HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-13_BVAC_AgendaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
BALBOA VILLAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA
ExplorOcean
600 East Bay Avenue
Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Committee Members:
Michael Henn, Council Member (Chair)
Keith Curry, Mayor Pro -Tem
Gloria Oakes — Balboa Peninsula Point HOA
Ralph Rodheim — Balboa Village BID Board Member
Laura Keane — Central Newport Beach Community Association
Tom Pollack — ExplorOcean Representative
Jim Stratton — At -Large Representative
Staff Members:
Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director
Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director
Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer
Jim Campbell, Principal Planner
Fern Nueno, Associate Planner
Welcome and Introductions
Overview of Balboa Village Master Plan
htto : //www.newoortbeachca. aov /Modules /ShowDocument. asnx ?documentid =14799
Exhibit 1: Overview of Brand Development Process
Exhibit 2: Market Opportunities Analysis & Implementation Strategies
Exhibit 3: Parking Management Plan
Exhibit 4: Implementation Plan Matrix
Recommended Action: None Required
III. Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)
1. Introduction (Attachment 1)
2. Survey Results (Attachment 2)
3. Review Proposed Work Program (Attachment 3)
Recommended Action: Forward Work Program to City Council Authorizing Implementation
IV. Master Plan Priorities - Year -One (Attachment 4)
Recommended Action: Review & Establish Priorities for 2013
V. Proposed Meeting Schedule
Recommended Action: Approve Schedule
VI. Public Comment
VII. Adjournment Next Meeting Date Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.to 5:00 p.m.
Please refer to the City Website, http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2196, for additional
information regarding the Balboa Village Advisory Committee.
AN AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AT LEAST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AND THE PUBLIC IS
ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
IN ALL RESPECTS. IF, AS AN ATTENDEE OR A PARTICIPANT AT THIS MEETING, YOU WILL NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
BEYOND WHAT IS NORMALLY PROVIDED, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WILL ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU IN EVERY
REASONABLE MANNER. PLEASE CONTACT LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK, AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO
INFORM US OF YOUR PARTICULAR NEEDS AND TO DETERMINE IF ACCOMMODATION IS FEASIBLE (949- 644 -3005 OR
CITYCLERK(l -NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV).
Attachment 1
Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)
Introduction
BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN I FINAL REPORT
City of Newport Beach
Description
A residential permit program (RPP) operates by exempting permitted vehicles from the parking
restrictions and time limits for non - metered, on- street parking spaces within a geographic area.
A conventional RPP is one that allows those without a permit to park for generally two to four
hours during a specified time frame, such as 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday to Friday. Permit holders are
exempt from these regulations and able to essentially store their vehicle on- street. Ownership of a
permit, however, does not guarantee the availability of a parking space.
The proposed parameters for a RPP in Balboa Village have been informed by feedback from key
stakeholders, particularly the Balboa Village CAP.
Why Implement It?
The primary goal of an RPP is to manage parking "spillover" into residential neighborhoods. RPPs
work best in neighborhoods that are impacted by high parking demand from other uses, such as:
■ Large employers
■ Universities, colleges, neighborhood schools, or hospitals
■ Transit stations
■ Popular commercial, retail, entertainment, tourist, or recreational destinations
By managing spillover, RPPs can ensure that residential neighborhoods are not overwhelmed by
commuters, employees, or visitors, thereby enabling local residents to park their vehicles on-
street. RPPs are especially important in neighborhoods where residents have limited off- street
parking.
Tradeoffs to Consider
• Potential additional administrative, management, and enforcement costs for the City if
the program is not priced appropriately
• Permits do not guarantee parking availability for residents, which may become a problem
if too many permits are made available and sold
• Negotiation process with the Coastal Commission over the program parameters and
guidelines may be time consuming and resource intensive
How Will It Work?
Outlined below are the recommended program parameters for a potential RPP specific to the
Balboa area.
RPP District Boundaries
Parking restrictions would apply to all residential streets between 7th Street and Adams Street.
The metered spaces in the median on West Balboa Boulevard would remain metered and RPP
permits would not be valid at these spaces.
There is potential that the RPP could create additional spillover into areas just outside of the
boundaries of the proposed district. Boundaries may need to be adjusted in the future to respond
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15-13
BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN j FINAL REPORT
City of Newport Beach
to changes in demand. In general, however, it is believed that the proposed district will largely
capture the parking demand for the area and spillover will be limited.
Program Eligibility
All residences within the proposed zone
and Bay Island are eligible to purchase
permits. Rental home owners may
purchase permits for use by tenants.
To purchase a permit the following is
required:
• Completed application form and
payment
• Proof of residence is required (no
P.O. boxes), which can include one
of the following: Pre - printed check;
Driver's license; Current utility bill;
Vehicle registration; or Current
rental /lease agreement
• Permits can be purchased online,
by mail, or in- person at City Hall
Hours of Operation
No Parking: 4 PM — 9 AM, 7 days,
excluding holidays. Permit holders exempt.
In addition, RPP permits would not be
allowed for use in existing "green" short-
term parking spaces during the hours of
operation of abutting land uses.
Number of Permits
Legal Standing for RPPs
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) authorizes local
jurisdictions to limit or prohibit parking on local
streets and roads. The CVC also allows the
creation of a preferential parking program for
residents and merchants to exempt them from such
regulations (CVC Section 22507).10 Section 22507
states:
(a) The ordinance or resolution may include a
designation of certain streets upon which
preferential parking privileges are given to
residents and merchants adjacent to the streets for
their use and the use of their guests, under which
the residents and merchants may be issued a
permit or permits that exempt them from the
prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or
resolution. With the exception of alleys, the
ordinance or resolution shall not apply until signs
or markings giving adequate notice thereof have
been placed. A local ordinance or resolution
adopted pursuant to this section may contain
provisions that are reasonable and necessary to
ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking
program.
Section 22507.2 also states that "The local
authority may charge a nonrefundable fee to
defray the costs of issuing and administering the
A maximum of four permits per household. permits."
