HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-2396 - Garages at Utilities YardCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (714) 640 -2251
Cl FOFN.,J'
Mayor
Evelyn R. Hart June 26, 1984
Mayor Pro Tem
Philip R. Maurer
Council Members
Bill Agee Coy Atkins
John C. Cox Jr. 16122 Whitecap Circle
Jackie Heather Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Ruthelyn Plummer
Donald A. Strauss Subject: Surety: Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.
Bonds No.: 2- 277 -044
Project: Garage Building -16th St.
Contract No.: G -_2396
The City Council on May 29, 1984 accepted the work of the
subject project and authorized the City Clerk to file a
Notice of Completion and to release the bonds 35 days after
the Notice has been recorded.
The Notice was recorded with the Orange County Recorder on
June 4, 1984, Reference No. 84- 229874. Please notify your
surety company that the bonds may be released 35 days after
this recording date.
Sincerely,
Wanda E. Andersen
City Clerk
WEA:lr
cc: Public Works
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
Exempt,e ,dtn,,q, ,p,,
Plea.sc; Return To � G ° ° "' °��e,03 —229874.
Ci v Clerk
City of Newport Beach EXEPPPT RECORDED HJ OFFtCtAL RECORDS
3300 Newport Blvd. C14 OF ORANGE rOUNTY CAUFORMA
Newport Beach, CA 92 683 -3884 NOTICE. OF COMPLETION '2 co Pft7
JUV 4 '84
URNME A PUBLIC WORKS
_ - RECORDERI
'Io All Laborers and Material Men and to Every Other Person Interested:
YOU WII..L PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 29, 1984
the Public Works project consisting of Garage Building- -16th Street Utilities
Service Yard (C -2396)
on which Coy Atkins, 16122 Whitecap Cir., Fountain Valley, CA 92708
was the contractor, and Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., P.O Box 3020, Fullerton, 92634
was the surety, was completed.
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say:
CITY OF NEWPORT BF.AC
orks Dir
I am the Public Works Director of the City of Newport Beach;
Notice of Completion is true of my own knowledge.
yy c
011 �Ep�N, i
J� ��b
r1El
f,_V"
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 31, 1984
at Newport Beach, California.
.. r
Vlblio,rWorks Director
VERIFICATION OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned, say:
I am the City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach; the City Council of said
City on May 29, 1984 accepted the above described work as
completed and ordered that a Notice of Completion be filed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 31, 1984 at Newport Beach, California.
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (714) 640 -2251
FOR
Mayor
Evelyn R. Hart May 31, 1984
Mayor Pro Tem
Philip R. Maurer
Council Members Lee A. Branch
Bill Agee County Recorder
John C. Cox Jr. P O. BOX 238
Jackie Heather
Ruthelyn Plummer Santa Ana, CA 92702
Donald A. Strauss
Dear Mr. Branch:
Attached for recordation are two Notices of Completion
of Public Works projects consisting of:
1. Lido Isle Bridge Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2345
on which Masscon, Inc. was the Contractor and The
Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. was the Surety.
2. Garage Building -16th Street Utilities Service Yard,
Contract No. 2396 on which Coy Atkins Construction
was the Contractor and The Ohio Casualty Insurance
Co. was the Surety.
Please record and return to us.
Sincerely,
Wanda E. Andersen
CITY CLERK
WEA:lr
Attach.
CC: Public Works
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public Works Department
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAY 2 91984
APPROVED
Shay 29, 1984
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO. 1--- ?,,t)
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF GARAGE BUILDING - -16TH STREET UTILITIES SERVICE YARD
(C- ?396.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept the work.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days
after Notice of Completion has been filed.
DISCUSSION:
The contract for the construction of a garage building at the 16th
Street Utilities Yard has been completed to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department.
The bid price was $66,454.09
Amount of unit price items constructed 66,454.00
Amount of change orders 7,965.50
Total contract cost $74,419.50
Funds were budgeted in the Water Fund, Account No. 50- 9295 -165.
Two Change Orders were issued. The first, in the amount of $7,339
provided for a change in the overhead doors to a superior manufacturer and
addition of an outside key operated switch, both as requested by the Utilities
Department. The second, in the amount of $626.50, provided for removal of
unsuitable fill material and replacement with aggregate base.
Architectural services were provided by Ficker and Ruffing Archi-
tects of Newport Beach.
The contractor is Coy Atkins of Huntington Beach.
The contract date of completion was January 1, 1984. The contractor
was delayed 17 days due to rain or wet ground. The work was completed on
January 11, 1984. Acceptance has been delayed pending correction of leaks in
the masonry wall.
4;;�) *'Oz
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
GPD:jd
<3&
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 -3884
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
(714) 640 -2251
TO: FINANCE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: September 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Contract No, C -2396
Description of Contract Garage Building- -16th Street Utilities
Effective date of Contract September 14, 1983
Authorized by Minute Action, approved on September 12, 1983
Contract with Coy Atkins Construction
Address 16122 Whitecap Circle
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Amount of Contract $66,454.00
kaww&
e
Wanda E. Andersen
City Clerk
WEA:lr
attach.
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
rd
N
~
L
W
47 N
w
Y >
o
O
U 0 ro
p
4�
D
J3 O
ro4- U
LLI
i
J C
O
U
C7
U) � N
O
t•r
U
��
O W
y r O
J to
•r U
4)
N
O ro N
,....,
m
�,
_W
O r- O
H
W ♦-
Y N
G¢
Q J
M N .O
Of >
d. �...�
C
O•r O
N
CQ7�
Oro U
•r C
ro fa
a
u
U i
C) O 7
n N N
i O
7•r
4J N 1
r C 4-
3 rr
v
a v
E OY
O Y (0
, ^
1�V
i L
r N y
r O c
3 r 3
-E 0 0
C a) 4 >
ro
i
y O '
O Q) -
> C
N N O Y
S- r L
ro O)Y O
3 c ro 3
ro •r N
L G Q
E •r U L
ro
v
tD
M
N
F-
U
Q
F-
Z
O
U
CITY CLERK
9 9
NOTICE INVITING BIDS
Sealed bids may be received at the office of the City Clerk,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 until 1 1:0Bg,M.
on the 30th day of Aug 19 B3, at which time such bids
shall be opened and read or'=
BUILDING - -16TH STREET UTILITIU
Title of Project
2396
Contract No.
$99,000
Engineer's Estimate
•
Approved by the City Council
this 8th day of August , 1983
Wanda E. Andersen
City Clerk
Prospective bidders may obtain one set of bid documents at no cost
at the office of the Public Works Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92663.
For further information, call Lloyd R. Dalton at 640 -2281.
Project Engineer
• • PR 1.1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GARAGE BUILDING - -16TH STREET
UTILITIES SERVICE YARD
CONTRACT NO. 2396
To the Honorable City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P. 0. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
Gentlemen:
The undersigned declares that he has carefully examined the location of the work, has read
the Instructions to Bidders, has examined the Plans and Special Provisions, and hereby
proposes to furnish all materials and do all the work required to complete Contract No. 2.396
in accordance with the Plans and Special Provisions, and will take in full payment therefor
the following unit prices for the work, complete in place, to wit:
ITEM QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL
NO. AND UNIT UNIT PRICE WRITTEN IN WORDS PRICE
Lump Sum Mobilization and clearing
Two Thousand Nine
@ Hundred Fifteen
Dollars
and
No
Cents
$ 2.915.00
Per Lump Sum
Lump Sum Construct utility services into
garage building
One Thousand Five
@ Hundred Ninety Five
Dollars
and
No
Cents
$ 1595.fin
Per Lump Sum
Lump Sum Construct garage building, including
pier footings
Fifty Seven Thousand Eight
@ Hundred Forty
Dollars
and
No
Cents
$57,840.00
Per Lump Sum
. 0 PR 1.2
ITEM QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL
NO. AND UNIT UNIT PRICE WRITTEN IN WORDS PRICE
Lump Sum Construct PCC & AC paving around
garage building
Four Thousand One
@ Hundred Four Dollars
and
No Cents $ 4.104.00
Per Lump Sum
TOTAL PRICE WRITTEN IN WORDS
SIXTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR Dollars
and
NO Cents $66 a54 no
CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 172407
BIDDER'S TELEPHONE NO. -(714) 775 -5551
S Co Atli n,
AUTHO IZED SIGNATURE /TITLE
BIDDER'S ADDRESS 16122 Whitecap Circle Fo ntain Valley. CA 92708
i• Page 2
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
The following contract documents shall be completed, executed and received
by the City Clerk in accordance with NOTICE INVITING BIDS:
1. PROPOSAL
2. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
3. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
4. BIDDER'S BOND (sum not less than 10% of total bid price)
5. NON - COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
6. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
7. TECHNICAL ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE REFERENCES
except that cash, certified check or cashier's check (sum not less than 10% of
the total bid price) may be received in lieu of the Bidder's Bond. The title
of the project and the words SEALED BID shall be clearly marked on the outside
of the envelope containing the bid.
Bids shall not be received from bidders who are not licensed in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division III of the Business and Professions'
Code. The low bidder shall also be required to possess a City of Newport Beach
business license prior to execution of contract.
Bids shall be submitted on the attached PROPOSAL. form. The additional
copy of the PROPOSAL form may be retained by the bidder for his records.
The estimated quantities indicated in the PROPOSAL are approximate, and are
given solely to allow the comparison of bid totals.
Bids are to be computed upon the estimated quantities indicated in the
PROPOSAL multiplied by unit price submitted by the bidder. In the event of dis-
crepancy between wording and figures, bid wording shall prevail over bid figures.
In the event of error in the multiplication of estimated quantity by unit price,
the correct multiplication will be computed and the bids will be compared with
correctly multiplied totals. The City shall not be held responsible for bidder
errors or omissions in the PROPOSAL.
Contract documents shall bear signatures and titles of persons authorized
to sign on behalf of the bidder. For corporations, the signatures shall be of
the President or Vice President. For partnerships, the signatures shall be of
a general partner. For sole ownership, the signature shall be of the owner.
In accordance with the California Labor Code (Sections 1770 et seq.), the
Director of Industrial Relations has ascertained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages in the locality in which the work is to be performed for each
craft, classification, or type of workman or mechanic needed to execute the con-
tract. A copy of said determination is available in the office of the City
Clerk. All parties to the contract shall be governed by all provisions of the
California Labor Code relating to prevailing wage rates (Sections 1770 -7981 in-
clusive). The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with Section 1777.
of the California Labor Code for all apprenticeable occupations.
172407 B
Contr's Lic. No. & Classification
a -gin -a3
Da to
COY ATKINS
Bidder
Authas-
Signature/Title
• • Page 3
DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
The undersigned certifies that he has used bid(s) of the following listed
subcontractor(s) in making up his bid,and that the subcontractor(s) listed
will be used for the work for which they bid, subject to the approval of the
Engineer and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Specifications.
No change of subcontractor may be made except with the prior approval of the
Engineer and as provided by State law.
Item of Work Subcontractor Address
1. Masonry West Coast
2• Paint Saunders & McMielia
3 • Roof Coast_
4• Electrical Drs
5• Roll uo Doorc Coact
6• Sheet Metal Liberty Sheet Metal
7• Paving Ilnited Acnhalt
8.
9.
10.
12.
COY ATKINS
Bidder
S /Coy Atkins
Authorized Signature /Title
0 FOR ORIGINAL SEE CITY CLERVO FILE COPY Page 4
BIDDER'S BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
That we, COY ATKINS DBA: ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , as bidder,
and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety, are held
and firmly bound unto the City of Newport Beach, California, in the sum of
TEN PERCENT Dollars ($10% ),
lawful money of the United States for the payment of which sum well and truly
to be made, we bind ourselves, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THE FOREGOING OBLIGATION IS SUCH,
That if the proposal of the above bounden bidder for the construction of
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD 2396
Title of Project Contract No.
in the City of Newport Beach, is accepted by the City Council of said City, and
if the above bounden bidder shall duly enter into and execute a contract for
such construction and shall execute and deliver the "Payment" and "Faithful
Performance" contract bonds described in the Specifications within ten (10) days
(not including Saturday, Sunday, and Federal holidays) from the date of the
mailing of a notice to the above bounden bidder by and from said City that said
contract is ready for execution, then this obligation shall become null and
void; otherwise it is and shall remain in full force and effect, and the amount
specified herein shall be forfeited to the said City.
In the event that any bidder above named executed this bond as an indi-
vidual, it is agreed that the death of any such bidder shall not exonerate the
Surety from its obligations under this bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto set our hands and seals this 22nd day
of August , 1983.
(Attach acknowledgement of
Attorney -in -Fact)
S /Sonja Durnell
Notary Public
Commission expires July 5, 1985
COY ATKINS DBA: ATKINS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Bidder
S/ fns
Authorized Atkins Signature /Title
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Surety
BYS/John R. Piccini
Title Attorney -in -Fact
• • Page 5
NON- COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
The bidder, by its officers and agents or representatives present at the time
of filing this bid, being duly sworn on their oaths, say that neither they nor
any of them have, in any way, directly or indirectly, entered into any arrange-
ment or agreement with any other bidder, or with any public officer of such
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH whereby such affiant or affiants or either of them, has
paid or is to pay to such bidder or public officer any sum of money, or has
given or is to give to such other bidder or public officer anything of value
whatever; or such affiant or affiants or either of them has not directly or
indirectly, entered into any arrangement or agreement with any other bidder or
bidders, which tends to or does lessen or destroy free competition in the
letting of the contract sought for by the attached bids; that no bid has been
accepted from any subcontractor or materialman through any bid depository, the
bylaws, rules or regulations of which prohibit or prevent the bidder from con-
sidering any bid from any subcontractor or materialman which is not processed
through said bid depository, or which prevent any subcontractor or materialman
from submitting bids to a bidder who does not use the facilities of or accept
bids from or through such bid depository; that no inducement of any form or
character other than that which appears upon the face of the bid will be sug-
gested, offered, paid or delivered to any person whomsoever to influence the
acceptance of the said bid or awarding of the contract; nor has the bidder
any agreement or understanding of any kind whatsoever with any person whomso-
ever to pay, deliver to, or share with any other person in any way or manner,
any of the proceeds of the contracts sought by this bid.
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Bidder
S /Coy Atkins
Authorized Signature /Title
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 23rd day of August
19.
My commission expires:
Octoher 27. 1986 S /Theresa K. McLean
Notary Public
FO•RIGINAL SEE CITY CLERK'S FILE 4PY Page 6
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The undersigned submits herewith a statement of his financial responsibility
or agrees to submit a statement within 1 work day after the bid opening if
the undersigned is the apparent low bidder.
On file with City Clerk
u horize Signature /Title
FOR f#GINAL SEE CITY CLERK'S FILE C(fb Page
1.
TECHNICAL ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE REFERENCES
The undersigned submits herewith a statement of the work of similar character
to that proposed herein which he has performed and successfully completed.
Year
Completed For Whom Performed (Detail) Person to Contact Telephone No.
COY ATKINS DBA: ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
S tQ }LAtkins
Authorized Signature /Title
0 0
NOTICE
Page 8
The following are samples of contract documents which shall be
completed and executed by the successful bidder after he receives
letter of award from the City of Newport Beach:
PAYMENT BOND (pages 9 & 10)
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND (pages 11 & 12)
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE & ENDORSEMENTS (pages 13, 14, 15)
CONTRACT (pages 16 & 17)
Since the City of Newport Beach will not permit a substitute
format for these contract documents, bidders are advised to review
their content with bonding, insuring and legal agents prior to sub-
mission of bid.
BONDING COMPANIES shall be acceptable as sureties in
accordance with the latest revision of Federal Register Circular 570.
