54 - Page 186 of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 10, 2001 INDEX Ak Council Member Glover stated her concern for not knowing the liability risks of taking over the highway. She also expressed concern about pedestrian safety and asked if more stoplights could be added. Public Works Director Webb stated that it is a matter of cost and traffic flow. City Manager Bludau noted that approximately half of the pedestrians currently use the marked crosswalks and the addition of three new traffic signals, as proposed in the Vision 2004 plan, is expected to further increase pedestrian safety. Council Member Glover stated that it still leaves two intersections without lights. She asked about the accident rate. Public Works Director Webb stated that no information has been published an whether accidents increase or decrease as a result of signaled crosswalks. City Manager Bludau added that putting traffic signals at just some of the intersections could cause motorists to ignore pedestrians at the other intersections, but putting them at all intersections adds the concern about traffic flow and air pollution. Mr. Selich explained that the recommendation to add three new traffic signals was expected to provide the optimal balance. Council Member Glover stated that the plan was a good one, but that she did want to verbalize her concerns about pedestrian safety in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway suggested that the new logo include a mention of Newport Beach. He clarified with Mr. Selich that the existing parking at the village green would be moved underground with landscaping planted on top. Mr. Selich stated that the change in grade makes it feasible, but that the details still need to be worked out and the idea is still in the conceptual • stage. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway made note that the Coastal Commission recently denied the request in the Balboa Village plan to move some of the convenient parking in the village to a larger parking lot. He suggested that this be taken into consideration when developing the Vision 2004 plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway additionally expressed his concern for the liability issue. He stated his understanding that CalTrans would prefer to relinquish the entire stretch of Coast Highway running through Newport Beach, which would include future annexations. He stated that he cannot support such a relinquishment due to liability, although he does support the Vision 2004 plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that a better job could also be done with balancing the maintenance costs. He stated that unless the BID is prepared to step in to a higher degree, he couldn't support the City spending approximately $200,000 on maintenance costs annually for the plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway concluded by stating that he didn't think CalTrans would allow the design elements in the plan while Coast Highway is under their control nor would they agree to a reasonable reimbursement for the City taking over the highway. Council Member Bromberg stated that it's a wonderful project and liability will always be a concern with a project of such magnitude. He added that the signaled crosswalks in Laguna seem effective. Regarding maintenance costs, Mayor Adams asked how energy in the corridor is paid for. City Manager Bludau stated that the City currently Volume 54 - Page 187 1] Study Session Minutes April 10, 2001 pays for the energy used by the streetlights. Mayor Adams noted that the maintenance of the new street furniture did not appear to be listed in the maintenance costa list. Mr. Selich could not confirm for Mayor Adams under what category the pavement cleaning costs were included, but did state that the BID would be taking care of the banner program. Mayor Adams agreed with City Manager Bludau's earlier concern about some intersections having more protection than others, and the liability issue. In response to Council Member Glover's question about the maintenance costs, City Manager Bludau stated that City staff developed the figures, with General Services Director Niederhaus calculating the majority of them. Mayor Adams suggested to Mr. Selich that it might be better to have a comprehensive list of costs, with an indication of those costs that will be paid for by the BID. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the plan is only conceptual. Mayor Adams stated that the ongoing maintenance costs are a main issue. Mr. Selich stated that he understood that the process was evolving, that more information is always coming in and there is a lot of work still to be done. . Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the project would not involve a general plan amendment so would not be subject to the terms of Measure S. City Manager Bludau stated that it would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the City has a database of information regarding accidents on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Risk Manager Farley stated that a database does exist, the loss data goes back twenty years and has been computerized for the last five years. Per Mayor Adams' question, City Attorney Burnham stated that claims filed with CalTrans would not be included in the City's database, but he didn't think a claim had been filed CalTrans that hadn't also been filed with the City. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked about the basis for liability against CalTrans. City Attorney Burnham stated that the basis against CalTrans and the City is the same and that either is liable if there is a dangerous condition on public property, but that the definition of dangerous condition differs among different people. City Attorney Burnham added that case law does not find street lighting as a factor in deciding if there is a dangerous condition, but site line is. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked about the possibility of using encroachment permits to assume a portion of the liability. Public Works Director Webb stated that CalTrans does not intend to issue encroachment permits for items that are not standard construction. • Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked how much had been paid out by the City in the last year or two for claims on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Risk Volume 54 - Page 189 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes April 10, 2001 INDEX Manager Farley stated that the information could be provided, but that she doesn't recall any money being paid out during that time period for that area. She added that typically claims involving CalTrans right -of -way are referred to CalTrans. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the City should know how much CalTrans has paid for such claims. Council Member Glover requested that the accident records for the unsignaled intersection at Iris Avenue be provided to the City Council. She suggested that possibly parking spaces could be removed to better the site line, although she understands that problem with doing that. GENERAL PLAN PUBLIC OUTREACH UPDATE. City Manager Bludau stated that the General Plan Update Committee has been meeting every two weeks since October of 2000. He state / /that brolyu Verheyen of Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) has been orking wi the committee to prepare a public outreach visioning process. Using PowerPoint presentation, City Manager Bludau s ed that the purpose f the visioning process is to build consensus ong a broad spectrum o the community about the future direction oft a community, to make sure t t input is obtained about major choices acing the City, to inform the deci �on makers of public opinion and prefe nces, and to lay the groundwork for p icy development. City Manager Bluda tated that shared commu Yty visioning will achieve a vision for the future wh h would include an assment of the current state of the City, a shared set o core values and a 99 ear set of strategic directions. He stated that the visionin process is di ' 9ed into four concurrent tracks which include outreach, com unity parti 'pation, technical studies and staff coordination of the process. 7 City Manager Bludau stated that th visioning process would include a state of the City key choices summary, nd�sion, values and strategic directions as part of the final do/nIn He sta ed that the process also includes intangible benefits, whude plan ing, active engagement of the community and developger Sens of community. City Mana ger Bludau stated that mods wool be used to obtain public participation during the City Manager Bluda listed the action items that wNld be recommended at the regular meetiYk under Item No. 18, Recommen tions from General Plan Update C mittee on Community Outreach I sioning" Process, Composition of eneral Plan Advisory Committee, and Con ultant Selection. He added th an additional item, Item No. 519, would app a the budget amendmen eeded to fund the agreement with MIG. City M ager Bludau stated that the General Plan Update Com ��ttee has work very hard on their recommendations and there has been ve} \pub par cipation. ayor Adams thanked the committee members and members of the Volume 54 - Page 189 General Plan Update (68) 0 0 W Ziiyo£�portBeach - -- -- -- City Council Minutes April 10, 2001 INDEX Abstain: None Absent: Proctor Mayor Adams recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m. 17. TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN CORONA DEL MAR FROM CALTRANS TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. City Manager Bludau stated that Council received a presentation during the study session relative to the Vision 2004 Plan which involves major improvements to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). He reported that, since the improvements are a significant departure from CalTrans standards and they would not approve them, the relinquishment of a portion of PCH from Avocado Avenue to Seaward Drive is important to the success of the Vision 2004 Plan. He indicated that Council directed the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) to work with staff and CalTrans to determine the maintenance costs, risks, and liabilities; determine the feasibility of the relinquishment; and talk about a state of repair settlement. Further, Council directed them to reserve the right of the legislator to sponsor legislation to accomplish the relinquishment. He emphasized that adopting the resolution is the first formal step in the process. Mr. Bludau reviewed the staff report, reporting that the improvements would cost about $12 million but the BID hopes not to depend on the City for major funding of the improvements. He