The issue of guest permits is still being
studied. Moving forward, any guest permit
option should limit the number of guest permits per household, price the permits accordingly,
limit the permit's time length (i.e. applies during the same overnight period as the standard RPP
permit) and clearly distinguish the guest permit to ensure that they are not utilized as standard
permits. Guest permits should also be eligible for purchase on -line.
Permit Type
Permits shall be a "hangtag" designed to be hung from a vehicle's rearview mirror. Permits will be
a solid color (to change annually) and clearly indicate the year of permit issued.
If included as part of the RPP, it is recommended that guest permits also be a hangtag with the
date of use and license plate of guest vehicle clearly indicated and visible.
10 For more information, see the CVC at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocdllc9.htm or Appendix B.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15-14
BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN I FINAL REPORT
City of Newport Beach
Permit Costs
Per the California Vehicle Code, jurisdictions are allowed to price permits to cover their
administrative costs. Given the high demand for parking and limited supply of on- street spaces in
Balboa Village, it is recommended that permits be priced at an escalating rate to encourage
residents to make full use of their garages and purchase only the number of permits they actually
need. Initial prices for the RPP are proposed below, which are comparative to RPPs in similar
jurisdictions. The City may need to adjust (up or down) the pricing structure in future years to
respond to evolving demand for permits.
■ Permits are valid from January 1St to December 31St
■ 1St permit: $20 per year
• 2 °d permit: $20 per year
• 3rd permit: $6o per year
• 4th permit: $loo per year
• Lost or replacement permit: $loo without proration
• Guest permits: To be determined
Revenue projection
Figure 5 -1 below provides the projected revenue for the proposed residential permit program at a
given number of permits purchased. The revenue projections were determined using U.S. Census
data for the number of households within the proposed permit zone (890 households) and the
average number of vehicles per household in Newport Beach (1.9 vehicles per household)." The
projections also include an estimate of revenue from replacement permits12 and citation
revenue t3.
Given the average number of vehicles per household in Newport Beach it is reasonable to assume
that the average household will purchase between two and three permits, likely closer to two
permits. As a result, a rough estimate is that the permit program would generate slightly more
than $106,000 in revenue per year. This revenue would be utilized to pay for administrative,
management, and enforcement of the program.
11 The projections assume that 5% of the 890 households within the study area will not purchase any permits, resulting in 846
households purchasing at least one permit.
12 Assumes the following: 2% of permits issued each year will be lost and repurchased at $100 each.
13 Assumes the following: 1) Approximately 664 non - metered, on- street spaces in proposed district; 2) .05% of parking spaces will
be issued a citation per day (about 3 citations per day in the district); 3) Regulations are enforced 350 days per year; and 4) All
citations are paid on time at $58 per citation.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15-15
BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN i FINAL REPORT
City of Newport Beach
Figure 5 -1 Projected Range of Revenue for Permit Program
It is important to note that the revenue projections provided here are initial estimates. The City is
still evaluating its potential administrative costs for the RPP program. Once implemented, the
finances of the RPP could be substantially different. Once again, per what the law allows, and
reflective of RPP best practices, the City may wish to price permits to cover the full costs of
program administration.
Enforcement
RPP restrictions would be primarily enforced by the City of Newport Beach Police Department,
with parking control officers supporting enforcement activities.
Compliance with California Coastal Commission
As discussed in Chapter 4, the Coastal Commission will need to approve any RPP proposed by the
City of Newport Beach for the 7th to Adams District. The Commission has reviewed a number of
RPP applications from other coastal jurisdictions in recent years and has consistently identified a
number of key issues which must be addressed by the RPP in order to secure final approval. With
those issues in mind, it is recommended that the City of Newport Beach permit application for the
RPP emphasize the following program elements.
The permit program is just one piece of a larger "package" of parking
reforms designed to strike a regulatory balance that makes it easier for both
residents and visitors to park in the 7u' to Adams District. The Coastal
Commission is primarily concerned with ensuring public access to coastal resources and
preventing "exclusive" access by permit holders. To address this concern, the City should
emphasize that the proposed RPP will complement the other recommendations included
in this study, all of which are designed to improve overall parking management. These
include:
a. Demand -based pricing to improve availability of both on- and off- street parking
facilities.
b. The creation of a formal shared parking district, in which as many private off- street
spaces as possible would be made public, thereby creating additional supply.
c. A real -time wayfinding program directing visitors to immediately available public
parking.
d. Potential implementation of a valet parking program and /or shuttle services to
remote lots during peak periods as a means to increase parking supply and efficiency.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15-16
BALBOA VILLAGE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN I FINAL REPORT
City of Newport Beach
e. The establishment of a PBD and the use of parking revenue to fund transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian infrastructure.
The hours of operation for the RPP are designed to conflict as little as
possible with beach visitors. The proposed 4 PM — 9 AM hours of operation are
designed to allow residents easy access to parking when they return home from work,
while giving visitors the opportunity to park on- street for the period of the day associated
with peak visitor demand. In addition, the proposed RPP would not be in effect on
holidays, typically the busiest periods of demand.
There is a large amount of available public parking nearby. The Walker study
demonstrates that there are close to 1,200 off - street parking spaces from Coronado Street
to B Street, all of which are within a 5 -10 minute walk from the primary beach and
commercial area in Balboa Village. Furthermore, the occupancy data from the Walker
study shows that during the hours of operation of the proposed RPP these off- street
spaces are 51% occupied on Thursday (7 PM) and 82% occupied on Saturday (7 PM). As a
result, there should still be ample available off- street parking for visitors.
It is also important to note that the Walker parking study took place at one of the busiest
times of the year, and it is likely that parking occupancies in the various parking lots will
be far lower for the vast majority of the year.
■ Residents within the proposed RPP district rely on on- street parking for
their vehicles. Many of the residences within the district do not have off - street parking
or represent non - conforming uses (i.e. single car garages or garages too small), which
forces residents to primarily use on- street parking for storage of their vehicles.