INSURANCE COMPANIES shall be assigned Policyholders' Rating
(or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in
accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide:
Property - Casualty. Coverages shall be provided for all TYPES OF
INSURANCE .checked on the CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE.
All costs associated with the specifications of these contract
documents shall be absorbed in the bid. Such specifications shall
include those contained in (1) each contract document and (2) the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.(latest edi-
tion adopted for use in the City of Newport Beach), except as
supplemented or modified by the Special Provisions for this project.
PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That
BOND NO: 2- 277 -044
Page 9
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, by
motion adopted September 12, 1983
has awarded to ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
hereinafter designated as the "Principal ", a contract for GARAGE BUILDING -
in the City of Newport Beach, in strict conformity with the Drawings and Specifications
and other contract documents on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Newport Beach;
WHEREAS, said Principal has executed or is about to execute said contract and the
terms thereof require the furnishing of a bond with said contract, providing that if
said Principal or any of his or its subcontractors, shall fail to pay for any materials,
provisions, provender, or other supplies or teams used in, upon, for, or about the per-
formance of the work agreed to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any
kind, the Surety on this bond will pay the same to the extent hereinafter set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, We ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
as Principal, and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
as Surety, are held firmly bound unto the City of Newport Beach, in the sum of
THIRTY THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN AND NO /100 -Dollars ($ 33,227.00 -------- ),
said sum being one -half of the estimated amount payable by the City of Newport Beach
under the terms of the contract, for which payment well and truly to be made we bind
ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors, or assigns, jointly and
severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the above bounden Principal or
his subcontractors, fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender, or other
supplies or teams, used in, upon, for, or about the performance of the work contracted
to be done, or for any other work or labor thereon of any kind or for amounts due
under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to such work or labor, that the
Surety or Sureties will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified
in the bond, and also, in case suit is brought upon the bond, a reasonable attorney's
fee, to be fixed by the Court as required by the provisions of Section 3250 of the
Civil Code of the State of California.
This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and
corporations entitled to file claims under Section 3181 of the California Civil Code
so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon
0
Payment Bond (Continued)
0
Page 10
this bond, as required by the Provisions of Sections 3247 et. seq. of the Civil Code of
the State of California.
And said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,
extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the contract or to the
work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in
any wise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any
such change, extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the contract
or to the work or to the specifications,
In the event that any principal above named executed this bond as an individual,
it is agreed that the death of any such principal shall not exonerate the Surety from
its obligations under this bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety above named, on the 13th day of SEPTEMBER , 19 83
i
Approved s to fopm:�
City Attorney
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Seal)
Name of Contractor CP rincipal)
Authoriz�/Signature and Title
Authorized Signature and Title
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Seal)
Name of Surety
Signature and Title of Authorized Agent
JOHN R. PICCINI - Attorney -in -Fact
P.O. BOX 2276, COSTA MESA, CA 92626
Address of Agent
(714) 966 -1637
Telephone No. of Agent
ca Y
14 Cy �O a
� N O q.x
rL
w w dU�va�q
00: 'a�iq
:off OF
r
O F. a
cC A Or�a -' 2
� OZ'yA1z•+.n o
,07 7 : o •% � " d :�
Ali
N •m ilti^�aHO' ou
J,c m Fi
L• K : '� ". O ate+ [s] c6 N P Z
°L• m ❑ e
�z s
O V]kyw �1z-i m
w
z S
O° t+�
ip &
D
In U
0
N
1
BOND NO: 2- 277 -044
• Page 11
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, by
motion adopted. September 12, 1983
has awarded to ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
hereinafter designated as the "Principal ", a contract for GARAGE BUILDING
16TH STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD - CONTRACT NO. 2396
in the City of Newport Beach, in strict conformity with the Drawings and Specifications
and other contract documents on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Newport Beach;
WHEREAS, said Principal has executed or is about to execute said contract and the
terms thereof require the furnishing of a bond for the faithful performance of said
contract;
NOW, THEREFORE, We, ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
as Principal, and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Newport Beach, in the sum of
SIXTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR AND NOP OO- - - - - -- Dollars ($ 66,454.00-- - - - -),
said sum being equal to 100% of the estimated amount of the contract, to be paid to
the said City or its certain attorney, its successors, and assigns; for which payment
well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators,
successors or assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the above bounden Principal,
his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in all
things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, con-
ditions, and agreements in the said contract and any alteration thereof made as therein
provided on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner
therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and
shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Newport Beach, its officers and agents,
as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it
shall remain in full force and virtue.
And said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change,
extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the contract or to the
work to be performed thereunder or to the specifications accompanying the same shall
in any wise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice
I,'
I
4
• • Page 12
Faithful Performance Bond (Continued)
of any such change, extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the
contract or to the work or to the specifications.
In the event that any principal above named executed this bond as an individual,
it is agreed that the death of any such principal shall not exonerate the Surety from
its obligations under this bond.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety above named, on the 13th day of SEPTEMBER , 19 83
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (Seal)
Name of Contractor Principal)
Authoriio Signature and Title
Authorized Signature and Title
THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (Seal)
Name of Surety
P.O. BOX 3020, FULLERTON, CA 92634
address of Surety
•e and title of Authorized Ac
R. PICCINI Attorney -in -Fact
P.O. BOX 2276, COSTA MESA, CA 92626
Address of Agent
(714) 966 -1637
Telephone No. of Agent
�
§
§
§
§
�
LLJ
B
§
S
§
|
j
\
\
\
Co.
\
\
0
cc
(
)
(
\
2
\
/ \o (
2 \
)
ƒ k K |�
!� ■�o» � ,
»]]� %_.
5
\®)\S&
` «\
� \ §�j 2«
g& =23= }2
k�
2!|§!\.
\R ° \2� {
\J ®k\
WJi W. §
�
■ Go
a CA
£ \
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED
• CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 0
NG
Page 13
Company A
Letter WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
I company B
Letter OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
i
company D
_16122 WHITECAP CIRCLE Letter
E
This is to certify that policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named
above and are in force at this time, including attached endorsement(s).
NOTE: The Comprehensive General Liability and Automotive Liability policies are endorsed
with the attached City of Newport Beach Endorsements.
CANCELLATION: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled or coverage reduced
before the expiration date thereof, th6- Insurance Company affording coverage
all provide 30 d advance notice to the City of Newport Beach by
re is red mail, atten ion: Public Works Department.
By: ; u-1 Agency: PROFILE INSURANCE BROKERS, INC.
Authorized Repre ative 09 -13 -83
JOHN R. PICCINI Date Issued
Description of operations /locations /vehicles: All operations performed for the City of Newport
Beach by or on behalf of the named insured in connection with the following designated contract:
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD CONTRACT NO: 2396
Project Title and Contract Number
NOTICE: This certificate or verification of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not
amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwith-
standing any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with
respect to which this certificate or verification of insurance may be issued or may
pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all
the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies, including attached endorsements.
NE
Policy
LIMITS OF LIABILITY IN THOUSANDS
000
COMPANY
TYPES OF INSURANCE
Policy
Exp.
g. ro ucts/
LETTER
- COVERAGE REQUIRED
No.
Date
Each
Completed
Occurrence
Operations
GENERAL LIABILITY
Bodily Injury
$ 500
$ 500
x Comprehensive Form
x Premises - Operations
GLW
Property Damage
$ 100
$ 100
A
x Explosion & Collapse Hazard
372183
6 -22 -86
x Underground Hazard
x Products /Completed Operations
Bodily Injury
Hazard
and Property
x Contractual Insurance
Damage Combined
$
$
x Broad Form Property Damage
x Independent Contractors
x Personal Injury
Marine
Personal Injury
$ 500
Aviation
AUTOMOTIVE LIABILITY
xU Comprehensive Form
Bodily Injury
$
B
ACO
(Each Person
500
Bodily Injury
(Each Occurrence
Owned
9476637
3 -1 -84
$ 500
Q Hired
Pro ert Dama e
Bo t y njury and
Q Non -owned
Property Damage
Combined
$
EXCESS LIABILITY
❑ Umbrella Form
Bodily Injury
❑ Other than Umbrella Form
and Property
Damage Combined
$
$
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
WCO
Statutory
qZ
1,000
ac
Accident)
B
and
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
3087474
7 -28 -84
NOTE: The Comprehensive General Liability and Automotive Liability policies are endorsed
with the attached City of Newport Beach Endorsements.
CANCELLATION: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled or coverage reduced
before the expiration date thereof, th6- Insurance Company affording coverage
all provide 30 d advance notice to the City of Newport Beach by
re is red mail, atten ion: Public Works Department.
By: ; u-1 Agency: PROFILE INSURANCE BROKERS, INC.
Authorized Repre ative 09 -13 -83
JOHN R. PICCINI Date Issued
Description of operations /locations /vehicles: All operations performed for the City of Newport
Beach by or on behalf of the named insured in connection with the following designated contract:
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD CONTRACT NO: 2396
Project Title and Contract Number
NOTICE: This certificate or verification of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not
amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed herein. Notwith-
standing any requirement, term, or condition of any contract or other document with
respect to which this certificate or verification of insurance may be issued or may
pertain, the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all
the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies, including attached endorsements.
NE
•
Page 14
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AUTOMOTIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT
It is agreed that:
1. With respect to such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Bodily Injury and
Property Damage Liability, the City of Newport Beach, its officers and employees are
additional insureds but only with respect to liability for damages arising out of
the ownership, maintenance or use of automobiles (or autos) used by or on behalf of
the named insured in connection with the contract designated below. The insurance
extended by this endorsement to said additional insured does not apply to bodily
injury or property damage arising out of automobiles (1) owned by or registered in
the name of an additional insured, or (2) leased or rented by an additional insured,
or (3) operated by an additional insured. The insurance afforded the additional
named insured(s) shall apply as primary insurance and no other insurance maintained
by the City of Newport Beach will be called upon to contribute with insurance
provided by this policy.
2. The policy includes the following provision:
"The insurance afforded by the policy applies separately to each insured
who is seeking coverage or against whom a claim is made or suit is brought,
except with respect to the limits of the Insurance Company's liability."
3. The limits of liability under this endorsement for the additional insureds named in
paragraph 1 of this endorsement shall be the limits indicated below for either Multi-
ple Limits or Single Limit, whichever is indicated by the letter X in the appropriate
box.
(XX) Multiple Limits
Bodily Injury Liability
$
500,000.
each occurrence
Property Damage Liability
$
100,000.
each occurrence
( ) Single Limit
Bodily Injury Liability $ each occurrence
and
Property Damage Liability
Combined
The limits of liability as stated in paragraph 3 of this endorsement shall not in-
crease the total liability of the Insurance Company for all damages as the result of
any one accident or occurrence in excess of the limits of Liability stated in the
policy as applicable to Automobile Liability Insurance.
4. Should the policy be cancelled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof,
the Insurance Company shall provide 30 days' advance notice to the City of Newport
Beach by registered mail, Attention: Public Works Department.
5. Designated Contract: GARAGE BUILDING -16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD CONTRACT NO: 2396
Project Title and Contract No.).
This endorsement is effective 09 -13 -83 at 12:01 A.M. and forms a part of
Policy No. ACO 9476637
Named Insured ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY / indorsement No.
Name of Insurance Company OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO
uznorizea nepresenzative
JOHN R. PICCINI
Page 15
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT
It is agreed that:
1. With respect to such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Comprehensive General
Liability, the City of Newport Beach, its officers and employees are additional in-
sureds but only with respect to liability arising out of operations performed by or on
behalf the named insured in connection with the contract designated below or acts
and omissions of the City of Newport Beach in connection with its general supervision
of such operations. The insurance afforded said additional insured shall apply as
primary insurance and no other insurance maintained by the City of Newport Beach will
be called upon to contribute with insurance provided by this policy.
2. The policy includes the following provision:
"The insurance afforded by the policy applies separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the
Insurance Company's liability."
3. The insurance afforded by the policy for Contractual Liability Insurance (subject to
the terms, conditions and exclusions applicable to such insurance) includes liability
assumed by the named insured under the indemnification or hold harmless provision con-
tained in the written contract, designated below, between the named insured and the
City of Newport Beach.
4. With respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy, the exclusions, if any,
pertaining to the explosion hazard, collapse hazard and underground property hazard
(commonly referred to as "XCU "hazards) are deleted.
5. The limits of liability under this endorsement for the additional insured named in
paragraph I of this endorsement shall be the limits indicated below for either Multiple
Limits or Single Limit, whichever is indicated by the letter X in the appropriate box.
�X) Multiple Limits
Bodily Injury Liability
Property Damage Liability
( ) Single Limit
Bodily Injury Liability
and
Property Damage Liability
Combined
$ 500,000. each occurrence
$ 100,000. each occurrence
each occurrence
The applicable limit of the Insurance Company's liability for the insurance afforded
for contractual liability shall be reduced by any amount paid as damages under this
endorsement in behalf of the additional insureds.
The limits of liability as stated in this endorsement shall not increase the total
liability of the Insurance Company for all damages as the result of any one occurrence
in excess of the limits of liability stated in the policy as applicable to Comprehen-
sive General Liability Insurance.
6. Should the policy be cancelled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof,
the Insurance Company shall provide 30 days' advance notice to the City of Newport
Beach by registered mail, Attention: Public Works Department
7. Designated Contract:GARAGE BUILDING -16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD - CONTRACT NO: 2396
Project Title and Contract No.
This endorsement is effective 09 -13 -83 at 12:01 A.M. and forms a part of
Policy No. GLW 372183
Named Insured
Name of Insura
• • Page 16
CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this lay of 19
by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, hereinafter "City," d
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY hereinafter "Contractor, "is made with
reference to the following facts:
(a) City has heretofore advertised for bids for the following
described public work:
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD 2396
Title of Project Contract No.
(b) Contractor has been determined by City to be the lowest responsi-
ble bidder on said public work, and Contractor's bid, and the compensation set
forth in this contract, is based upon a careful examination of all plans and
specifications by Contractor,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Contractor shall furnish all materials and perform all of the work
for the construction of the following described public work:
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD 2396
Title of Project Contract No.
which project is more fully described in the contract documents. Contractor
shall perform and complete this work in a good and workmanlike manner, and in
accordance with all of the contract documents.
2. As full compensation for the performance and completion of this
work as prescribed above, City shall pay to Contractor the sum of
SIXTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR ($ 66,454.00 )•
This compensation includes (1) any loss or damage arising from the nature of the
work; (2) any loss or damage arising from any unforeseen difficulties or obstruc-
tions in the performance of the work; (3) any expense incurred as a result of any
suspension or discontinuance of the work; but excludes any loss resulting from
earthquakes of a magnitude in excess of 3.5 on the Richter Scale and tidal waves,
and which loss or expense occurs prior to acceptance of the work by City.
3. All of the respective rights and obligations of City and Contractor
are set forth in the contract documents. The contract documents are incorporated
herein by reference as though set out in full and include the following:
(a) Notice Inviting Bids
(b) Instruction to Bidders and documents referenced therein
(c) Payment Bond
(d) Faithful Performance Bond
(e) Certificate of Insurance and endorsement(s)
0
0 Page 17
Plans and Special Provisions for
BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD 2396
itle of Project Contract No.
(g) This Contract.
4. Contractor shall assume the defense of, and indemnify and hold
harmless, City and its officers, employees and representatives from all claims,
loss or damage, except such loss or damage proximiately caused by the sole
negligence of City or its officers, employees and representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to
be executed the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
i
i
- A- PPRROVED AS TO FORM:
�, ✓ /ice/ 1� /l �. /�
City Attorney
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
a
N / .