reported that the new maintenance costs will increase from about $23,663 ($10,000 is reimbursable) to about $155.863 with the relinquishment, and about $249,300 with the Vision 2004 Plan. He highlighted traffic, traffic enforcement, liability, and staff impacts. He indicated that relinquishment may ultimately enhance pedestrian safety, strengthen the sense of a "village" atmosphere, increase the area's attractiveness. allow the City to process the right -of -way applications. and enhance sales tax generation. In response to Council Member Heffernan s questions, Public Works Director Webb stated that, to the best of his knowledge, the only City that is actively pursuing a relinquishment is Dana Point and that this has never been accomplished before. Mr. Bludau indicated that traffic is not going to be diverted during the improvements. but lanes may occasionally be closed. Council Member O'Neil emphasized that this is the first step and noted that this proposal is supported by the businesses along PCH and the Corona del Mar Residents Association which represents all the associations in the area. Motion by —Council Member O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 2001.21 requesting that the California Transportation Commission support relinquishment of a portion of State Highway Route 1 from Seaward Drive to Avocado Avenue. Ed Selich, Planning Commissioner. representing the BID, stated that the BID is trying to come up with ways to deal with construction traffic and possibly phasing the project. He indicated that they are not sure how much money they will get from CalTrans. but they have identified State and Federal programs, some of which involve matching funds. He stated that Volume 54 - Page 204 Res 2001 -21 Pacific Coast Highway/ CalTrans (74) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes April 10, 2001 they believe that they could raise the entire $12 million, especially if the project is phased. Don Glasgow, Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, stated that the supporters have worked very hard over the years and that people can learn more about the Vision 2004 Plan through the cdmvillage.com website. John Blom stated that he started his business in Corona del Mar because of its charm and appeal, but had a dream of what the area could become. He stated that the BID wants to improve the business district by making it more pedestrian - friendly and beautifying the overall look. He emphasized that Vision 2004 will last for generations. Wade Roberts, 606 Dahlia, Director of Activities at Sherman Gardens, expressed his enthusiasm for having a park run through town and noted that there is nothing like it in California. Ron Baers, 1911 E. Balboa Boulevard, stated that the City is made up of a series of villages and that people are trying to find ways to revitalize and make them better. He indicated that, with this proposal, people are trying to knit the area together to continue to make it a gathering place for the City. Scott Palmer, 2816 E. Coast Highway, reviewed the history of the area and stated that this is a plan that would create an amazing environment for the future. He emphasized that the BID cannot begin until Council votes for the relinquishment of PCH. Jennifer Cowen, 18952 MacArthur Boulevard, #220, stated that she is speaking on behalf of Assemblyman John Campbell and that he supports the Vision 2004 Plan. She indicated that Assemblyman Campbell will be an activist for this at the State level and that he and his staff will also try to work with the State agencies to make this a reality. B.J. Johnson stated that it is nice that, since she lives and works in the area, she does not have to get on any major thoroughfares and believed that, as this progresses, more and more people will improve their businesses. Bill Sinclair stated that he relocated from Washington D.C. to Corona del Mar because of the area's quality of life and expressed his support for this. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Proctor FROM GENERAL COMMUNITY OUTRE PROCESS, ( COMMITTEE, PLAN ADVISORY PLAN VISIONING PROCESS BUDGET Volume 54 - Page 205 C- 3410JBA•042 Res 2001.22 General Plan Update/ "Visioning" Process/ General Plan Advisory Committee rn M O N L O) O N L s h N 'O co m Gl 0 a 0 a O O N c O N OE °p o N n O O O ON N O O O O N N � O o° N N `r o °O N N f7 �O O O N N N M O O O O N N w 0 a i N c .0, N a c N m r c N t ti O• G N U c O Q c m U m rte, y o• a� rn y N G O• N y O CO h O N v O 0 N O y O• N N a m ti x 9 0 °o O 0 v N 0 0 0 °v N O O O O C w (4 O Ln O) a O N V U cm � � N m E m ti ' c a 0 N O O O U O O O M o 00 O O Ln O O N O eT Ln M O w p M x .. O Q o Ov m N cu 000 O N N t4 O O N 7 a O O F--7 N y% L O Ln E N M M p OO Ir O C = C N n1 tT 2 C N O 61 a cu AR — v cu Y co N �— Q co E C CO co r m" w o 0 O N C O� Ln O Cl) p O O N 42 00 0 Ln U th 0 N O N U N °a ono co a co O C .(D-� N N N __ c � O O M O N N U O b O 0 N 0. O U O O W C N rq y U N O U O M Cl O O ti r U N N N d N M .� co a t u 0 0 0 3 00 a t U 0 N 0) N N 4- U o U _� co to N m er NN Q a v M E to !A 0) O N N _ 42 a a) z O 00 a0 a�' m co N ,C U m a O Q N O Lp co ro CO CO N ^ N O co L Q N a N co U 0 0 N U U to 0) U� N O C c m N y N Y y CQ y C N C d R C 10 O a l6 U d �' 7 N W N > W O ~ rL U J H IL U i N c .0, N a c N m r c N t ti O• G N U c O Q c m U m rte, y o• a� rn y N G O• N y O CO h O N v O 0 N O y O• N N a m ti x 9 0