■ The City will monitor the program and make program revisions as needed. As
described in Recommendation #9, the City should establish an ongoing monitoring and
evaluation program for parking in Balboa Village. This effort would be used to revise the
RPP to ensure that it effectively serves both residents and visitors.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15-17
NELSON
NYGAARD
MEMORANDUM
To: Newport Beach Team
From: Brian Canepa
Date: January 3, 2012
Subjed: Coastal Commission Briefing
OVERVIEW OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
The California Coastal Commission (Commission) was established by voter initiative in 1972. The
mission of the Coastal Commission is to: "Protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental
and human -based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable
and prudent use by current and future generations. "1 The statutory authority of the Commission
comes from the California Coastal Act, which details the specific policies that govern numerous
issues related to management of California's coastal resources. In practice, the Coastal Act is
implemented by the Commission in partnership with all of the cities and counties (via local
coastal programs, LCPs) that are located within the Coastal Zone.
COASTAL COMMISSION AND PARKING MANAGEMENT
One of the most common issues related to parking management is "spillover" parking — when
non- residents use on- street parking in residential areas to park their vehicles. Local residents
often argue that this practice limits their ability to park near their homes. Spillover parking is a
common challenge in residential areas that are located in close proximity to a major trip
generator, such as a major employer or popular tourist attraction. As a response, many local
jurisdictions have utilized residential permit programs (RPPs), which restrict the time and /or
duration a non - resident can park in an on- street space.
Over the years, numerous coastal jurisdictions have submitted permit applications to the
Commission asking for approval of an RPP as a means to manage parking spillover issues in
residential areas near popular beach or coastal areas. Because each RPP has the potential to
reduce public access opportunities to coastal resources, the Commission evaluates each
application on an individual basis, ultimately seeking to meet its mission of providing,
maintaining, and ensuring public access to coastal resources while taking into account the needs
of local residents. Some of the most relevant Coastal Act provisions that give the Commission
purview over coastal access and parking policies within the coastal zone are outlined below: 2
Section 3o600: Requires local governments to obtain permits to undertake
"development" in the coastal zone.
1 http:// www .coastal.ca.gov /whoweare.htm1
2 California Coastal Act: http:// www,coastal.ca.,qov /coastact.pdf
116 NEW MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415- 284 -1544 FAX 415 - 284 -1554
www.nelsonnygaard.com
• Section 3o1o6: Development is defined as: "...change in the density or intensity of use
of land ... change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto..." Therefore, by
converting on- street public parking spaces to private residential uses, a city wishing to
implement an RPP is undertaking "development," and must apply for the required
permit.
• Section 30210: "Maximum access ... and recreational opportunities ... shall be provided
for all the people..."
• Section 30211: "Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the
sea..."
• Section 30212.5: "Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including
parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate
against the impacts, social or otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any
single area."
• Section 30213: "Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected,
encouraged, and, where feasible, provided."
• Section 30214: "(a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a
manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public
access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited
to, the following:
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass
depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the
proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of
adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for
the collection of litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be
carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the
rights of the individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access...
(c) In carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other
responsible public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative
access management techniques...
Section 30252: "The location and amount of new development should maintain and
enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit
service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or
in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing non -
automobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities
or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation..."
SUMMARY OF SELECTED RPP APPLICATIONS TO COASTAL
COMMISSION
Outlined below are brief summaries of selected Commission rulings on previous RPP permit
applications.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 12
City of Santa Cruz (1979)
• Live Oak residential area
• Hours: Summer weekends, ii AM — 5 PM
• Commission approved the program with the following mitigation measures:
• Availability of day use permits to general public
• Provision of remote lots
• Free shuttle system
City of Hermosa Beach (1982)
• Downtown commercial district and residential district 1,000 feet inland
• Original application included restricted parking near the beach and a free remote parking
system to replace restricted on- street parking.
• Commission approved a revised program that included availability of day use permits for
the general public and a shuttle system to remote lots.
• Commission later approved City request to eliminate the shuttle system based on
evidence that it was lightly used, the remote parking areas were within walking distance,
beach access would not be limited with loss of the shuttle, and the City could no longer
afford to operate the shuttle.
City of Santa Cruz (1983)
• Beach Flats area
• Commission approved RPP based on findings that the original residential area did not
provide enough off- street parking for residents (based on conversion of rental cottages to
permanent residential units), that residents were competing with visitors for on- street
parking, and that adequate public parking was available in nearby public lots and non -
metered on- street spaces.
• 150 permits were issued to residents.
City of Capitola (1987)
• 2 RPP areas: "Village" and "Neighborhood" areas
• Original application — Village RPP: Resident permits that were exempted from 2 -hour
restriction and meters; Neighborhood RPP: Resident only parking
• Commission: "Village RPP did not exclude public parking, but Neighborhood RPP did."
• Commission approved revised application, which included special conditions:
• Limited number of permits in Village RPP
• Limited areas of parking restrictions
• Required access signage program
• Operation of public shuttle system
• Required ongoing monitoring program, with 1 -year time limit requiring
reauthorization
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 13
• Current restriction is primarily 11 AM — 5 PM in residential areas
City of Los Angeles (1990)
• Pacific Palisades area
• City requested RPP as parking relief for residents from beach visitors
• Available on- street parking nearby and public lots along Highway 1, but public lots closed
at 5:30 PM.
• Commission rejected permit because loss of on- street spaces "would significantly reduce
public beach parking in the evening..."
City of Santa Monica (1996)
• Adelaide Drive and 4th Street
• Commission rejected 24 -hour restriction on grounds that it was too restrictive and would
significantly impact access and coastal recreation.
• Commission approved a revised permit that restricted parking between 6 PM and 8 AM,
with special conditions:
0 2 -year program limit requiring reauthorization pending program evaluation
City of Los Angeles (1997)
• Venice beach area
• Overnight RPP
• CC rejected the RPP because the off- street supply alone was not enough to accommodate
visitors to the area and loss of on- street supply would "adversely impact beach access."