CITY
By
Its
CONTRACTOR
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SEP 121983
September 12, 1983
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM N0. , 3
TO: CITY COUNCIL 04 C
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: GARAGE BUILDING - 16TH STREET UTILITIES SERVICE YARD
(2396)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Award Contract No. 2396 to Coy Atkins Construction for the
total price bid of $66,454, and authorize the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute the contract.
DISCUSSION:
At 11:00 A.M. on August 30, 1983, the City Clerk opened and read
the following bids for this project.
Bidder Total Price Bid
Low Coy Atkins Construction $ 66,454
2. R. G. Construction Co. 81,050
3. B. P. Kent 82,000
4. Dynamic Construction, Inc. 86,900
5. Corbett Wegley MacFarland, Inc. 98,589
6. Wilson -Niblo 109,841
7. J -Ray Construction Co. 110,511
The low total price bid is 33% below the Engineer's estimate of
$99,000. Sufficient funds are budgeted in District No. 50- 9295 -165.
Coy Atkins Construction, the low bidder, is a well qualified
general contractor who has performed previous contract work for the City.
The contract provides for the construction of a six - garage building
at the Utilities Service Yard. The garages will house trucks and repair equip-
ment which are now being stored in the open.
Plans and specifications were prepared by Ficker and Ruffing
Architects. The contract requires that all work be completed within 60
consecutive calendar days after commencement of construction, or January 1,
1984, whichever comes first.
Benjamin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
LD:rb
• 0 PR 1.1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GARAGE BUILDING - -16TH STREET
UTILITIES SERVICE YARD
CONTRACT NO. 2396
PROPOSAL
To the Honorable City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
P. 0. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884
Gentlemen:
The undersigned declares that he has carefully examined the location of the work, has read
the Instructions to Bidders, has examined the Plans and Special Provisions, and hereby
proposes to furnish all materials and do all the work required to complete Contract No. 2.396
in accordance with the Plans and Special Provisions, and will take in full payment therefor
the following unit prices for the work, complete in place, to wit:
ITEM QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL
NO. AND UNIT UNIT PRICE WRITTEN IN WORDS PRICE
Lump Sum Mobilization and clearing
Dollars
a
Cafs $ — ?/S Do
Per Lump Sum
Lump Sum Construct utility services into
garage building
@ Dollars
Prsr dump Sum
Lump Sum Construct garage building, including
pier footings
dlars f7� O6
�
Per LumpSumc�m��� Gds $ d
r • �
' _ • • PR 1.2
ITEM QUANTITY ITEM DESCRIPTION TOTAL
N0, AND UNIT UNIT PRICE WRITTEK IN WORDS PRICE
i
4. Lump Sum Construct PCC & AC paving around
garage building
Dollars
.aild
&mss $ 11 '�4- o
Per Lump Sum
I
TOTAL
PRICE
WITTEN IN WORDS
CONTRACTOR'S
LICENSE NO.
1724 -07
DATE 8-30 -83
BIDDER'S TELEPHONE NO. 714 - 775-5551
BIDDER'S ADDRESS 16122 Whitecap Cir. F
Dollars
-dwd
Coy Atkins
BIDDER'S NAME
retain Valley, C1 92708
• • Page 2
INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
The following contract documents shall be completed, executed and received
by the City Clerk in accordance with NOTICE INVITING BIDS:
1. PROPOSAL
2. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS
3. DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
4. BIDDER'S BOND (sum not less than 10% of total bid price)
5. NON- COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
6. STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
7. TECHNICAL ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE REFERENCES
except that cash, certified check or cashier's check (sum not less than 10% of
the total bid price) may be received in lieu of the Bidder's Bond. The title
of the project and the words SEALED BID shall be clearly marked on the outside
of the envelope containing the bid.
Bids shall not be received from bidders who are not licensed in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 9, Division III of the Business and Professions'
Code. The low bidder shall also be required to possess a City of Newport Beach
business license prior to execution of contract.
Bids shall be submitted on the attached PROPOSAL form. The additional
copy of the PROPOSAL form may be retained by the bidder for his records.
The estimated quantities indicated in the PROPOSAL are approximate, and are
given solely to allow the comparison of bid totals.
Bids are to be computed upon the estimated quantities indicated in the
PROPOSAL multiplied by unit price submitted by the bidder. In the event of dis-
crepancy between wording and figures, bid wording shall prevail over bid figures.
In the event of error in the multiplication of estimated quantity by unit price,
the correct multiplication will be computed and the bids will be compared with
correctly multiplied totals. The City shall not be held responsible for bidder
errors or omissions in the PROPOSAL.
Contract documents shall bear signatures and titles of persons authorized
to sign on behalf of the bidder. For corporations, the signatures shall be of
the President or Vice President. For partnerships, the signatures shall be of
a general partner. For sole ownership, the signature shall be of the owner.
In accordance with the California Labor Code (Sections 1770 et seq.), the
Director of Industrial Relations has ascertained the general prevailing rate of
per diem wages in the locality in which the work is to be performed for each
craft, classification, or type of workman or mechanic needed to execute the con-
tract. A copy of said determination is available in the office of the City
Clerk. All parties to the contract shall be governed by all provisions of the
California Labor Code relating to prevailing wage rates (Sections 1770 -7981 in-
clusive). The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with Section 1777.5
of the California Labor Code for all apprenticeable occupations.
Contr's Lic. No. & Classification Bidde
�1,goZg_5 ���M
Date/ uthoriz ignature /Title
•
DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR(S)
Page 3
The undersigned certifies that he has used bid(s) of the following listed
subcontractor(s) in making up his bid,and that the subcontractor(s) listed
will be used for the work for which they bid, subject to the approval of the
Engineer and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Specifications.
No change of subcontractor may be made except with the prior approval of the
Engineer and as provided by State law.
Item of Work
Subcontractor
Address
2.
3. c:P— C.c�e+tz
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
Ca y /J15
Bidder
Author Signature /Title
f
BOND NO: 1- 874 - 047 -71
PREMIUM: NIL
Q� The Ohio :asualty Insuranc Company
HAMILTON, OHIO
BID OR PROPOSAL BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we,
COY ATKINS DBA: ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
(hereinafter called the Principal) as Principal, and THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COM-
PANY, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its principal office in the
City of Hamilton, Ohio (hereinafter called the Surety) and licensed to do business in the State of
as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
(hereinafter called the Obligee) in the penal sum of TEN PERCENT (10 %) OF AMOUNT BID -----------
------------------------------------------------------------- Dollars ($ )
lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind
ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that whereas, the Principal has
submitted the accompanying bid, dated AUGUST 30 19 83 , for
GARAGE BUILDING - 16th STREET UTILITY SERVICE YARD
CONTRACT NO: 2396
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Obligee shall make any award according to the terms of said
bid and the Principal shall enter into a contract with said Obligee in accordance with the terms of said
bid and give bond for the faithful performance thereof within the time specified; or if no time is
specified within thirty days after the date of said award; or if the Principal shall, in the case of failure
so to do, indemnify the Obligee against any loss the Obligee may suffer directly arising by reason of
such failure, not exceeding the penalty of this bond, then this obligation shall be null and void: other-
wise to remain in full force and virtue.
Signed, Sealed and Dated this....22nd
P 5.177 -Rw.
...day of ........ .....AUGUST..................., 1983.....
COY ATKINS DBA:
...ATKINS. C., STRUCTION .. COMPANY. ....................
l Frma 7
By:..... F ....-�
T OHI UALTY RAN'CE COMPANY
�yy
.. i ,. _10
Attorney -in -Fact
'JOHN R. PICCINI
r
N
NON - COLLUSION AFFID.
The bidder, by its officers and agents or repr
of filing this bid, being duly sworn on their
any of them have, in any way, directly or indi
ment or agreement with any other bidder, or wi
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH whereby such affiant or
paid or is to pay to such bidder or public off
given or is to give to such other bidder or pu
whatever; or such affiant or affiants or eithe
indirectly, entered into any arrangement or ag
bidders, which tends to or does lessen or dent
letting of the contract sought for by the atta
accepted from any subcontractor or materialman
bylaws, rules or regulations of which prohibit
sidering any bid from any subcontractor or mat
through said bid depository, or which prevent
from submitting bids to a bidder who does not
bids from or through such bid depository; that
character other than that which appears upon t
gested, offered, paid or delivered to any pers
acceptance of the said bid or awarding of the
any agreement or understanding of any kind wha
ever to pay, deliver to, or share with any oth
any of the proceeds of the contracts sought by
OFFiCI =aL SPAT, 1,= THERFSA K, 1C LEA "J I
off?{; NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
«.
y 4. ORANGE COUNT
My comm. expires OCT 27, -211-r-411
i
3
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of
19_�'g .
My commission expires:
6c,LaGc,t- O✓ -/ , /9e6
r
i
3
o v
10.
3 9
An
�,
ti
z
M
r
70 rr
O
m:V�O'9
M y
'cn
:p
w
ky
a H o b' n
i
V
:Iv
Ohm
O
in
z
ui fn
���x� ~�
n.
Sn O� r
t O:y 10,V
o:Z
UM
to
•t
*
„m09 n�:
ro-;
'r
M
m
�
a.>M M P, w
`Lm 105-0-M"
=::
r o
Cr ;0 W
�v[w0CL
m:
—
Njr�M>
7G G -�,
z�r
:cci
o�.k�oy:c,
:O
:c
m7
o
s
Z7 M:CR
a
CL
c
.(y
/
M
6`
Boa
m
M
ti
o
0
mKE.m'G
W
:°
� --
:�
§
)
b
f
�
\ \
2 2
/
\ §
\ k
3 >4
\ /
) 2
! -
\ ).
3 (
\2qz
\ \\
x—
f
e ml
k2Q \\(
§3))2 &g
\k
$
°
}
.§])))
\
7) /
.§
}
}2
\�\(k
\2qz
\ \\
x—
f
e ml
k2Q \\(
§3))2 &g
CO
co
$
°
(
\
e
}
B
7
CO
co
°
(
e
�
D
S�
$
CO
co
0 0
NON- COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
Page 5
The bidder, by its officers and agents or representatives present at the time
of filing this bid, being duly sworn on their oaths, say that neither they nor
any of them have, in any way, directly or indirectly, entered into any arrange-
ment or agreement with any other bidder, or with any public officer of such
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH whereby such affiant or affiants or either of them, has
paid or is to pay to such bidder or public officer any sum of money, or has
given or is to give to such other bidder or public officer anything of value
whatever; or such affiant or affiants or either of them has not directly or
indirectly, entered into any arrangement or agreement with any other bidder or
bidders, which tends to or does lessen or destroy free competition in the
letting of the contract sought for by the attached bids; that no bid has been
accepted from any subcontractor or materialman through any bid depository, the
bylaws, rules or regulations of which prohibit or prevent the bidder from con-
sidering any bid from any subcontractor or materialman which is not processed
through said bid depository, or which prevent any subcontractor or materialman
from submitting bids to a bidder who does not use the facilities of or accept
bids from or through such bid depository; that no inducement of any form or
character other than that which appears upon the face of the bid will be sug-
gested, offered, paid or delivered to any person whomsoever to influence the
acceptance of the said bid or awarding of the contract; nor has the bidder
any agreement or understanding of any kind whatsoever with any person whomso-
ever to pay, deliver to, or share with any other person in any way or manner,
any of the proceeds of the contracts sought by this bid.
Subscribed ano sworn to before me
this c—— day of
19�_g.
My commission expires:
dle,La-b.c-t- a 7, i9s,6
Bidder
Author' d Signature /Title
No is
0 FF1Oi4L SEl,L
l
"
THERESA K W. LFAN
�(
m��. •
NOTARY PUBLIC - CAUFOR.IA
� $
ORANGE COUMY
MV Comm. expires OCT 27, 1985 r
Subscribed ano sworn to before me
this c—— day of
19�_g.
My commission expires:
dle,La-b.c-t- a 7, i9s,6
Bidder
Author' d Signature /Title
No is
GENERAL CONTRACTOR . 16122 Whitecap Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 . (714) W44946 License #172407
775 -5551
Last five jobs completed:
Miles Ave. Childrens Center$$380,000 Emery Kanarik Arichitect
6720 Miles Ave. Huntington Park, CA.
Los Angeles Board of Education
1425 So. SanPedro ST. Los Angeles CA. Completed 1977
E1 Cerrito Elementary School $5410,000 D.M.J.M. Architects
Corona -Norco Unified School District
300 Buena Vista Ave. Corona, CA 91720 714- 736 -3386 Completed 1978
Lee Ware Park $5526,000 Willdan & Associates Architects
223 ST. & Wardham
City of Hawaiian Gardens
12134 Tillburn ST. Hawaiian•exardens, CA 90716 Ph# 213-860 -2476
Completed 1979
Orange County Sanitation District $199,000 Miyake -Leese -Wood Arch.
10844 Ellis Ave. Fountain Valley, CA 92708
PH# 714-540 -2910 Completed 1980
Cerritos Community College $628,000 Corwin & Way Architects
Community Service Center 11110 E. Alondra Blvd. Norwalk, CA 90650
Ph# 213- 660 -2451 Completed 1982
Coy Atkins
General Contractor
'S
COY A. AND SHIRLEEN ATKINS
y FINANICAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 1982
s
CONTENTS
i
Coy A. and Shirleen Atkins
as of December 31, 1982:
Accountants' Compilation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
i
Statement of Assets and Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Notes to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -4
Atkins Construction Co.
as of December 31, 1982
Accountants' Review Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Balance Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Statement of Income (Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Statement of Changes in Financial Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Notes to the Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
OODBAN &
ALSH
An Accountancy Corporation
William D. Goodban, C. PA.
John J. Walsh, C. PA.
J. Paul Zimmerman, C.P A.
Kenneth R. Mitchell, C.P.A.
Coy A. & Shirleen Atkins
16122 Whitecap Circle
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
3620 Long Beach Boulevard, Suite A
Long Beach, CA 90807 /(213) 426.7661
ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
We have compiled the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Coy A. and
Shirleen Atkins, as of December 31, 1982,.on the cost basis in accordance with
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information
that is the representation of the owners. We have not audited or reviewed the accom-
panying financial statement and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other
form of assurance on it.
The additional information in the accompanying statement on the estimated value basis
is presented on the basis described in the statement and in the accompanying notes.
However, we do not express an opinion on the amounts shown as estimated values.
GOODBAN & WALSH
An Accountancy Corporation
by: _E%f ±?GGG�lwiii'
William D. Goodban, C.P.A.
President
MEMBER I American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
rafifr is Snciaty of CarMfiad Puhfie Accountants
February 22, 1983
1
0
COY A. AND SHIRLEEN ATKINS
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
December 31, 1982
ASSETS
Cash
Automobile - 1979 Riviera, 25%
personal portion (Note 1)
Personal residence (Note 2)
Net assets of Atkins Construction
Co. (Note 3)
Net assets of Geneva Apartments (Note 4)
13.57% ownership
Household furnishings and miscellaneous
belongings (Note 5)
1982 State income tax refund receivable
Retirement plan assets (Note 6)
Total Assets
LIABILITIES
Retirement plan contributions
payable (Note 6)
Accounts payable, estimated
1982 Federal income tax payable
Mortage payable, secured by personal
residence, payable at $185 per month
including 7.5% interest
Accrued income taxes on unrealized
appreciation (Note 7)
Total Liabilities
EXCESS OF ASSETS OVER LIABILITIES
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
AND NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
0
0-1-- A
Cost
➢....J ..