City of Santa Monica (2002)
Area bounded by Montana Avenue, 4th Street, Wilshire Boulevard, and Ocean Avenue
• Proposed RPP Parameters
o Hours: 6 PM — 8 AM
• Resident permit cost: $15
• No parking or stopping for those without permits
o Number of permits limited to number of vehicles registered at residence — more
than 3 permits requires demonstration that there is not sufficient off - street
parking
• City studies showed that: 1) people parking were predominantly residents and visitors to
Third Street; 2) there was ample supply in off- street lots and numerous other parking
options exist; and 3) proposed restrictions are at a time when beach and recreational use
is low, demand is minimized and can be met by nearby parking options.
• Commission concurred that "Because of the location of the proposed zone, hours of the
parking restriction, and the availability of additional parking in the surrounding area, the
impact to public access for the beach and recreational use will not be significant..."
• The RPP was approved pending the following revisions to the permit application:
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 14
• The permit zone shall exclude all portions of Ocean Avenue because of its
proximity and visibility for beach users.
• The permit program expires after 5 years, at which time the City may apply for a
reauthorization. Reauthorization shall include a new parking study (conducted
on at least 3 non - consecutive summer weekends between Memorial Day and
Labor Day) documenting utilization rates. Study must also include survey of trip
purpose, length of stay, destination, and frequency of visit.
• Any changes to program will require an amendment to the Commission permit.
City of Los Angeles (2009)
• Venice Beach area
• Proposed RPP from 2 AM to 6 PM, No Parking
• Implemented subject to 2/3 resident approval
• The Commission denied the permit application on the following grounds:
• The proposed permit parking program would give the residents with permits
preferential access to public parking spaces on public streets in comparison to
non - residents without establishing adequate safeguards for visitor parking.
• The City cannot guarantee that the proposed supply of metered on- street spaces
will be available to beachgoers because these spaces may become parking areas
for existing residents who do not purchase a permit once the RPP goes into effect.
• The City's proposal to allow for 4 -hour parking in off - street lots was deemed to be
inadequate because these lots are currently used by residents to store vehicles.
Furthermore, many residents objected to the 4 -hour restriction.
• The local residents complaints about nuisance problems are a local law
enforcement issue and should not be resolved by parking policy.
City of Los Angeles (2010)
• Playa del Rey area
• Proposed RPP from 10 PM — 5 AM, No Parking
• Implemented subject to 2/3 resident approval
• The Commission denied the permit application on the following grounds:
• The proposed overnight restriction is exclusionary and would not allow non-
residents access to on- street spaces.
• The limited access points to the area meant that a loss of parking in the proposed
RPP zone would severely restrict access and force people to park much farther
south.
• The proposed parking restrictions do not contain adequate safeguards for visitor
parking.
• The City's proposal to preserve 20 parking spaces for public parking by metering
them was deemed inadequate — these spaces are too far south to serve the public.
• City parking lots are only open from dawn to dusk. As a result, the only available
parking supply during those hours is on- street parking.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 15
o The local residents complaints about nuisance problems are a local law
enforcement issue and should not be resolved by parking policy.
SUMMARY OF KEY RPP ISSUES
Based on a review of previous staff reports, it was evident that a number of key issues and
concerns were consistently identified by the Commission. In other words, if a City could not
demonstrate that its RPP would address these issues and concerns, then it was likely the RPP
permit would be denied. The following table provides an overview of the key issues and concerns
that the Commission repeatedly emphasized while evaluating previous RPP permit applications.
The following table also highlights how the proposed RPP for Balboa Village could address these
concerns.
Figure 1. Summary of Key RPP Issues
Coastal RPP Issues
Preservation of public access is the
Commission's primary concern. Commission
staff have repeatedly emphasized that one of the
primary intents of the Coastal Act is to ensure equal
access to the coast and that no policy should provide
preference to one user group over the other. Sections
30210 and 30211 of the Coastal Act underscore this
policy objective. In practice, this means that RPPs
should not provide "exclusive" rights to on- street
spaces to residents.
Public access is a "24- hour" objective. In other
words, the Commission does not take into account
what time of day or night the restriction is for
because the public should always have equal access to
the coast. For example, even if it is 3 AM, and it is
unlikely that many people will be seeking to access
the beach or coast, public access should still be
preserved.
The Commission strives to achieve regulatory
"balance," but errs on the side of public
access. Section 30214 articulates that Coastal Act
policy should support the rights of property owners,
and in many Commission rulings, staff recognize the
need to strike a balance between public access and
the ability of the public to park near their residence.
For example, "...if proposed parking prohibition
measures can be balanced with coastal access
opportunities, where impacts to public access is
minimized, the Commission may find such proposals
How does the proposed Balboa
Village .. address these issues?
The proposed seven day a week, night -time RPP for
Balboa Village would restrict parking on certain
residential streets in order to mitigate parking
impacts on residents from non - residents parking
their vehicles during night hours. The proposed RPP
recognizes the key issues identified by the Coastal
Commission and strives to maintain a "balance"
between coastal access for the general public and
parking needs for residents, as detailed in Section
30214 and previous Commission rulings.
More specifically, the RPP seeks to meet the intent
of Section 30212.5 and more evenly distribute
parking demand throughout the Balboa Village area
by encouraging non - residents to park in one of the
other public parking facilities. For example, recent
parking studies indicate that the 700+ space Balboa
Pier parking lot near the beach and the public lot at
East Balboa Blvd. and Palm St. are underutilized
during the evening and overnight hours when the
RPP is proposed to be in effect. These parking
facilities are the most convenient for those wishing
to access the beach. In addition, these lots are a
short, five- minute walk to the Newport Landing
area where most recreational tours and boats depart
from. By improving access and ease of use of these
facilities, the City can improve parking conditions
for both visitors and non - residents.
In addition, many of the residences in Balboa
Village do not have their own garages and must rely
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 16
Coastal 1 1
consistent with the public access policies of the
Coastal Act. "3 In practice, however, it appears that
Commission is very conservative in its rulings and
will most likely rule against an RPP if it believes that
the impacts to public access have not been minimized
to the greatest degree possible.
Local jurisdictions can use policy to regulate
parking, but cannot give exclusive access to
residents. The Commission understands the value
of RPPs, and has approved numerous such programs.