$ 3,072
3,378
35,000
115,174
16,458
18,000
2,328
12,503
$205,913
8,168
650
8,865
17,746
Column B
Estimated
Value
Basis
$ 3,072
2,700
185,000
135,174
19,818
35,000
2,328
12,503
$395,595
8,168
650
8,865
17,746
—0— 16,171
35,429 " -- 51,600
5170.484 5343.995
2
0 0
COY A. AND SHIRLEEN ATKINS
NOTES TO STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
December 31, 1982
NOTE 1 - AUTOMOBILE - 1979 RIVIERA
The 1979 Riviera automobile is used 25% for personal use. The estimated value
basis of this auto is the Kelley blue book figure of $10,800 x 25 %, or $2,700. The
other portion of the auto is included in the net assets of Atkins Construction Co.
NOTE 2 - PERSONAL RESIDENCE
The estimated value of the personal residence was supplied by Mr. 6 Mrs. Atkins
and is based on recent selling prices of comparable neighborhood homes.
NOTE 3 - NET ASSETS OF ATKINS CONSTRUCTION CO.
The unaudited financial statements of Atkins Construction Co., as of December 31,
1982, are included in this report. The balance sheet is shown on page 6 and the
statement of income is on page 7. The net assets of Atkins Construction Co., cost
basis comes directly from these statements. The net assets of Atkins Construction
Co., estimated value basis are comprised of the following:
Net Assets, Cost Basis $115,174
Add estimated value of tools and
equipment not reflected on statement,
per proprietors estimate 20,000
ILIL 174
NOTE 4 - NET ASSETS OF GENEVA APARTMENTS
The estimated value of the apartments is based upon an estimate by the majority
owner.
NOTE 5 - HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS AND MISCELLANEOUS BELONGINGS
Included in miscellaneous belongings is a diamond ring which has been appraised
by a jewler at $9,000 over Mr. Atkins' cost.
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
3
COY A. AND SHIRLEEN ATKINS
NOTE TO STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES (Cont.)
December 31, 1982
NOTE 6 - RETIREMENT -PLAN ASSETS
Retirement plan assets consist of the following at December 31, 1982:
Keogh plan - Coy Atkins $ 2,323
IRA - Coy Atkins 1,006
IRA - Shirleen Atkins 1,006
1982 Keogh cont. receivable - Coy Atkins 5,918
1982 spousal IRA receivable 2,250
12 503
Contributions payable at December 31, 1982 relating to these plans totaled
$8,168.
NOTE 7 - ACCRUED INCOME TAXES ON UNREALIZED APPRECIATION
Unrealized appreciation in value of assets would, if realized, require payment
of taxes at capital gain rates. Therefore, the accrual has been made on that basis.
The accrual reflects the election of $125,000 of gain exclusion relative to the sale
of their personal residence.
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
4
•
N &
MN
An Accountancy Corporation
Wham D. Goodban, C.P.A.
John J. Walsh, C. PA.
J. Paul Zimmerman, C. P. A.
Kenneth R. Mitchell, C. P.A.
Mr. Coy Atkins
Atkins Construction Company
16122 Whitecap Circle
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
s
3620 Long Beach Boulevard, Suite A
Long Beach, CA 90807/(213) 426 -7661
We have reviewed the accompanying balance sheet of Atkins Construction Company (a
proprietorship) as of December 31, 1982, and the related statement of income (loss)
and changes in financial position for the year then ended, in accordance with standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. All information
included in these financial statements is the representation of the owner of Atkins
Construction Company.
A review consists principally of inquiries of the owner and analytical procedures
applied to financial data. It is substantially less in scope than an examination in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.
Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made
to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to be in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared solely from the accounts of
Atkins Construction Company, and they do not include the personal accounts of the
owner or those of any other operations in which he is engaged.
GOODBAN & WALSH
An Accountancy Corporation
by:
William D. Goodban, C.P.A.
President
February 22, 1983
MEMBER I American Institute of Certified Public Accountants S
.............o-
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION CO.
BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 1982
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash /checking
Petty cash
Certificates of Deposit
Total Current Assets
PROPERTY 6 EQUIPMENT (NOTE 1)
Machinery & equipment
Vehicles
Total Cost
Accumulated depreciation
Net Property 6 Equipment
TOTAL ASSETS
$ 762
30
110,885
1,849
13,636
15,485
( 11,988)
LIABILITIES AND PROPRIETORS' EQUITY
CURRENT LIABILITIES
PROPRIETORS' EQUITY
Coy Atkins, beginning capital 130,954
Coy Atkins, drawing ( 8,884)
Net income (loss) ( 6,896)
Total Proprietors' Equity
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND PROPRIETORS' EQUITY
0
$111,677
3,497
Im
115,174
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
SHOULD BE READ WITH THIS.FINANCIAL STATEMENT
115 174
5115.174
6
• i
ATKINS CONSTRUTION CO.
STATEMENT OF INCOME (LOSS)
For the Year Ended December 31, 1982
INCOME
Contracting income $ _0-
Interest income 13,888
Total Income
EXPENSES
Subcontract
281
Auto expense
5,151
Office expenses
3,735
Accounting
2,040
Dues and subscriptions
948
Taxes and licenses
190
Insurance
4,204
Repairs and maintenance
314
Travel and entertainment
1,000
Interest
7
Depreciation
2,914
Total Expenses
NET INCOME (LOSS)
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
SHOULD BE READ WITH THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
$ 13,888
20,784
7
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITON
For the Year Ended December 31, 1982
SOURCE OF FUNDS
APPLICATION OF FUNDS
From Operations
Net loss
Less depreciation not requiring
the outlay of working capital
Total From Operations
Coy Atkins, Draw
Total Applications
(DECREASE) IN WORKING CAPITAL
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN COMPONENTS OF WORKING
WORKING
Increase (decrease) in current assets:..
Cash
Accounts receivable
Total
Decrease (increase) in current liabilities:
Accounts payable
(DECREASE) IN WORKING CAPITAL
$ 6,896
(__L, 914)
$ 47,401
( 65,383)
0
$ -0-
$ 3,982
8,884
12,866
($ 17,982)
5,116
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND ACCOUNTS' REVIEW REPORT
SHOULD BE READ WITH THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT
($ 12,866)
(412,866)
8
ATKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 1982
NOTE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
General Description:
0
Atkins Construction Company is primarily involved in contracting for !
commercial building construction. The Company records income and expenses on the
percentage of completion method of accounting.
Property and Equipment:
Depreciation is computed on the straight -line method using the following
lives:
Years
Machinery and Equipment 4 -5
Autos and Trucks 4
Income Taxes:
Federal taxes on income of the owner are computed on his total income from
all sources; accordingly, no provision for such taxes is included in these state-
ments.
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
9
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public
notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,
California, Number A -6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and
A- 24831, dated 11 June, 1963.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange Public Notloe Advenisina covered
by Ihla . "devil Is eat in 1 point
wllh 10 pica column width
I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the below
entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange
Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the
NEWS- PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa,
County of Orange, State of California, and that a
Notice of of inviting bids
('TTY OF NEWPORT REACH
of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete
copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa,
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley,
Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna
Beach issues of said newspaper for one
consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of
AUgust 10
198 —_ 3
198—
198
198
198—
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on AUgust 10 1198— s
at Costa Mesa, Californi .
—� Signs ure
PIIBIIC:ffOACE
�NOTICid offrMO 6Ne
Seated bids may be racelved et
the office of th¢_ City Clerk, 3300
CAwpanS unleyard. 010A9h4 C80,
.30th day of August, 1983 at which
time
read such
t, Title Of Project:
ARA6C
BUIt.DiNe -18th STREET UTILITIE'.
SERVICE YARD, Contract No. 2396
proved by the oay Council ltthhis Of f
tleY of August. 1983:'PrdaPil
Bidders may obtain one set of NO
documents at no at at tr eof office 330
I he Pubtic Works DaPa
Newport Boulevard, Newport eeect
Ca. 92883.
For further Information, call�Llo'
R. Dalton, Protect
"(1.2281wanda E. Andersen .
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
��7
•
TO: CITY COUNCIL
C_ -(�39jo
ST env COUNCIL August 8, 1983 \�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNC� AGENDA
AUG 0 81983 ITEM NO.
,..•I !11, 41
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: GARAGE BUILDING - 16TH STREET UTILITIES SERVICE YAf ;__' W
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Approve the plans and specifications.
2. Authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be
opened at 11:00 A.M. on August 30, 1983.
DISCUSSION:
The Capital Improvement budget includes a $140,000 appropriation,
carried over from FY 1982 -83, for the design and construction of six garages
at the Utilities Service Yard. The garages will house trucks and repair
equipment which are now being stored in the open.
Plans and special provisions for the garages have been prepared by
Ficker and Ruffing Architects. Ficker and Ruffing's estimate of construc-
tion costs is $99,000, or approximately $42 per square foot.
The contract requires that all work be completed within 60 con-
secutive calendar days after commencement of construction, or by January 1,
1984, whichever comes first.
Berr, amin B. Nolan
Public Works Director
LD:rb
City Council Meeting February 27, 1984
Study Session Agenda Item No. 4(c)l
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: BALBOA PENINSULA TRANSIT STUDY
Background
In the approval of the Balboa Fun Zone project (Use Permit No. 2080), the City
Council required a contribution of $15,000.00 to study the feasibility of
creating a shuttle system for the Balboa Peninsula. Subsequent to that action,
the Citizens' Traffic Advisory Committee recommended to the City Council that
the City proceed immediately with this study. At the December 17, 1982 Study
Session, the City Council reviewed the proposed scope of work and cost
estimates for the study. On February 28, 1983, the City Council reviewed the
proposal submitted by Van Dell and Associates, Inc. and on March 28, 1983, the
Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute a contract with van Dell and
Associates, Inc.
Discussion
The study authorized by the City Council on March 28, 1983 was Phase I of a
proposed two -phase program. The Phase I study is intended to provide the City
Council the information needed to determine the feasibility of a transit system
and to recommend a preferred alternative system on which a detailed
implementation plan could be developed (Phase II). Phase I not only analyses
various transit system alternatives but also analysis a) development on the
Peninsula, b) the amount of trips which will result, and c) trip market
segment which can be captured by transit. Phase I includes the following
specific tasks:
1. Land Use Scenario Assessment
2. Estimation of Trips for Land Development Alternatives
3. Definition of Transit System Alternatives
4. Right -of -way and Parking Assessment
5. Development of Alternatives
6. Evaluation and Recommendation of Preferred Alternative
Phase II of the study will provide a program for implementing the City's goals
and identify a transit system matched with an acceptable growth and land use
mix and will also provide necessary environmental documentation to assess the
impact of implementation of the preferred alternative.
TO: City Council - 2.
The Phase I report completed by the consultant assesses the feasibility of
implementing a transit system for the Balboa Peninsula. It provides an
evaluation of planned and projected development on the Peninsula, the number of
auto trips which will result from this development, and the alternative transit
systems which could be implemented in this area. Each of the transit systems
is described in terms of right -of -ways, type of vehicles used, and fixed
facilities required (such as transit terminals and parking lots). The report
concludes with a recommendation on a preferred alternative system and a program
for future actions.
The recommended transit system alternative is a program which involves many
components. Central to the recommendation is the identification of the "trend
growth" land use alternative as the policy of the City. Trend growth is a land
use intensity which will likely occur if the trend in recent development
approvals continues, and represents a reduction of approximately 758 from the
development currently permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Code. It is
necessary for this land use alternative to be adopted and implemented in the
General Plan and Zoning Code in order for the recommended transit system to
adequately serve the projected demand.
The transit system recommended is divided into two programs for summer and
winter. The winter transit system will require remote parking facilities with
a shuttle bus service to the Central Newport Beach area (Cannery Village/
McFadden Square). The summer transit program requires a combined program of
remote parking, shuttle transit services, and a parking management program.
The shuttle bus service will run from the Coast Highway along Balboa and
Newport Boulevards to the Central Balboa (Balboa Pier) area. The shuttle route
may extend as far as "G" Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The Parking
Management Program involves revisions to the parking meter program by reducing
time limits and increasing costs along with a residential parking permit
program in all residential areas of the Peninsula from 46th Street to Peninsula
Point. Both the winter and summer transit programs propose the CalTrans East
site as the location for the remote parking facility. If this site is not
available, another remote parking facility in the area is necessary for the
implementation of the recommended alternative. If the City determines to
proceed with Phase II of the Transit Study, it is also recommended that a trial
implementation program be developed for the summer of 1985.
Transit Study Issues
At this point in the study of transit alternatives, the City Council must
determine whether a shuttle program is appropriate and desirable in the City of
Newport Beach. Phase II of the program should be authorized only if the City
is able to commit to the whole concept, with all of the components described
previously. The major issues associated with implementation of a shuttle
system are:
1) LAND USE. The recommended alternative is based on the Trend Growth land
use assumption. This land use alternative represents a significant (758)
decrease from the development currently permitted under the General Plan
and zoning. If the City Council chooses to proceed with further studies,
it should be concurrent with actions to reduce the permitted intensities
of development on the Balboa Peninsula.
TO: City Council - 3.
2) PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. The Parking Management Program proposed is a
program affecting the total parking system on the Balboa Peninsula.
Included in the program are a decrease in allowed meter times, expansion
of metered areas, and institution of a residential parking permit program
from 46th Street to Peninsula Point. The residential parking permit
program will limit all non - metered parking on the Balboa Peninsula to
residents only. The City has implemented such a program on a small scale
on Newport Island.
3) COMMITMENT TO TRANSIT PROGRAMS. Implementation of a transit system in
the City will require a substantial commitment on the part of the City,
particularly in terms of financial commitment. Currently all funds for
mass rapid transit in this area are allocated to the Orange County Transit
District. These funds are always allocated to the original transit
authority in any area. Unless OCTD implements the shuttle system, the
City will become a transit authority and will be on its own in funding the
capital and operating expenses of the system (estimated at 24.5 million
dollars and 4.0 million dollars, respectively).
4) CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING CITY POLICY. Implementation of the shuttle
system as proposed may conflict with City policy as expressed in the Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan, particularly as it relates to public access
in the Peninsula Point area. The proposed alternative limits all
on- street parking to residential permit parking only, but does not show
any shuttle service to this area. Additionally, the City has stated that
it will not prohibit beach parking in the City without insuring no net
adverse impact on public access. The proposed Parking Management Program
may not be in compliance with this LCP policy.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
by
PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE
Environmental Coordinator
PLT /kk
�1
1
�1
1
.1
!
1
1
!
�1
ii
�1
�1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SHUTTLE BUS/
TROLLEY TRAIN STUDY
BALBOA PENINSULA
VAN DELL
AND
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
ATE MANAGEMENT
AND
SERVICE CO.,
INC.
L
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
L
1
II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study is Phase I of a potential two phase study which has
analyzed various Balboa Peninsula land use alternatives,
resulting trip characteristics and traffic impacts and an
examination of various transit alternatives with an assessment of
how these transit options would fare at mitigating the forecast
traffic volumes.
Buildout of the City of Newport Beach Balboa Peninsula General
Plan is forecasted to generate over 130,000 average daily trips
on and off the peninsula during average winter weekday. This
compares to less than 70,000 average winter daily trips which
currently exists. With the added beach traffic during the
summer, weekday traffic is forecasted to climb to 160,000.
Capacity on and off the peninsula via Newport and Balboa.
Boulevards plus minor additional capacity via the ferry is,
however, approximately 92,000 average daily trips. Severe Balboa.
Peninsula traffic congestion will therefore exist throughout the
year.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
Three peninsula land use alternatives were analyzed as follows,
with each generating a different level of traffic:
1. Capacity Constraint: Land use is constrained by winter
weekday external trip generation at a level which does
not exceed the design capacity of the roadway system on
and off the peninsula.
I 2. Master Plan Buildout: No constraints are placed on
future development other than current zoning limits.
1
i
1
11
1
1
3. Trend: Continuation of recent development approvals.
The differences in dwelling units and commercial /office square
footage between the existing and the three land use alternatives
are as follows:
Dwelling
Units
Existing 6,340
Capacity Constraint 6,400
Master Planned Buildout 6,700
Trend 6,500
TRIP ESTIMATION
Commercial /Office
Square Feet (Million)
.9
1.4
6.3
1.5
The existing land use on the peninsula is currently generating
86,000 average daily winter trip ends per day. A doubling of
i
I
trip generation would occur with the development of the Buildout
Alternative to approximately 167,500. Total trip generation for
the Capacity Constraint and the Trend Alternatives are less,
104,700 and 111,300 respectively.
Newport Beach and particularly the Balboa Peninsula are
additionally impacted by the beach and tourist traffic during
summers and weekends. These relationships for the existing and
I three alternatives are as follows. For comparison purposes the
forecast daily design capacity of the Newport and Balboa
Boulevard is 92,000.
Winter Summer
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Existing 68,500 61,500 96,300 91,800
Capacity Constraint 83,400 74,900 111,200 105,300
Master Planned Buildout 131,500 118,000 159,300 148,400
Trend 89,600 80,400 117,400 110,800
As can be seen in the above figures under the buildout
alternative, winter traffic will be greater than current summer
traffic and will exceed commonly accepted volume /capacity ratios.
In review of the various trip purposes, two primary market
segments which might be effectively captured through a shuttle
system were identified. In addition, these market segments are
of a size that significant impacts on traffic levels could be
achieved. These are the beach /tourist visitors during the summer
' period, and the work trip which originates off of the peninsula
and travels to the peninsula.
TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
The four general transit alternatives considered for application
of service on and off of the Peninsula are:
1. Continuation of Existing OCTD Service
2. Shuttle Bus in Mixed Traffic
3. Shuttle Bus With Exclusive Lanes
4. Light Rail Transit
1
REMOTE PARKING FOR TRANSIT SHUTTLE
SYSTEM
Any of the transit shuttle systems
are dependent on the
availability of parking on the periphery
of the study area. The
most logical site in the study area
that can accommodate a
peripheral parking facility is the
Caltrans -owned parcel on the
north side of Pacific Coast Highway
between Superior Avenue and
Newport Boulevard. Hoag Hospital,
however, is in the process of
acquiring this parcel from Caltrans
for expansion purposes.
Therefore, in order to provide remote
parking and hence consider
a transit shuttle program, the City
of Newport Beach will be
required to negotiate joint use of
this property.
'
ii
I
I
1
[]
I
I
I
L�
I
F
11
I
I
I
PENINSULA PARKING
' In review of the existing traffic for winter - summer and
weekday - weekend conditions, it became evident that parking is a
major component of travel on the Balboa Peninsula. Particularly
during summer - weekend conditions, parking is filled to capacity
causing significant congestion as users circulate the peninsula
streets in an effort to find an available space. This high
parking demand primarily impacts the residents as those that
leave the peninsula on a summer- weekend may not have the
opportunity to return until after the beach /tourist parkers have
Ileft the peninsula at the end of the day.
There are slightly over 7,000 peninsula public parking spaces.
These are defined as metered and unmetered on- street curb and
off - street parking lot spaces. Approximately 75% or 5350 of the
public parking spaces are unmetered, many of which are located in
the residential neighborhoods. Because of the competition of
parking demand between resident and beach user during the summer
periods, either some form of parking management control or
pricing may be warranted in conjunction with a remote parking
facility and a connecting transit service
SELECTION OF COMBINED LAND USE AND TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Three winter alternatives were investigated -- one each for the
capacity constraint, trend, and master plan buildout land use
plans. For the capacity constraint alternative, traffic volumes
at the screenline and elsewhere in the study area are increased
but traffic congestion levels are judged to be acceptable,
although somewhat worse in selected locations than for existing
' conditions. The supply of parking spaces is adequate to meet
demands although localized imbalances in the central area might
exist depending on the nature of new development projects. Since
traffic and parking conditions are acceptable, the development of
a transit shuttle system and remote parking facilities for
selected trips to the central area is not warranted.
For the trend land use alternative, it becomes necessary to
encourage remote parking with a shuttle bus connection to the
central area for 200 -300 employees and others making trips
requiring longer term parking. Traffic volumes at the study area
I screenline are approaching maximum capacity but traffic
congestion levels are generally acceptable.
' The third winter alternative is for the master plan buildout land
use alternative. The results show that this alternative is not
feasible, resulting in traffic volumes which substantially exceed
street capacity levels, unacceptable traffic congestion, and
major capital expenditures for remote parking and transit system
development in an attempt to alleviate traffic and parking
conditions. Analysis results indicate that this land use
' alternative should be discarded from consideration for the study
area's development.
iii
I
Three summer alternatives were investigated - -one for the capacity
constraint land use plan and two for trend land use development.
In the case of the Capacity Constraint land use alternative
implementation of remote parking facilities in conjunction with
bus shuttle, operating in mixed traffic serving the peninsula is
needed to adequately mitigate traffic volumes and congestion.
In the case of the trend land use alternative with a shuttle in
mixed traffic and assuming a residential parking permit program
traffic volumes on and off the peninsula are forecasted to be at
a maximum acceptable traffic level. The capacity of the shuttle
bus system coupled with the limited number of remote parking
space which would be required could result in a 12 to 13 percent
reduction in beach use.
i The trend land use alternative with a shuttle bus operating on
exclusive lanes will result in the elimination of an estimated
800 street parking spaces along Balboa and Newport Boulevards.
Due to transit system capacity and limitation of remote parking,
a greater reduction in beach use, as compared to the previous
alternative would result.
jCONCLUSIONS
The first phase of the Balboa Peninsula Bus /Trolley Study
concludes that:
1 o The capacity constraint and trend growth land use
alternatives can potentially be balanced.with the
planned highway system.
o A transit shuttle system could effectively address
highway capacity deficiencies if transit demand is
1 artificially induced with remote parking areas and
peninsula parking management programs.
o The Conceptual Recommended Alternative (Figure 7 -1) be
selected for further refinement in Phase II.
If the City Council elects to continue with the transit shuttle
and the second phase of the study the primary objectives would be
to:
o Refine the preferred transit system land use
alternative,
o Develop a comprehensive transit implementation program,
and
o Provide necessary environmental documentation to support
implementation of the preferred alternative.
iv
I
1
1
1
1
1
F
d
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
t
i
SHUTTLE BUS AND TROLLEY TRAIN STUDY
FOR
BALBOA PENINSULA
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Van Dell and Associates, Inc.
ATE Management and Service Co., Inc.
Butler Roach Group, Inc.
February 1984
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Executive Summary
i
1.
Introduction
1 -1
2.
Land Use Alternatives
2 -1
Zone System
2 -2
City Traffic Model
2 -4
Land Use Alternatives
2 -9
3.
Trip Estimation
3 -1
Market Segmentation
3 -1
Internal - External Peninsula Travel
3 -3
Trip Type
3 -6
Summer - Winter and Weekday - Weekend Comparisons
3 -9
4.
Definition of Transit System Alternatives
4 -1
Summary of Existing OCTD Service
4 -3
Bus Transit Alternatives
4 -6
Light Rail Transit Alternatives
4 -15
5.
Right -of -Way and Parking Assessment
5 -1
Community Impact Consideration
5 -2
Alternative System Alignments
5 -4
Peninsula Parking
5 -10
Remote Parking for Transit Shuttle System
5 -13
6.
Combined Land Use and Transit System Alternatives
6 -1
Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study
6 -2
Characteristics of Selected Alternatives
6 -5
7.
Combined Alternatives Evaluation and Recommendation
7 -1
Winter Alternatives
7 -1
Summer Alternatives
7 -4
Conclusions
7 -7
I
1
I
II
I
[1
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
5 -1 Bus or Light Rail Transit Operating at Grade 5 -3
In Median of Major Arterial
5 -2 Route Segments 5 -5
7 -1 Conceptual Recommended Alternative 7 -9
.i
31
2 -1
Zone System
2 -3
'
2 -2
Trip Generation Calibration for
2 -8
Existing Land Use
2 -3
2 -4
Land Use Alternative Comparisons
Socioeconomic Alternatives Land
2 -10
2 -12
Use Comparisons
3 -1
Alternative Land Use Trip End Generation
3 -2
3 -2
Peninsula Trip Distribution
3 -5
3 -3
Trip Types
3 -3
3 -4
Existing Balboa Peninsula Hourly Traffic
3 -12
1
3 -5
Alternative External Peninsula. Traffic
3 -15
4 -1
4 -2
Red Car Operating In Downtown Los Angeles
Bus Utilization in Mixed Traffic
4 -2
4 -8
4 -3
Vans and Small Buses
4 -11
4 -4
Conventional Buses
4 -12
4 -5
High Capacity Buses
4 -13
4 -6
LRT in Mixed Traffic
4 -18
4 -7
LRT in Exclusive Median Lanes
4 -20
4 -8
LRT Vehicles
4 -23
4 -9
Seattle Waterfront Trolley
4 -25
5 -1 Bus or Light Rail Transit Operating at Grade 5 -3
In Median of Major Arterial
5 -2 Route Segments 5 -5
7 -1 Conceptual Recommended Alternative 7 -9
.i
31
�l
I
11
I
I
i
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
11
I
TABLES
Table No. Page No.
3 -1 Trip Distribution By Trip Type 3 -8
3 -2 Existing External Peninsula ADT Comparisons 3 -11
4 -1 OCTD Service Frequencies 4 -5
5 -1 Balboa Peninsula District Parking Summary 5 -11
6 -1 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Study 6 -3
7 -1 Evaluation Summary of Selected Alternatives 7 -2
I
�I
L!
I
lI
IA
17
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach serves a wide
' range of recreational, commercial, industrial, and residential
activities. Each year, hundreds of thousands of visitors use the
peninsula's beaches and water facilities. Although the peninsula
area is of older development in comparison with southern Orange
County, the area continues to grow through redevelopment of
' residential and commercial properties. This redevelopment
concerns the city as to whether existing or planned
' transportation systems can adequately accommodate the projected
growth. Existing transportation systems include both the
peninsula's highway system as well as public transportation
services provided by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD).
This report constitutes Phase I of a possible two phase study of
land use alternatives, traffic impacts and potential trnasit
' opportunities for the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport
Beach.
' This Phase I Shuttle Bus and Trolley Train Study had three basic
components. In the first component three land use scenarios were
defined in terms of socioeconomic and trip generation
' characteristics. The three land use plans ranged from a master
plan buildout concept (highest in intensity) down to a highway
capacity constraint plan. Additionally, a plan known as trend
' growth was developed. The City of Newport Beach Planning
Department staff provided the socioeconomic data for both the
' master plan buildout and trend growth plans. These land use
plans were also compared to the existing development on the
' peninuula.
Trip - making characteristics of each alternative land use plan was
evaluated to identify potential market segments (i.e., commute,
' 1 -1
5
I
1
1
I
11
1
shop, work or beach /tourist) in which transit systems might
' facilitate the transportation needs.
i The second basic study component was to define alternate transit
system concepts potentially appliable to the peninsula as well as
expandable for consideration to any future intra -city transit
system. The alternate transit systems considered in this study
are:
' o Existing OCTD service
o Shuttle Bus operation serving local peninsula trips in
mixed traffic or exclusive lanes with remote parking
facilities.
o Light rail or streetcar technology serving local
peninsula trips on exclusive right -of -way with remote
' parking facilities.
The third and final component of the Phase I study was to
assemble the land use concepts and transit system alternatives
into six combined land use and transit system scenarios for
evaluation. These overall scenarios were evaluated based on
right -of -way impacts, development impacts, traffic levels of
service, capital and operating costs and transit ridership.
' Findings and recommendations from a transportation planning
perspective are provided. The recommendations pertain to land
use, in terms of trip generation characteristics, and a transit
' system alternative to accommodate that land use concept.
' If the Newport Beach City Council selects a preferred alternative
and elects to proceed with Phase 2 of this study, the alternative
' will be refined and a workable implementation program will be
developed. This second phase would include a detailed transit
capital and operating plan, refined land use and development plan
and CEQA compliance.
I
' 1 -2
s
17
CHAPTER 2
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
One of the major reasons for conducting the Newport Peninsula
Shuttle Bus /Trolley Train Study stemmed from the results of the
' City's Traffic Model. This model forecast that if the peninsula
were to be developed to the limits permissable under existing
zoning, traffic on Newport Boulevard would exceed 100,000 average
' daily trips (ADT). The planned capacity of this facility is
45,000 ADT. Because of the significant correlation of land use
' and traffic generation, a major effort in this study was on the
assessment of land use on the Balboa Peninsula.
This assessment addressed three land use scenarios plus a
comparison to the existing land use. These land use scenarios
' are described as follows:
' 1. Capacity Constraint
2. Master Plan Buildout
' 3. Trends
The Master Plan Buildout and Trends alternative were prepared by
city staff. The Capacity Constraint land use alternative was
developed by the study team.
' As would be indicated from the land use generic names, each land
use alternative generates a different level of traffic. The
' selection of the capacity constraint alternative was based on the
planned street system capacity translated into winter - weekday
development potential. For purposes of defining this
alternative, capacity was based on Orange County average daily
traffic arterial standards applied to the facilities providing
access to the Peninsula. The assumed capacity locations are as
follows:
2 -1
7
i ,
Newport Boulevard - 5 Lane 45,000
Balboa Boulevard - 4 Lane 36,000
Ferry (estimated) 3,000
Total 84,000
The total available average daily traffic capacity on and off the
' Peninsula was therefore assumed at 84,000 trips. It should be
noted that Newport Boulevard is assumed as a five -lane facility
although currently it is only four lanes. This difference
reflects the city's plans to construct a third out -bound lane on
this facility.
In the establishment of the capacity constraint land use
' alternative within the capacity limits, winter - weekday trip
generation was used which assumed minimal beach activity. As
will be described later in this report, the alternatives were
evaluated for summer and winter as well as weekday and weekend
conditions.
The buildout alternative generates the greatest amount of traffic
' as no constraints are placed on the future development other than
current zoning limits. Although other factors such as the
' economic market, off - street parking requirements, floor area
ratios, etc., would likely restrict this land use alternative
from occurring, it does illustrates a worst case condition that
could result.
The trend land use alternative portrays a more realistic picture
' of what would likely occur if the trend in recent development
approvals prevails. This alternative represents the mid -range
land use for transportation /transit testing which is greater than
' the capacity constraint, and less than the Master Plan Buildout.
ZONE SYSTEM
' Land use and traffic projections were aggregated into Zones
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) as defined in the city's traffic
2 -2
e
I
I'
i
i
1
F
u
p
1
1
1
�J
i
1
1
11
1
1
i
� r
� sm
N o Z
m m
9
n
m
v \
a I
� t
n
0 010
a
z Z
G
pds
..
O
t
O
r-
r
N �
rn —{
ZD
m m C mn
�
n
0o D
(� Z m r -+ s
�� Zr
-� m Z rn a 0
D>
z m
C> Z g
-n T y
L7 < O ca
z C Q
C m> Cl) ILI) W
N O�y
r.
pp
R
m
m
m
z
m
v
O
W
D
CA As
c�
a
--A
o
c
W
z
m
z
a
7°
v
�o
9
n
m
v \
a I
� t
n
0 010
a
z Z
G
pds
..