However, it has consistently denied applications that
provide "exclusive" access to residents.
In order to prevent exclusive residential
access, local jurisdictions must replace all
public on- street parking that is "lost" to an
RPP. The Commission has approved many RPPs
over the years, but it has often stipulated that
"replacement" parking must be provided if certain
on- street spaces are restricted via an RPP. In short,
local jurisdictions must provide additional accessible
parking options to the public. This replacement
parking has taken many forms, such as:
• Proximate and easily accessible on- or off -
street parking facilities
• Remote parking facilities served by public
shuttles
• Enhanced access to existing parking
facilities through improved wayfinding
• The option to purchase permits for non-
residents
The Commission typically views RPPs as
"pilot" efforts to be reevaluated in the future.
In recent years, the Commission has set an expiration
date on RPP permits and requires an evaluation of
the RPP's effectiveness to date. For example, an RPP
in the City of Santa Monica was approved for a period
Of 5 years, at which time the permit required the City
to conduct a parking utilization study and motorist
survey to evaluate the RPP and parking behavior in
the zone.
3 California Coastal Commission, Application No. 5 -02 -380, 2002.
How does proposed 1 1 1.
Village 1 1
on on- street spaces to meet their needs. Per the
1983 Santa Cruz ruling, insufficient off - street
residential parking represents a compelling need for
an RPP.
The proposed RPP and parking management plan
for Balboa Village also includes a number of policies
and programs that will improve access, availability,
and ease of use to other Balboa Village parking
facilities, thereby addressing the issue of "replacing"
RPP restricted on- street supply with nearby parking
options. These include:
• Revisions to Balboa Village pricing structures
to better manage supply and demand in both
on- and off - street facilities, such as the 700+
space Balboa Pier beach lot and the public lot at
East Balboa Blvd. and Palm St. Better
utilization of these public parking assets is a
primary goal of the RPP.
• Shared parking policies to increase the amount
of publicly available parking supply
• A Balboa Village Wayfinding Program to
provide consistent directional and real -time
parking signage to visitors, thereby enabling
better utilization of existing off- street parking
supply at all times of the day and night
• Implementation of a Commercial Parking
Benefit District (PBD), with parking revenues
dedicated to improving access to and
availability of parking supply. Potential
expenditures include:
• Leasing of private spaces
• Shuttle services to remote parking
facilities
• Valet parking during peak periods
• Construction of new parking, if
necessary
• Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
infrastructure
• Additional parking enforcement
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17
Nuisance issues fall under the purview of
local law enforcement and are not to be
regulated by parking policy. The Commission
has repeatedly rejected any arguments that RPPs
should be used to regulate local nuisance issues. The
Commission has emphatically stated that these issues
should be addressed through local law enforcement.
As the City moves forward with a potential RPP and
permit application to the Commission, it is
important to highlight a number of other keys
issues. These include:
Potential pilot program: The Commission
may require Newport City's RPP to be limited
to an initial "pilot" period. At the end of the
period, the City would need to conduct a
parking utilization study and survey of
motorists to evaluate the RPP and parking
behavior in the zone. The City could then apply
for renewal of its permit, pending the results of
the parking study and any needed program
adjustments.
Nuisance issues: Based on previous
Commission rulings, it is recommended that as
part of its permit application to the
Commission the City not include "nuisance"
issues, such as bar or restaurant patron
parking, as a rationale for the RPP.
The rationale for the RPP should emphasize the
need for improved parking management in
heavily impacted residential neighborhoods,
while highlighting how the proposed RPP
would not exclusively restrict public access, but
strike a proper balance between visitor and
resident parking needs.
NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 18
Attachment 2
Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)
Survey Results
Balboa Overnight Residential Permit Parking Program Survey Results
Total Surveys Mailed
1194
Surveys undeliverable
94
Total Surveys
1100
Total Surveys Received
394
Overall Response Rate
35.8%
All Respondents
Responses
Percent
Yes no
change
Yes with
change
Total Yes
269
68.3%
64.7%
35.3%
Total No
125
31.7%
Total Respondents
394
Owners
Yes
165
67.3%
64.8%
35.2%
No
80
32.7%
Total Owners
245
Resident Owners
Yes
67
63.8%
65.7%
34.3%
No
38
36.2%
Total Resident Owners
105
Absentee Owners
Yes
98
70.0%
64.3%
35.7%
No
42
30.0%
Total Absentee Owners
140
Residents
Yes
171
67.3%
64.9%
35.1%
No
83
32.7%
Total Residents
254
Resident Non - Owners
Yes
104
69.8%
64.4%
35.6%
No
45
30.2%
Total Resident Non - Owners
149
Community Development Department December 5, 2012
Balboa Overnight Residential Permit Parking Program Survey Results
Community Development Department December 5, 2012
Statements
Response
Average
a)
Overnight commercial parking from Balboa Village
2.5
impacts my block.
b)
The proposed area to be included is too large.
3.4
c)
The proposed pricing schedule is appropriate.
3.0
d)
The proposed hours are appropriate.
2.8
e)
The program should only be effective during the
3.2
summer months.
A score of 1 indicates Strong Agreement with statement
A score of 3 indicates No Opinion
A score of 5 indicates Strong Disagreement
Community Development Department December 5, 2012
Attachment 3
Residential Permit Parking Program (RPPP)
Proposed Work Program
Balboa Overnight Residential
Parking Permit Program
Work Program
Background
• Parking shortfalls in summer season from Memorial Day to Labor Day in the
residential area to the west between 7th Street and Adams Street.
• Many homes built at a time when garages/ carports were not required.
• Late night or overnight parking from commercial and boating uses reduce parking
availability.
• Some residents from this area have proposed the creation of an overnight
Residential Parking Permit Program ( "RPPP ") to eliminate "spillover" commercial
parking onto the adjacent residential streets. The permit concept was supported
by the Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Committee and is a recommendation
contained within the Balboa Village Master Plan.
• Implementation of a RPPP would require the review and approval by the City
Council and California Coastal Commission.