O
t
O
r-
r
N �
rn —{
ZD
m m C mn
�
n
0o D
(� Z m r -+ s
�� Zr
-� m Z rn a 0
D>
z m
C> Z g
-n T y
L7 < O ca
z C Q
C m> Cl) ILI) W
N O�y
r.
pp
R
m
m
m
z
m
v
O
W
D
CA As
c�
a
MM M M M Mmm � no== m = Mm = m =
I'
' model and as presented in Figure 2 -1. As can be seen there are a
total of 15 traffic analysis zones on the peninsula. For
discussion purposes these zones were aggregated into five
' districts. These districts were defined by similar land use or
travel characteristics by arterial catchment areas.
The Ocean Front District represents the Ocean Front and Newport
' Island neighborhoods which primarily access the peninsula via
Balboa Boulevard. Central Newport includes Cannery Village, Lido
' Peninsula, Newport Balboa, and the Via Lido neighborhoods. This
area is primarily non - residential with access on and off the
Balboa Peninsula via Newport Boulevard. McFadden Square and Bay
' Front represent the McFadden District which is located at the
confluence of the Newport and Balboa Boulevards. Lido Isle is a
' district to itself. Although not a part of the actual Balboa
Peninsula it does take access via the peninsula and is therefore
important in the evaluation of the circulation issues. The final
' of the five districts is defined in this study as the Peninsula.
' This district represents everything south of McFadden Square,
including Peninsula Point, Central Balboa and the area between
McFadden Square and Central Balboa.
1
CITY TRAFFIC MODEL
' Land use alternative trip generation is based on the city's
' traffic model. In essence this model applies trip generation
rates to the various land uses to determine the total number of
' trips generated. This model also generates key socioeconomic
data by these land use units to permit the generation of trips by
' type. The generated socio - economic data includes population,
retail employees and total employees.
' Through a series of regression equations and using as a control
the total number of trips generated by land use, trip types are
defined. These trips include home -based work, home -based other
' 2 -4
Ito
;I
' and non -home based. As their names would imply home -based work
are trips which travel between home and work. Home -based other
travel between home and a non -work destination. Non -home based
are trips which do not have either end of the trip at home.
These three trip types are further defined into trip production
' and trip attractions. A trip production is where the trip is
being produced. The trip attraction where the trip is being
' attracted. To illustrate this concept a home -based work
production trip end is the home and the home -based work
attraction is the place of employment.
' Trips are also defined as internal and external to the peninsula.
An internal - internal trip is produced on the peninsula and
attracted on the peninsula. An internal - external trip is a trip
' produced on the peninsula with the attraction end of the trip off
the peninsula. An external - internal trip is the reverse, where
' trips originate elsewhere and travel to the peninsula.
Model Calibration for Peninsula Study
' The trip generation rates and assignment process used in this
analysis is based on the city's traffic model. In order to
determine whether the model accurately forecasts travel on the
' Peninsula, the model's trip generation rates were applied to the
existing land use and compared to the current traffic counts.
' The results of this process indicated that the model is
significantly overforecasting trips on the peninsula.
' It was therefore necessary to determine why the model's trip
' generation rates are not applicable for the peninsula and whether
this differential would prevail in the future. As part of a
field review of the area and discussions with city staff there
appear to be four primary issues which explain the over
projection of existing land use trip generation as compared to
' current traffic counts. These are described as follows:
2 -5
I
Economic Vitality: In a number of zones such as the Cannery,
Mcfadden Square, and Central Balboa the trip generation is not
reaching levels predicted from the trip generation rates. Part
of this is explained given the existing commercial economic
vitality of the uses in this area. Many of these commercial uses
concentrate on the summer tourist and beach crowds for their
economic vitality and have minimum trip generation during the
winter periods. In addition, turnover of commercial
establishments in certain areas such as Cannery Village have not
allowed the economic vitality of the commercial uses to mature.
Typical trends indicate that in many instances vacant commercial
spaces are only leased and operated during the summer months and
' remain vacant to the following spring.
iParking: A major reason Balboa Peninsula does not generate the
traffic characteristics of other portions of the city is the
' general lack of parking during the summer periods. Trips are
avoided or combined with other trips so as to not have to deal
with finding a place to park on the peninsula. In addition,
residents are reluctant to give up a parking space with the risk
of losing it when returning. Although parking impact on trip
generation occurs primarily during the summer period,
psychological establishment of travel patterns probably extends
to the winter periods.
Life Style: The Peninsula is uniquely different from the rest of
the City of Newport Beach and with this difference life style is
also different. Residents in many cases walk to restaurants,
shopping, etc., which would be a drive trip elsewhere.
' Geograghic Shape: The Balboa Peninsula's linear, limited access
shape limits certain trip making, given the distance it takes for
peninsula residents to travel off the peninsula and patrons
external to the peninsula to travel to the peninsula. In
addition, many of the peninsula residents consolidate their
2 -6
1 11
I
I
I
I
I
1
1]
I
I
I
I
I
I
external peninsula trips with other trips, such as the return
home from work.
In order to calibrate the city's trip generation model for the
peninsula, a determination had to be made as to which of the
above mentioned travel components would prevail. Life style and
the geographic shape were determined not to change. Parking,
although a critical factor during the summer periods, has less of
1 an influence on trip characteristics during the winter periods.
Economic vitality of some of the commercial establishments was
the only factor that could be accounted for in which it may
change in the future.
With.the assistance of city staff, land uses by areas considered
to currently have low economic vitality were determined. Special
trip generation rates were therefore developed and applied to
these existing land uses in order to determine a revised total
trip generation.
I
iJ
J�
2 -7
Ut
The total number of
daily trips that are being
generated, based
on the revised land
use trip generation model
for the existing
land use, is 104,000
average daily trip ends.
Based on the trip
assignment process approximately
77.5 percent
of the trip ends
generated are part of
a trip that is external
to the peninsula.
1
Applying this factor
times the total generated
trips results in
81,300 trips on and
off the peninsula. As presented
in Figure
2 -2, current counts
for travel on and off the
peninsula are only
68,000 ADT. Based on this comparison the overall
land use trip
generation model is
over generating traffic by
approximately 20
percent.
I
iJ
J�
2 -7
Ut
i1
i
1
1
I
i
t
1
T
t
W
FIGURE 2 -2
TRIP GENERATION CALIBRATION
FOR EXISTING LAND USE
0
NON
HOME BASE
HOME
BASED OTHER
HOME
BASED WORK
CITY MODEL CALIBRATED EXTERNAL
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR
VOLUME FORECAST PENINSULA STUDY
O
co
co
0
NON
HOME BASE
HOME
BASED OTHER
HOME
BASED WORK
CITY MODEL CALIBRATED EXTERNAL
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR
VOLUME FORECAST PENINSULA STUDY
I
I
I
I
11
H
I
I
I
I
Ij
I
1
1
I
i
I
I
In order to calibrate the model, trip generation had to be
reduced by 20 percent. As previously discussed the issue was
whether to reduce overall trip generation and therefore trip
types (home -based work, home -based non -work and non home - based)
equally or selectively reduce the trip types which most likely
reflect the reduced rates characteristic of the peninsula. In
review of the various trip types under investigation the study
team assumed the home -based work trip would prevail similiarly as
elsewhere in the city. It was therefore determined that
regardless of the reduction of overall trip generation the work
I trip would remain in the same level of magnitude as the land use
and socioeconomic variables would indicate. As also can be seen
in Figure 2 -2 the trip generation regression equations were
' modified to only reflect the reduction of the home -based other
and the non home -based trip.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
Dwelling unit and commercial square foot totals for the existing
conditions and the three land use alternatives under
investigation are presented in Figure 2 -3. As illustrated,
little change is projected for the total number of dwelling units
for the three land use alternatives compared to the existing land
use. Similiarly, little change is projected for the Capacity
Constraint and Trend Alternatives for total commercial and office
square footage as compared to existing. A significant increase
(500%) is projected if the area redevelops to the maximum as
permitted under the existing zoning.
In review of the distribution of the intensification of land use
the primary increases occur in the Central Balboa District
when comparing the Existing, Capacity Constraint, and Trend
Alternatives with the Master Plan Buildout Alternative.
2 -9
,S
I
11
I
I
I
I
p
I
J
I
I
I
v
I
I
I
I
t
,t
�f
t
.f
i
l
1
;I
't
l
�1
t
f
i6
FIGURE 2 -3
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS
6,340 6,400 6,700 6,500
DWELLING UNITS
.9 1.4 6.3 1.5
COMMERCIAL & OFFICE SQUARE FEET (Million)
EXISTING CAPACITY
CONSTRAINT
MASTER
PLANNED
BUILDOUT
TREND
i.
I'
1'
r
r
z
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
h
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
Socioeconomic Data
An alternative to land use trip generation for projecting trips
is via socioeconomic data applied to developed trip generation
regression equations. The difference is that the socioeconomic
regression operations generate trips by type (i.e. have home base
work, etc.) whereas land use only generates total trips.
In Figure 2 -4, population, retail employees and total employees
for the existing and three land use alternatives are presented.
Similiar to the consistent levels of dwelling units between the
existing and three alternatives, population is relatively even,
with all three alternatives projected at approximately 16,000
population. Moderate increases are forecasted for the retail and
total employees between existing and Capacity Constraint and
Trends from existing alternatives. The Master Plan Buildout
Alternative is a significant departure from existing increasing
total employees from the current 2,400 to over 17,000. The
primary impacts from the increase in employees is the
relationship of the work trip and peak hour traffic.
2_11
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
11
I
I
I
I
T
I
I,
,i
�i
r
i
1
I
r
`1
'1
r
i
1
i
FIGURE 2 -4'
SOCIOECONOMIC ALTERNATIVE
LAND USE COMPARISONS
RETAIL EMPLOYEES
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
EXISTING CAPACITY MASTER
CONSTRAINT PLAN
BUILDOUT
TREND
iI
CHAPTER 3
TRIP ESTIMATION
' Trip generation in this study was projected from both land use
and socio- economic data. Total average daily trip generation by
district and for the existing and three land use alternatives is
presented in Figure 3 -1.
The existing land use on the peninsula is currently generating
86,000 average daily winter trip ends per day of which 68,000
1 travel external to and from the peninsula. A doubling of trip
generation would occur with the development of the Master Plan
Buildout Alternative to approximately 167,500. Total trip
generation for the Capacity Constraint and the Trend Alternatives
are less, 104,700 and 111,300 respectively.
In addition to total trip generation, Figure 3 -1 also illustrates
itrip generation by district. There is no difference between the
existing and three land use alternatives for the Lido Isle
District. Minor increases are projected for the Capacity
Constraints and Trend Alternatives for the other four districts.
Significant increases would occur under the Master Plan Build -out
Alternative.
1 MARKET SEGMENTATION
Total trips are one measure of existing or potential congestion
on and off of the Balboa Peninsula. However in order to examine
Ipotential solutions, it is necessary to look more closely at the
travel patterns that create these travel volumes.
1 One of the primary objectives of this study was to analyze the
problem situation in the broader context. The approach was to
develop a market segment analysis of Balboa Peninsula travel and
hence define the principal travel component(s) that contribute to
the traffic problem.
3 -1
t
A
This market segmentation analysis involved defining the various
components of travel on the peninsula and describing the
pertinent characteristics of each. The characteristics of the
peninsula travel are defined as follows:
o Trip Distribution (trip origins and destinations)
o Trip Type (Home -Based Work, Home -Based other, Non Home -
Based)
o Resident /Visitor Trip Maker (Resident of the area versus
those visiting the beachs, shops, etc.)
jIn addition to the market segments described above and unique to
the Balboa Peninsula, travel patterns also vary significantly
between the two seasons and weekday and weekend. In the
development of transportation and transit improvements all sets
of travel demands must be accommodated.
The main findings regarding the winter travel characteristics of
the peninsula for the three land use alternatives are presented
in the following text. Detailed zonal and district trip
generation, and trip tables by trip type are presented in the
technical appendices. Later in this chapter summer and
weekday - weekend traffic relationships will be presented.
IINTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PENINSULA TRAVEL
A basic
market segmentation
descriptor is the relationship of
each trip to the peninsula.
This is defined
according to three
Iprimary
components of travel:
1.
Internal - Internal -
trips which are
both produced and
attracted within the
peninsula.
2.
Internal - External -
trips which are
produced on the
peninsula but travel
off the peninsula
3.
External - Internal -
trips which are
produced off the
peninsula but travel
to it.
3 -3
The methodologies for trip distribution are from the city's
traffic model. Based on the calibration of the trip generation
model, the generated trip productions and attractions were
rebalanced for the existing and three land use alternatives under
investigation. Total trip generation by alternative and the trip
distribution travel component are presented in Figure 3 -2.
' As illustrated in Figure 3 -2, significant trip increases occur
for all trip types when comparing the existing conditions to the
Master Plan Buildout Alternative. This is particularly evident
I in the external to internal travel component, and will have a
direct impact to the congestion of the Newport Boulevard and
Balboa Boulevard peninsula access. The significant increase in
the Master Plan Buildout Alternative is directly related to the
increase of commercial and office land use and in particular the
employee population.
I Total travel on and off the peninsula is the addition of the
Internal - External and the External- Internal travel components.
Whereas the Capacity Constraint land use was assumed to be
limited to the assumed 84,000 average daily trip capacity of the
peninsula access roads, the Trend and the Master Plan Buildout
alternatives increase this volume to 89,600 and 131,400
respectively.
It should also be mentioned that the total volumes presented in
Figure 3 -2 represent the total number of trips and not trip ends.
As trip ends are both produced and attracted on the peninsula,
1 the total number of trip ends for the Internal - Internal travel
component require doubling. Total trip ends are therefore,
Existing - 86,250, Capacity Constraint - 104,600, Master Plan
Buildout 168,000 and Trend - 111,300.
I
3 -4
u
t1
I
f
1
t
i
r
'INTERI
INTERI
1
INTERI
EXTEF
f
f
EXTEF
INTERI
FIGURE 3 -2
PENINSULA TRIP DISTRIBUTION
EXISTING CAPACITY
CONSTRAINT
MASTER
PLAN
BUILDOUT
TREND
LL
ITRIP TYPE
ITrips
are generated and
assigned by
trip types. These trip types
are derived in order to
understand
the nature of traffic,
1
peaking, potential transit capture,
etc. The existing and three
of the city is to control travel
alternatives total trip
generation
by type are presented in
Figure 3 -3.
the Master
Plan Buildout is not a preferred
In review of the home based work trip, it is interesting to note
that the home based work trips do not vary significantly between
the existing land use and the Capacity Constraint and Trend
Alternatives. This results primarily from a consistent dwelling
unit and population total when comparing these alternatives. The
reason for the increase in the Master Plan Buildout Alternative
is not the dwelling unit side of the trip but the work attraction
of the trip.
The Home -Based Other Trip has a significant increase in trips
from the Existing to the Master Plan Buildout. This increase is
partially controlled by dwelling unit, however is primarily a
result of the commercial retail and office development.
Trip Distribution by Trip Types
IThe merging of the trip distribution and trip type travel market
segment, creates a multi - purpose trip table. A trip table
describes the spatial relationship of a trip traveling from one
zone to all other zones, and by type of trip. The trip tables
prepared for this study have been condensed from traffic analysis
zones and districts and are presented in Table 3 -1.
Key findings from
this table
illustrate the significant increase
in Master Plan Buildout
trip
types for the external to internal
travel component.
If a goal
of the city is to control travel
onto the peninsula
from the outside communities, Table 3 -1
demonstrates that
the Master
Plan Buildout is not a preferred
alternative.
3 -6
t4
u
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
1
i�
I
t
1
I
t
t
I
i
la
FIGURE 3-3
TRIP TYPES
49,900
73,800
40,900
I
55,500
30,400
.131,200
35,000
13,800 *1 J..