Concept
Proposed preferential parking zone: All residential streets between 7th Street and
Adams Street, except for on- street metered stalls on Balboa Boulevard. See the map
below.
Eligibility: All residences located within the proposed Residential Parking Permit
Program ( "RPPP ") would be eligible to purchase permits.
Parking Availability: A permit holder would not be given a specific parking space but
would be allowed to park anywhere in the preferential parking zone during the posted
hours when parking is available.
Hours: No parking on streets between 4:00 p.m. — 9:00 a.m. 7 days per week, excluding
federal holidays, without a valid permit. Parking on the streets within the preferential
parking zone would be restricted to valid permit holders.
Number of permits: Four (4) permits per household maximum with the possibility to
purchase a number of daily guest permits. The number of daily guest permits per
residence has not been determined.
Permit Type: Permits would be issued annually and would likely hang from the rearview
mirror.
Permit Cost: 1 st Permit: $20 per year
2nd Permit: $20 per year
3rd Permit: $60 per year
4th Permit: $100 per year
Daily Guest passes: number and cost TBD
Balboa Overnight Residential Parking Permit Program Work Program
Survey Results
The City conducted a survey to help document the extent of the parking problem and
understand the extent of resident support for an RPPP. The survey was mailed to
residents and property owners within the proposed permit parking district asking if they
supported, supported with changes or, did not support the parking permit proposal.
With a response rate of close to 36% (or 394 responses), 68% of respondents indicated
they supported the proposal, as presented. Thirty -five percent supported a permit
program with changes. The results were consistent across respondent type
(resident /owner, nonresident/owner, or resident/non- owner).
00 0!10 (
7t" Street
t✓• =`+rf
I';r , ! " - -1 l,: -�+ ,1 f RAVE
l Jk; I., Fy Lu
-- - -- W Balboa Village
s ° ? it p
AVE ,i' a$ 'o = _ Commercial Area
AIBLVDW ---~
—+___ _ — _�. ?' x BALBOA BLV - BALBp yy ~ - F eAYAV f 7-
------------ -- ° -_- I)W � AaLVpE-t'fi'
`O/VT yy BL DE'r-
B
A(@CABL , ' r / i/. ��qCS POP RA(•��•
-`' NT
` � 4[LfY ;i'�@A(B !•` li::\ qbF ci��•�
�--_-- C
44�_.._ -- - Ele'' _ -Ae<�• � . o A . '
'
ProWsed Overnight
R ntal Permit ••
•. ._ �:
ing District Adams Street o�
9
0 510ft °g
December 6, 2012
Balboa Overnight Residential Parking Permit Program Work Program
Work Program
Municipal Code Chapter 12.68, Residents' Preferential Parking, governs the process of
establishing a resident's permit parking program. The ordinance was originally adopted
in 1981 and currently applies to Newport Island, Newport Heights, and Cliff Haven.
Each preferential parking zone shall be designated only upon the City Council finding
that, "such zone is required to enhance or protect the quality of life in the area of the
proposed zone threatened by noise, traffic hazards, environmental pollution or
devaluation of real property resulting from long -term nonresidents parking, that such
zone is necessary to provide reasonably available and convenient parking for the
benefit of the adjacent residents, and that the proposed zone is desirable to alleviate
traffic congestion, illegal parking and related health and safety problems." More
specifically, the following criteria shall be met to satisfy the findings for establishing a
residential parking permit program:
A. The parking in the area by nonresidents does substantially and regularly
interfere with the use of the majority of the available public street or alley parking
spaces by adjacent residents;
B. That the interference by the nonresidents parking referred to in subsection (A) of
this section, occurs at regular and significant daily or weekly intervals;
C. That nonresidents parking is a source of unreasonable noise, traffic hazards,
environmental pollution or devaluation of real property in the area of the
proposed zone;
D. That the majority of the residents adjacent to the proposed zone desire, agree to
or request preferential parking privileges;
E. That no unreasonable displacement of nonresident vehicles will occur in
surrounding residential areas;
F. That a shortage of reasonably available and convenient residentially related
parking spaces exists in the area of the proposed zone; and
G. That no alternative solution is feasible or practical.
Chapter 12.68 also limits the number of permits (3 per unit) and establishes the cost
($10 per permit).
The Coastal Act basis for the Commission's involvement in preferential parking issues is
found in the policies which encourage maximizing public access to the shoreline. For
many areas of the coast, particularly the more urbanized areas, the key to gaining
access to the shoreline is the availability of public parking opportunities. In past permit
actions, the Commission has consistently found that public access includes, not only
pedestrian access, but the ability to drive into the coastal zone and park in order to
access and view the shoreline. Without adequate provisions for public use of public
streets, residential permit parking programs that use public streets present potential
conflicts with Coastal Act access policies.
December 6, 2012
Balboa Overnight Residential Parking Permit Program Work Program
The Coastal Commission has approved residential parking programs in the past, but
they did so without excluding public parking in favor of exclusive residential use. The
programs were designed to preserve public parking and access to the beach, therefore
the Commission found the programs consistent with the access policies of the Coastal
Act. This must also be demonstrated with the program being considered for Balboa.
Conversations with the Coastal Commission staff indicate the need to: 1) clearly define
and prove there is a problem, 2) demonstrate the solution addresses the problem, 3)
show that the solution does not affect public access, and 4) discuss what alternative
actions were considered and why those could not resolve the problem.
Implementation of a residential permit parking program would require the following
steps:
1. Field Survey — Additional survey work is required to satisfy the criteria stated
within the City's Municipal Code and the requirements of the Coastal
Commission. Criteria A indicates that it be demonstrated that nonresidential
parking "substantially and regularly interfere with the use of the majority" of the
parking spaces. Similarly, the Coastal Commission will seek this information to
justify the problem. In review of a preferential residential parking program
approved in the City of Santa Monica, the Coastal Commission required a
parking study be conducted on at least three non - consecutive, non - holiday
summer weekends documenting the purpose of trip, length of stay, parking
location, destination and frequency of visits. A similar approach was taken in a
2012 application by the City of Pacific Grove. Their application to the Coastal
Commission included survey data for two weekday and two weekend days
pertaining to the individual's purpose, destination, duration, and frequency of
parking in the area. Socio- economic data was also collected.