14,200,
EXISTING CAPACITY MASTER
CONSTRAINT PLAN
BUILDOUT
25
1
TREND
1
77
NON
HOME 40,000
BASED
HOME
BASED 25,500
OTHER
HOME
BASED 12,000
WORK
..
la
FIGURE 3-3
TRIP TYPES
49,900
73,800
40,900
I
55,500
30,400
.131,200
35,000
13,800 *1 J..
14,200,
EXISTING CAPACITY MASTER
CONSTRAINT PLAN
BUILDOUT
25
1
TREND
I
u
rn
N
X
w
a>
.0 ro
U +l
ro N
as
(d o
U
ro +3
a�
u
a.� o
N �
ro
ro
C
v
s,
E
TABLE 3 -1
TRIP DISTIBUTION BY TRIP TYPE
Internal -
Internal -
External -
I
Internal
External
Internal
TOTAL
Home Based Work
400
8,400
3,200
12,000
Home Based Other
4,600
10,000
10,900
25,500
Non Home Based
3,700
18,150
18,200
40,050
TOTAL
8,700
36,550
32,300
77,550
Home Based Work
550
8,500
4,750
13,800
Home Based Other
5,350
11,250
13,800
30,400
Non ome Based
4,750
22,500
22,600
49,850
[
10,650
42,250
41,150
94,050
Home Based Work
1,600
7,350
26,100
35,050
Home Based Other
6,550
9,400
24,900
40,850
Non Home Based
1-0,100
32,050
31,650
73,800
TOTAL
18,250
48,800
82,650
149,700
Home Based Work
600
7,900
5,700
Home Based Other
5,200
11,200
14,850
31,250
Non Home Based
5,500
24,900
25,050
55,450
TOTAL
11,300
44,000
45,600
100,900
L_ 1
1 As previously mentioned, a major portion of these increases in
1 external to internal trips is projected to occur because of the
significant growth forecasted in the Central Newport District.
Another significant area of impact is the McFadden Square
District.
In conclusion, significant average daily trips will be generated
for the Master Plan Buildout land use alternative during the
typical winter weekday. This future winter condition will be
substantially higher than the existing summer weekend condition.
Also areas currently impacted by the lack of parking and traffic
capacity will further be impacted with the implementation of the
' Capacity Constraint and Trend Land Use alternatives. Areas which
will experience the majority of these impacts include McFadden
Square and Central Balboa.
SUMMER- WINTER AND WFEKDAY- WEEKEND COMPARISON
The discussions to this point have been focused on the
traditional market segmentation of the typical weekday trip. For
purposes of this study this has been defined as the
Winter - Weekday. Newport Beach and particularly the Balboa
Penisula, however, are significantly impacted by the beach and
tourist traffic.
Traffic Models, such as the city's and as used in this study, do
not reflect this specific character of the Balboa Peninsula.
Instead, review of the travel patterns and an understanding of
the magnitude of the beach attendance can best segment this
portion of the travel market for projecting future trips.
' In order to present the basic concept of trip differences for
these various conditions under existing conditions, Table 3 -2 is
presented. As illustrated the current traffic on and off the
peninsula is 68,500 trips during the winter weekday. The average
daily trips on and off the peninsula for the winter weekend is
slightly less at 61,500.
3 -9
a�
As would be expected the trips increase significantly during the
summer periods with traffic on and off the peninsula of 96,300
and 91,800 for weekday and weekend respectively.
In order to understand the peaking characteristics of traffic on
and off the Balboa Peninsula, inbound and outbound hourly traffic
counts for the winter - summer and weekday - weekend periods were
obtained from the city and are presented in Figure 3 -4. In
review of this data, it was found that traffic distribution over
time of day is relatively flat for both inbound and outbound
conditions. This differs significantly from the typical arterial
' which tends to have a high directional peak during the AM period
and a high opposite directional peak during the PM peak hour.
The significance of this information is that the traffic volumes
on Balboa and Newport boulevards result in a better utilization
of existing capacity and, therefore, capacity levels on these
facilities are higher than the county levels.
In review of the Balboa Peninsula peaking characteristics, it is
the study team's opinion that average daily traffic capacity on
and off the peninsula is estimated to be approximately 10% higher
or 92,000 ADT as compared to the County ADT standard of 84,000.
I
I
I
11
I
3 -10
�s
1
a9
Table 3 -2
EXISTING EXTERNAL PENINSULA ADT COMPARISONS
Total Internal - External
Peninsula Total ADT
Weekday Weekend
Winter 68,500 61,500
Summer 96,300 91,800
Summer as a 141% 149%
Percent of Winter
3 -11
Weekend as a
Percent Weekday
90%
95%
1 r
i
V y�
1 � c
c
o
4
O
1 =N
a c
v J 7 ' �
O th CV r
co v?~
uj
1 C7. Z y
LL wE r
i a'
c
Ile 1 m i
a Y
co
Z � �
°a
W °
I N I N I
aajulm
1,
co
M �
I
uooN t
o>
co
II I N I
0
0
act
0
r
O
F-
co ro)„
i
M Q
a
uooN
Cc
i°-
o� \
.�
c�
M
r N N i f
aawwns
uooN
rn °z.
D
c0 O
m
i M O
0
O
m
Z
i
Beach Attendance
As part of this study, the Marine Department was contacted in
order to obtain estimates of beach attendance during the various
weekday - weekend and .winter - summer scenarios. Estimates are made
daily using various techniques such as parking lot utilization
and person -on -beach density. Observations further indicated that
persons attending the beach tend to have a high auto occupancy
and vehicles per parking space turn over two to three times per
day.
Weekday 62,500 3,300
Weekend 80,000 16,700
' In review of the summer weekday and weekend counts these
estimates appear to check. The differential of winter and summer
weekend counts is approximately 30,000 two -way trips or 15,000
round trips. Given that many of the dwelling units on the
peninsula are rentals with a high concentration of beach users
coupled with a substantialy large number of other resident
owners who frequent the beaches either from the peninsula or from
Balboa Island, the assumption was made that 30,000 of the 80,000
summer weekend beach attendance were from these sources. If the
remaining 50,000 arrived via the 15,000 auto trips, the auto
occupancies would be in the range of approximately 3.3, which is
within reason for this type of trip.
3 -13
In review of
the beach attendance counts the
following table was
prepared to reflect
January and July periods.
Extremely high
counts, such
as the July 4th weekend and low
counts, such as
January rainy
weather were omitted in order to
reflect average
conditions.
This table is presented as follows:
Summer Winter
Weekday 62,500 3,300
Weekend 80,000 16,700
' In review of the summer weekday and weekend counts these
estimates appear to check. The differential of winter and summer
weekend counts is approximately 30,000 two -way trips or 15,000
round trips. Given that many of the dwelling units on the
peninsula are rentals with a high concentration of beach users
coupled with a substantialy large number of other resident
owners who frequent the beaches either from the peninsula or from
Balboa Island, the assumption was made that 30,000 of the 80,000
summer weekend beach attendance were from these sources. If the
remaining 50,000 arrived via the 15,000 auto trips, the auto
occupancies would be in the range of approximately 3.3, which is
within reason for this type of trip.
3 -13
Summer- Winter Weekdav- Weekend Land Use TriD Generation
In order to project the ultimate summer- winter weekend - weekday
trip generation for the three land use alternatives, two
assumptions were made. The first was that summer beach
attendance would not increase and the second was that the non -
summer weekend - weekday relationship between the total counts
would prevail. Total counts onto and off of the Balboa Peninsula
are presented in Figure 3 -5.
3 -14
3z
a
i Z
W
1 Z
a
Z
1 cc �
1 LLjLL LL
U) W
1cc Z a
0a�
�`` Q Z
cr LU W
1 F- a
X
1 W
i a
W
1 Z
ss
ooret l
-651
oovLl L
t£1
11
1
l'
1
04~'08
009'68
i
100! £,so 1
ooe'lll
006,VL
00.~`£8
008' /6
100£'96
N�
�I
009'89
.-
J
m
ON3 )133M
w
ON3 )133M
co
co
lz
AV0N33M
ON3 )(33M
w
AV0 )133M
,kVON33M
f'
Z
.-
J
Q
cr
LU
ON3 )133M
ON3N33M
i
0:
AVOA33M
ON3 )133M
W
f'
Z
AV0 )133M
Q
w
ON3 )133M
ON3>I33M
2
N
0:
AV0 )133M
ON3 )133M
w
L9 ON3 )433M
AV633M
W
Z
AVOH33M
Z
Q
NOaUOO vinSNIN3d
F
in
x
m
:J
S
J
CL F-
wg
N J
Lm
z
U�
CL Z
aO
UU
Z
P
X
W
m
W
ON3 )133M
AV0 )433M
L9 ON3 )433M
W
Z
AVOH33M
NOaUOO vinSNIN3d
F
in
x
m
:J
S
J
CL F-
wg
N J
Lm
z
U�
CL Z
aO
UU
Z
P
X
W
I
J
LI
1
1
11
[1
I
i
I.'
U
rCHAPTER 4
DEFINITION OF TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
i
Transit system alternatives have been defined for the study area
' involving both bus and rail vehicle technologies. Bus transit is
a familiar mode of transportation in Orange County, and the study
area is presently served by four bus lines operated by the Orange
County Transit District. For this study, expanded bus service is
' being considered as an alternative approach for satisfying the
travel needs of selected groups. Both the possibility of
expanded conventional bus service and other specialized
shuttle -type services that might use specially- designed equipment
will be addressed. Additionally, light rail system alternatives
' (which might be more readily recognized if referred to as
streetcar' or 'trolley' systems, although there are
distinguishing differences which will be addressed Later) will be
considered for the study area. Until the 1950'x, 'Red Car'
trains of the Pacific Electric Company operated into the study
area, running from Los Angeles and Long Beach parallel to the
Pacific Coast Highway. The trains operated on what is now
Seashore Avenue and along Balboa Boulevard to a terminal at the
Balboa Pier, with service being cut back around 1950 to a
terminal at Seashore Avenue and 33rd Street. Thus, both the bus
and rail system alternatives being examined are not new for the
' study area.
In the following sections of this chapter, the characteristics of
existing OCTD bus services are reviewed and then both bus and
light rail transit system alternatives are discussed with
' attention to defining key operating characteristics and
strategies applicable to the study area.
r
[1
r
4 -1
1
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
r
i
r
FIGURE 4 -1
RED CAR OPERATING IN
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES
iSUMMARY OF EXISTING OCTD BUS OPERATIONS SERVING THE STUDY AREA
' As a starting point, it is useful to review existing OCTD
services in the study area. Four bus lines are presently
operated into the study area providing local service as well as
service directly and via transfer to other points throughout
' Orange County (and into Los Angeles County). The four bus lines
are:
1 Long Beach - San Clemente via Pacific Coast Highway -
serves central Newport Beach (32nd Street and Balboa
Boulevard) only;
t43 Brea /La Habra - Newport Beach -- terminates at 23rd
Street and Balboa Boulevard with service along Harbor
Boulevard to La Habra, Fullerton, Brea, and other
cities;
53 Orange - Balboa -- operates from Orange, along Main
Street through Santa Ana, then through Costa Mesa, to
Central Balboa at the Balboa Pier; and
65 Tustin - Balboa -- operates from Tustin, to UC Irvine,
then to Newport Center, and along Pacific Coast Highway
' to its terminal at the Balboa Pier.
Table 4 -1 summarizes the service frequencies on these four lines
in the study area. From this summary, the average frequency of
' service (expressed as the average number of minutes between
buses) both in the central area and along the peninsula may be
calculated as follows:
1J
4 -3
36
J
Central Area Peninsula
(Balboa Blvd. (Balboa Blvd.
at 32nd St.) at Alvarado St.)
Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods 5(a) 11(a)
Weekday midday 6 13
' Saturday 9 20
Sunday 9 20
Note: (a) Average number of minutes between buses in each
' direction.
In comparison with service levels throughout the county, the
' study area should be considered as being well served at the
present time.
' Tabulation of selected bus ridership counts made by the OCTD
indicate that approximately 3,000 passengers use study area bus
services each weekday. On Saturdays, ridership is estimated to
be 1700 passengers and on Sundays, approximately 1200 passengers.
These estimates are based on counts made in all seasons. Rough
indications from the tabulated count data suggest that weekend
ridership on lines serving the peninsula may be up to 50 percent
higher in the summer months while ridership on weekdays on all
' lines and on other study area lines on weekends does not
significantly vary throughout the year.
' In the study area on weekdays, an average of nine passengers
board or alight each trip. On Saturdays, there are approximately
' ten passenger boardings and alightings per trip, and about seven
I
4 -4
l
i
1
1
1
i
i
i
1
i
i
1
1
i
i
38
TABLE 4 -1
OCTD STUDY AREA SERVICE FREQUENCIES
AVERAGE MINUTES BETWEEN BUSES
SERVICE TYPE
SOURCE: Public time tables issued by Orange County Transit
District
4 -5
WEEKDAY
ROUTE
PEAK MIDDAY
SATURDAY
SUNDAY
1
30/35
35
60
60
43
12
15
20
20/30
53
15/20
20/15
30
30
65
30/35
30/35
60
60
SOURCE: Public time tables issued by Orange County Transit
District
4 -5
0 passengers board or alight each trip on Sundays. This is based
on OCTD ridership count data tabulated for this study. While
heavier ridership occurs during selected time periods, it may be
concluded that the level of service provided by the OCTD is more
than adequate to meet existing ridership demands in the study
area.
IBUS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
' Bus transit services could be effectively employed for providing
'shuttle' services to the study area for both trips made within
the study area and also serving remote parking facilities located
east of the Pacific Coast Highway.
While the design of possible alternatives will be addressed in
detail in later chapters of this report, this section examines
selected operating characteristics of bus transit systems which
will serve as background for system design discussions.
1 Bus Transit Rights -of -Way
For shuttle bus transit operation to serve the study area, three
options need to be considered as follows:
o bus operation in mixed traffic;
o mixed modal operation with bus priority systems; and
o exclusive busways.
Conventional bus service such as that operated by the OCTD in the
' study area follows fixed routes and schedules, is subject to
traffic interference, and usually stops at every block. Bus
operation in mixed traffic in large cities is reported at average
trip speeds as slow as three to eight miles per hour (3 -8 mph)
during peak periods although higher average speeds of ten to
4 -6
LI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
11
I
I
I
E1
S
I
i
I
P
i
Cj
ul
I
I
i
r
twelve miles per hour (10 -12 mph) are more typical for OCTD
operations. Variations in average operating speeds are primarily
dependent on the number of stops per trip, local level of traffic
congestion, and traffic legal speed limits.
The average speed of bus services operating in mixed traffic
directly affects the levels of service and operating costs of
this mode. The relationship between the number of round trips
per route as a function of trip length and average bus speeds is
shown in Figure 4 -2, which illustrates the advantages of
attaining higher bus operating speeds for better equipment and
manpower utilization. Higher average speeds are obtained by
applying bus priority strategies or utilizing exclusive busways.
Bus Priority Lanes
Bus priority lanes are currently in use in many cities. This
approach was designed to minimize traffic interference to buses
by providing the semi - exclusive use of curb lanes during peak
hours to buses traveling in the peak flow direction. Use of
these lanes is typically restricted to right- turning vehicles in
the last city block before a right turn. The removal of
automobile traffic and parking in the curb lanes combined with
fewer stops can contribute to higher operating speeds. However,
stops for passenger loading and unloading, traffic signals, and
queuing behind right turning vehicles remain obstacles that
restrict operating speeds and limit the capacity of bus priority
lanes.