City staff shall obtain the services of a qualified parking consultant to develop the
scope of the survey, collect the data, and tabulate the results. The survey scope
will be reviewed with the Coastal Commission staff to ensure we are collecting
the data necessary for the processing of a Coastal Development Permit. To best
understand seasonal parking demand, staff anticipates surveying in the evenings
on at least one spring weekend and three non - consecutive summer weekends,
as required by the Coastal Commission previously. Survey of public parking lots
will be required at these same periods to demonstrate there are adequate spaces
for the vehicles displaced by the permit program.
City staff requested preliminary cost estimates to conduct the survey from Nelson
Nygaard, the consultant who developed the Balboa Village Parking Management
Plan. These estimates will be provided at the December 13th BVAC meeting.
Timeframe: Spring /Summer 2013
2. Public Outreach — The BVAC will be a forum for communication with the
stakeholders affected by the proposed parking program. However, additional
outreach methods and /or workshops may be warranted to ensure the public is
December 6, 2012
Balboa Overnight Residential Parking Permit Program Work Program
properly informed of the status of the program and they have an opportunity to
provide input.
Timeframe: Ongoing
3. Reaffirm Program Components — Based on the survey results, as well as other
information that may have been collected, review parking program components
and make adjustments, as necessary. Program components such as method for
distributing guest passes, implementation and enforcement should also be
addressed.
Timeframe: Late Summer 2013
4. Draft Ordinance — Review for CEQA compliance. Present ordinance to City
Council establishing the Balboa Overnight Residential Permit Parking Program.
Timeframe: Public Hearing Fall 2013
5. Submit Coastal Development Permit application — Submit application to the
California Coastal Commission.
Timeframe: Application submittal -Fall 2013; Commission Action- Spring 2014
6. Implementation /Enforcement — Program implementation will be crafted to limit
the burden to the City in administering and enforcing the program and make it
easy for residents to participate. Preliminary discussions with the City's Finance
Department indicate that the proposed program would require an amendment
and increased cost to its current parking control contract. Additional staff time
would also be required to create and administer the parking permits. The
potential for utilizing an on -line permit system was also discussed. Enforcement
would be the responsibility of the Newport Beach Police Department.
Timeframe: Summer 2014
December 6, 2012
Attachment 4
Master Plan Priorities
Year One
Balboa Village Master Plan
Proposed Priorities
Completed
1. Create a governance structure to ensure implementation plan recommendations
are executed in a timely fashion.
Ongoing
1. Continue focused code enforcement efforts.
2. Support new cultural facilities (ExplorOcean /Balboa Theater).
3. Evaluate changes to determine impact on new investment in Balboa Village.
Year One Priorities (2013)
Parking
1. Establish a residential parking permit program. In process. Work Program to be
considered by Council January 2013.
2. Establish a commercial parking benefits district to create permanent, ongoing
revenue source.
3. Remove time limits for all metered spaces; implement demand based pricing for
all public parking.
4. Establish employee parking permit program.
5. Eliminate parking requirements for new commercial development and
intensification of use applications.
6. Eliminate in -lieu parking fee permanently, including current payees.
Economic Development
1. Allocate additional funding to Balboa Village BID.
2. Modify boundaries of Balboa Village BID to delete area from Adams to Coronado
Streets.
3. Assume maintenance of boardwalk area.
Year Two Priorities (2014)
Economic Development
1. Develop and implement Commercial Facade Improvement Program.
2. Develop special events initiative.
Streetscape
1. Develop conceptual streetscape and public signage plan.
2. Develop coordinated wayfinding sign program.
3. Identify and implement targeted improvements to bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
4. Develop and implement Targeted Tenant Attraction Program.
Long Term
1. Consider development of Palm Street parking lot for mixed -used project.
2. Pursue adoption of Local Coastal Plan.
Balboa Village Master Plan - Implementation Matrix
Recommended Strategy
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 -5
Estimated Cost (1)
Economic Development
1. Develop and implement Commercial Facade Improvement
Define program
$150,000 /year 3
Program.
parameters; obtain City
buildings; if limit to
Easy to develop and
Highly effective in creating
Develop program criteria and application; identify funding
Council approval & funding;
Continue implementation
Continue Implementation
painting /signage /cano
implement provided
immediate aesthetic
High
sources; obtain City Council approval; outreach to property
begin Model Block
pies costs would be
funding is identified
improvements to the area
owners; administer program
marketing
significantly lower
2. Develop and implement Targeted Tenant Attraction
Moderate based on
Program.
Define program
financial resources
Highly effective in
Identify key tenants; develop incentive program tailored for
parameters; obtain City
Continue Implementation
TBD
required to create
encouraging new tenants
Low
Council approval & funding;
incentives. Difficult
those tenants; obtain City Council approval of program and
begin implementation
identify and outreach
t o t the area
funding; outreach to owners and brokers to secure tenants.
to potential tenants
3. Support new cultural facilities (Explorocean /Balboa
Theater).
Prioritize project review;
Easy to continue
Low effectiveness related
Ongoing, regular communication with entities to identify
identify additional
Continue support
Continue support
TBD
communications and
to specific action
High
needs and opportunities; offer assistance in completing
assistance as needed
offer support
planning development application(s).
4. Develop special events initiative.
In conjunction with Parks and Recreation Department, refine
Contract with promoter to
Implement
$15,000 for initial
Easy to explore special
Highly effective in bringing
develop program and
Continue implementation
new visitors and residents
High
project scope and select consultant /promoter to prepare
identify funding sources
recommendations
contract
events for the area
to the area
program and identify funding opportunities.
S. Consider development of Palm Street parking lot for mixed -
used project.
Review Explorocean plans
Market site for
Difficult due to
Highly effective in creating
prior to determination to
None
a catalyst project for
Low
As appropriate, obtain City Council approval to proceed with
market site
development
entitlement process
revitalization
solicitation of a developer for the property.
effective i
Highly effective in bringing
6. Allocate additional funding to Balboa Village BID.
Approve with annual
Medium based on need
additional g to the
Develop marketing strategies with input from BID and visit
renewal
to reallocate funding
from other sources
area which could be used
High
Newport Beach; and monitor implementation.
for marketing and street
7. Modify boundaries of Balboa Village BID to delete area from
Low effectiveness in
Adams to Coronado Streets.
Approve with annual
None
Easy to implement
creating revitalization of
Low
renewal
Requires ordinance to be approved by City Council.
the area
(1) Does not include staff costs Page 1
Balboa Village Master Plan - Implementation Matrix
Recommended Strategy
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 -5
Estimated Cost (1)
Parking
1. Remove time limits for all metered spaces; implement
demand based pricing for all public parking.
CPS to implement once
Easy to implement once
Highly effective in
Determine appropriate pricing limits for Ordinance adoption
ordinance and contract
TBD if install wireless
City Council direction
encouraging long term
High
by City Council required. Amendment of existing contract
amendment are completed
meters
provided
visitors to park in beach
with CPS (meter enforcement) required. Ongoing monitoring
parking lot
required to ensure rates are appropriate.
2. Establish a commercial parking benefits district to create
Establish legal means to
Moderate based on the
High - Additional funds
permanent, ongoing revenue source.
create; determine Council
Set aside revenues for
TBD
need to reallocate
could be used for
High
policy on revenue source
eligible activities.
funds
revitalization projects
3. Establish a residential parking permit program.
Develop program, conduct
Difficult based on
Program development will require public participation and
public outreach, prepare
potential concerns from
Highly effective in
adoption of an ordinance by City Council. Additional surveys
Coastal Commission
affected residents and
encouraging visitors to
may be required by Coastal Commission to justify need and
application, and conduct
Implement program
TBD
the need to obtain
utilize available public
High
verify the program would not impact Coastal access. A
additional surveys if
approval from the
parking lots, rather than
Coastal Development Permit will also be required.
required by Coastal
Coastal Commission
impact residential streets
Commission
4. Establish employee parking permit program.
Medium based on
Moderately effective -
Survey all businesses, develop program, program approval
Develop program
Implement upon City
None
uncertainty of Coastal
Permits will encourage
High
requires City Council approval of a Resolution.
Council approval
Commission
employees to park in
S. Develop coordinated wayfinding sign program.
Incorporate with
$15- 20,000 initial
Medium based on need
Medium effectiveness -
Retain designer, prepare sign program, obtain City Council
streetscape plan
contract
to coordinate existing
Signage directing visitors to
Medium
approval of conceptual plan.
signs
parking areas already exists
6. Identify and implement targeted improvements to bicycle
Difficult because of the
and pedestrian facilities.
type of improvements
Low - The area already
Retain designer, prepare plans for identified improvements,
Identify in streetscape plan
Process entitlements
Implement as funds permit
TBD
which would encourage
provides opportunities for
Low
perform outreach to community, obtain City Council approval
additional walking and
biking and walking
of plans, obtain CDP.
biking has not been
Planning /Zoning
1. Eliminate parking requirements for new commercial
Medium based on
Highly effective to
development and intensification of use applications.
uncertainty of
encourage revitalization;
High
acceptance by the
provides flexibility for new
Incorporate within Local Coastal Plan.
Coastal Commission
uses
(1) Does not include staff costs Page 2
Balboa Village Master Plan - Implementation Matrix
Recommended Strategy
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 -5
Estimated Cost (1)
2. Eliminate in -lieu parking fee permanently, including current
Easy to implement on
Low - As a stand alone
payees.
Loss of $13,500 /year if
the basis that the
Program elimination of the
City Council adoption of ordinance is required. Should be
Action taken by City Council
only Balboa Village
program is outdated
fee would have no affect
High
implemented with other parking management strategies.
and does not generate
on managing parking
significant funding
3. Evaluate changes to determine impact on new investment
Easy to implement.
in Balboa Village.
Significant benchmarks
Low - Monitoring alone will
Identify and measure
Measure and compare
Determine and measure applicable benchmarks prior to
appropriate benchmarks
benchmarks
Review program changes
None
will be obvious, new
not directly result in
Low
actions. Measure and compare benchmarks on a periodic
uses, redevelopment,
revitalization of the area
basis.
fagade improvements
4. Pursue adoption of Local Coastal Plan.
Prepare draft Implementation Plan (IP), public outreach,
$150,000 for
Difficult - Acquiring a
Highly effective in
Planning Commission review, City Council adoption of IP by
Draft LCP for public review
Adopted LCP by
consultant services to
certified LCP will be a
shortening the entitlement
High
Ordinance, Certification by Coastal Commission required, City
Council /Coastal
LCP
challenging and lengthy
Council considers and potentially adopts Coastal Commission
prepare
process
process
suggested modifications (if any).
5. Continue focused code enforcement efforts.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Medium
High
High
Public Streetscape
1. Develop conceptual streetscape and public signage plan.
Staff to evaluate areas for improvement prior to directing
Hire architect to prepare
Implement plan as funds
$15- 20,000 initial
Medium based on need
Highly effective in creating
preparation of plans for signage or street scape
plan
are available
contract
to create plan
new aesthetic
improvements to the area
High
improvements. Consider consistency with existing
wayfinding program. Include Boardwalk in plan.
2. Assume maintenance of boardwalk area.
Highly effective in
Gain acceptance from property owners. Maintenance would
Begin regular cleaning
Ongoing
Ongoing
$15,000 /year
Easy to implement
immediate improvement of
High
include steamcleaning sidewalk installation of new furniture
the area
upon completion of streetscape plan.
Administrative Recommendation
1. Create a governance structure to ensure implementation
Determine governance
Easy once policy
Highly effective to ensure
plan recommendations are executed in a timely fashion
structure and establish
Ongoing review
Ongoing review
direction provided
progress
High
work plan.
(1) Does not include staff costs Page 3