Contra -Flow Bus Lanes
The contra -flow bus 1
apparent interference
operational speeds of
lane concept, usually
flow on curb lanes in
flow.
ane technique was designed to reduce the
of right turning vehicles affecting
bus priority lanes. The contra -flow bus
implemented on one -way streets, permits bus
a direction opposite to normal traffic
1 4 -7
IV
II
H
I
II
1:
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I.
f�
I
h
�i
i
l
i
�i
'1
i
j
FIGURE 4 -2
BUS UTILIZATION IN
MIXED TRAFFIC OPERATION
b
� 5
O
Y.
Q
W 4
uj
0
W 3
IL
CL
E— 2
0
Z
0
M 1
0 L
0
BUS SPEED
2
4
6
8
ONE WAY
TRIP
LENGTH
(MILES)
10
L1
I
11
1'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In some cities, use of the lanes by car
vehicles is also permitted. Experience
operational speed of buses operating in
higher than that attained on priority b
higher throughput of buses per hour and
passengers.
Traffic Light Preemption Systems
pools and emergency
has shown that
contra -flow bus lanes is
is lanes which allow a
capacity for transporting
Additional techniques have been designed to upgrade the operating
speed of buses operating in mixed traffic, bus priority lanes,
and contra - flow lanes by reducing the number of stops usually
required at traffic lights. The traffic signal preemption
concept requires installation of on -board and wayside equipment.
The wayside detectors are designed to detect signals emitted by
the approaching bus requesting 'green' time. A computerized
wayside control may grant the requested additional green light
for the buses if the queue on the other legs of the intersection
is below a certain limit. Thus, this approach may provide for
the uninterrupted flow of transit vehicles through intersections
along a route.
Exclusive Busways
Exclusive busways are special lanes separated from all traffic
interferences and designed for use by buses (and possibly pool
and emergency vehicles) only. Exclusive busways may utilize
private rights -of -way, be constructed on a freeway's median, or
along side freeway lanes which are separated by fixed barriers
from other traffic lanes. Operating policies for busways vary
from one transit operator to another; however the exclusive
busway provides the capability of bypassing bottlenecks and other
high queue areas' operating speeds and reducing travel time for
passengers.
4 -9
91
Bus Transit Vehicles
For study area shuttle services, a variety of types of bus
equipment could be considered including the following.
o Vans and small buses -- with a seated passenger capacity
varying from 8 to about 30 passengers, vehicles of this
type could be custom designed for shuttle -type
' operations or be of conventional design (see Figure
4 -3).
o Conventional transit buses -- typically either 35 or 40
feet in length, conventional transit buses of either the
'new look' or 'advanced' design could be employed.
Depending on seating configurations, vehicle capacity
range from 35 to 50 seated passengers (see Figure 4 -4).
o High capacity transit buses -- either articulated or
double- decked buses could be considered, offering seated
passenger capacities of up to 80 passengers (see Figure
4-5).
o High capacity sightseeing vehicles -- these vehicles
feature open sides to permit passenger viewing and
provide for up to 80 seated passengers and while they
can be operated in mixed traffic, are perhaps better
suited for operating in protected conditions.
The use of various types of bus equipment presents a number of
trade -off's that cannot be resolved in this phase of the study.
These trade -off's relate to the following:
o Capacity -- larger (and more expensive) equipment
provides higher capacities without substantially higher
per - vehicle operating costs. If the demand is present
and attractive service frequencies can be maintained,
4 -10
3
1
FIGURE 4-3
VANS AND SMALL BUSES
i
'1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
i
1
'1
1
1
1
I
i
FIGURE 4 -4
CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT BUSES
TRADITIONAL
ADVANCED DESIGN
0
Bus transit operating costs can also vary significantly depending
on a variety of factors. To illustrate typical bus transit
operating costs, OCTD bus services averaged $1.97 per vehicle
mile or $32.06 per vehicle hour in FY 1980 which can be
considered as being representative of operating costs for
Southern California operators.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES
Light rail system technology involves steel - wheeled vehicles
running on steel rails. The use of 'steel wheels on steel rail'
techology for urban transit dates back to the early 1800's. The
development of electrically propelled streetcars in the late
1800's was the stimulus that encouraged wide use of early light
rail or streetcar systems in the United States and western
European countries. In the 1920'x, over 60,000 miles of track
were operated by street railway and interurban systems through
out the United States. But with increasing competition from the
automobile and bus transit, these systems disappeared from urban
areas except for a few cities (San Francisco, Boston, Cleveland,
Newark, New Orleans, and in Canada, Toronto) by the 1960's.
But by the 1970's, renewed interest in rail transit developed,
' spurred by increasing levels of street and highway traffic
congestion, higher costs for energy and the increasing awareness
of its limited availability, disappointment over the ability of
bus transit to attract ridership, and uncertainty regarding
'futuristic' transportation technologies being suggested for
urban areas. Further, limited funding resources indicated the
need for less costly rail transit alternatives (in comparison
1 with San Francisco's BART and Washington's METRO) that would
permit more cities to begin building rail transit systems. In
response to this need, the light rail transit approach combining
elements of both the streetcar and more expensive rail transit
systems was developed. In the following sections, the
characteristics of light rail transit are described as background
4 -15
4B
I
I
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
d
1
11
i
1
I
I
for assessing its feasibility for study areas' shuttle
Ioperations.
Light Rail Transit Rights -of -Way
The light rail transit (LRT) concept holds the potential of
taking advantage of a wide variety of rights -of -way, from
operating in mixed traffic on streets to high speed operations on
exclusive rights -of -way. This versatility creates the potential
for reduced capital investment and fast construction as well as
the opportunity for system improvements being phased over a
number of years. LRT's attractiveness as a transit mode
alternative lies in the flexible manner in which it can exploit
right -of -way opportunities, and in the cost savings which can
accrue from the selection of appropriate right -of -way design
treatments. A discussion of LRT rights -of -way and station
treatments as currently employed in both European and a number of
North American cities and applicable for the study area follows.
LRT systems or system elements may be characterized by the degree
of exclusiveness of operations in the right -of -way. This factor
represents the primary determinant of system performance; for
example, a higher degree of exclusive right -of -way will result in
higher average schedule speeds for a given alignment and spacing
of stations. On the other hand, the achievement of greater
exclusiveness of operation may require considerably higher
capital expenditure since subway or elevated guideway development
may be necessary to achieve high speed and exclusive operations.
Segments of any LRT network will fall into one of three
' categories, defined by their degree of exclusiveness.
o In shared right -of -way, LRT operates in mixed traffic
with autos and buses. This type of operation is
characteristic of streetcar service and has only limited
applications for modern light rail systems.
4 -16
�y1
I
P
o In semi - exclusive or reserved rights -of -way, LRT
operation is separated from other traffic except at
grade crossings where interference may be encountered.
1 This category is very broad, and includes multi -modal
transitway for joint use by light rail vehicles and
buses, and curbed lanes in street medians.
o In an exclusive right -of -way, LRT operation is fully
'separated with vehicular or pedestrian crossings
prohibited, possibly requiring subway or elevated
guideway development. Generally, only segments of an
LRT network fall into this category as part of a total
system including sections with various degrees of
exclusiveness.
For the study area, right -of -way opportunities for LRT operations
are limited to at -grade operations in existing major streets --
Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. While these
opportunities will be addressed in more detail later, three
operating modes may be invoked to implement light rail transit
services in these rights -of -way.
' Street Overation in Mixed Traffic
Operation of rail vehicles on streets in mixed traffic is the
'lowest' level of rail system operation. A light rail system
operating primarily in mixed traffic may be more correctly
referred to as a streetcar mode. Generally, such rail systems
provide similar levels of service to that of buses in streets.
However, they have the additional disadvantage of being unable to
1 maneuver and pass by traffic resulting in poor schedule
reliability. Most cities that have maintained an upgraded
streetcar system have provided some form of priority treatment to
improve operating performance and reliability. LRT street
operation in mixed traffic is depicted in Figure 4 -6.
4 -17
I
I
H
I
I
L�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D,
11
I
FIGURE 4 -6
LRT OPERATIONS IN MIXED
STREET TRAFFIC
��i
!
�1
1
!
1
1
I
!
i
s,
I
LRT development of this type offers significant opportunities for
improved service. Operating speed performance may be increased
over mixed traffic and reserved lane operations since potential
traffic interference and safety hazard are minimized. Average
schedule speeds will not reach those possible on exclusive
rights -of -way but may be twice the speeds obtained over mixed
traffic or reserved lane sections.
I
I
4 -19
52
Dedicated Street Right -of -Way
Reserved Transit Lanes in Streets
Where at least
three traffic
lanes are available
in each
Where there is sufficient street width in each direction, the
median exists,
next step of priority treatment for
light rail operations is
provision of a reserved transit lanes
from which automobile
by full protection
traffic is prohibited, but which is
separated by pavement
traffic lanes
markings or mountable curbing only.
In some cities, buses are
traffic. This
permitted joint use of LRT reserved
lanes. This type of
'
operation limits the maximum speed
limit of all vehicles and
fencing, or by
requires special control devices at
intersections where transit
approach is
vehicles may mix with auto traffic.
illustrated in
LRT development of this type offers significant opportunities for
improved service. Operating speed performance may be increased
over mixed traffic and reserved lane operations since potential
traffic interference and safety hazard are minimized. Average
schedule speeds will not reach those possible on exclusive
rights -of -way but may be twice the speeds obtained over mixed
traffic or reserved lane sections.
I
I
4 -19
52
Dedicated Street Right -of -Way
Where at least
three traffic
lanes are available
in each
direction or a
median exists,
the potential for
semi - exclusive
right -of -way may
be attained
by full protection
of the two center
traffic lanes
or median from
auto and pedestrian
traffic. This
may be done by
the use of curbs and raised median
area, by
fencing, or by
the use of other
barriers.. This
approach is
illustrated in
Figure 4 -7.
LRT development of this type offers significant opportunities for
improved service. Operating speed performance may be increased
over mixed traffic and reserved lane operations since potential
traffic interference and safety hazard are minimized. Average
schedule speeds will not reach those possible on exclusive
rights -of -way but may be twice the speeds obtained over mixed
traffic or reserved lane sections.
I
I
4 -19
52
P
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
s�
FIGURE 4 -7
LRT OPERATIONS IN EXCLUSIVE
MEDIAN LANES
in
DI
a
Priority Treatment at Intersections
The most critical points on transit lines are usually at
intersections. It is at these locations that turning movements,
pedestrian crossings and the merging of lines may create the
greatest conflict and delay. Therefore, LRT operations in
reserved or dedicated rights -of -way may be enhanced by providing
for its priority treatment at such intersections. Priority at
intersections is achieved in one or a combination of the
following ways:
o Elimination of conflicts with auto traffic at
intersecting cross streets through signal preemption
strategies;
o Elimination of parallel conflicts with auto traffic,
particularly at left turn lanes;
o Prohibition of cross traffic; and
o Grade separation of the transit right -of -way
Special signal systems together with certain traffic movement
prohibitions represent a low investment means of providing
priority at intersections, although they are usually not as
effective as full separation which is considerably more costly.
Where no priority is given at intersections, delays for transit
vehicles may often be reduced significantly be locating stops on
the near or far side of the intersection in a pattern designed to
be coordinated with the signal system. Additionally, efficient
door design and fare collection arrangements to provide rapid
boarding and alighting of large passenger volumes can enhance
1 operations in this case.
I
4 -21
I
rJ
I
1
I
I
I
I
EI
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
i
i
i
r
SS
Light Rail Transit Stations
The type of light rail station most appropriate for the study
area would be a low cost platform with a protective canopy
although opportunities for more elaborate stations built in
conjunction with new development projects could be considered at
selected locations (e.g., McFadden Square). Platform stations in
existing arterials are limited in size by available space in the
street and, therefore, are much like a conventional bus stop. In
designing the platform stations, several factors influence the
type of station that will be provided at a particular location
including passenger volume and flow, method of fare collection,
interface with other modes, and environmental and urban design
considerations.
Light Rail Transit Vehicles
Light rail vehicles are normally classified by the number of
axles and number of articulations. On most modern designs, the
number of axles relates to the vehicle's articulation -- 4 -axle
vehicles being non - articulated and 6 -axle vehicles having one
articulation. More specifically, the body configurations are as
follows.
o The non - articulated vehicle is a motorized car generally
with a total of four axles. The majority of vehicles
built before the late 1950's including the American PCC
vehicle, were non - articulated. Typically, a vehicle of
this type seats approximately 50 passengers with a total
capacity of up to about 80 passengers.
o The single- articulated vehicle is composed of two car
sections with a hinge -like connector which allows
pivotal movement in both the horizontal and vertical
planes. This design concept makes it possible to build
larger vehicles able to negotiate tight curves.
4 -22
FIGURE 4 -8
LRT VEHICLES
4 -AXLE NON - ARTICULATED
(ANTWERP,BELGIUM)
6 -AXLE ARTICULATED
(MANNHEIM,WEST GERMANY)
Passengers have free access through the articulation
joint. Most single articulated cars have a total of six
axles. Vehicles of this type may carry up to 140
passengers with seating for 60 -70 passengers.
Both types of vehicles are illustrated in Figures 4 -8.
Light rail vehicles are currently supplied in the United States
by several manufacturers. All new vehicles delivered in 1982 and
currently scheduled for delivery have been built by European,
Japanese, and Canadian manufacturers. Both 4 -axle
non - articulated and 6 -axle vehicles have been supplied or are
presently being built for transit operators in Buffalo,
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Portland, Philadelphia, and San Diego (as
well as for Canadian operators in Toronto, Calgary, and
Edmonton).
,. In view of the small number of vehicles which will probably be
required for LRT operations in the study area, it is also
' possible that older vehicles could be acquired and rehabilitated
for service. While some problems with on -going vehicle
maintenance (particularly with regard to the availability of
spare parts) may be anticipated with this approach, it requires a
' significantly lower initial capital investment even when
rehabilitation costs are taken into account. Further, the older
vehicles can provide an 'old fashioned' appearance which may make
the system an 'attraction' in itself and serve to generate
additional ridership. Both the cities of Seattle and Detroit
Ihave recently employed this approach for acquiring vehicles.
o For its 1.6 -mile waterfront trolley shuttle, Seattle
acquired four 1927 -model non - articulated 4 -axle cars
from Melbourne (see Figure 4 -9), three of which have
been refurbished (one vehicle is being used for spare
parts) for revenue operations.
4 -24
57
D
�r
1 1 (Jj
V
W
r>
1
i
1
J-1,
Iw
cc
ILL
1
1
1
1
2
ui
CD
W
J
cc
F-
F-
Z
O
or.
LL
cc
Q
J
1 �
■ Q
■ CO
se
r
�9 :Z
i
I
I
1
11
11
1
I
I
I
I
i
II
I
I
I
o Detroit operates a 1 -mile trolley line in its downtown
area using seven narrow -gauge 2 -axle cars acquired from
Portugal.
System Costs
Capital costs represent the investment necessary to initiate
light rail transit service. They include the cost of acquiring
the land on which the transit system will be built, preparing a
suitable roadbed or permanent way on which to lay the
track /installing the track itself (consisting of ties, rail and
associated hardware), constructing stations, constructing a power
' supply system, purchasing vehicles, building maintenance and
storage facilities for the vehicles, and the engineering and
administration costs associated with each of these items.
Capital costs for LRT systems development vary significantly when
data for recently -built systems in the United States and Canada
are examined. But, these differences can be explained with an
understanding of each system's design and operating
characteristics including the right -of -way used, extent of
reserved or exclusive right -of -way operations, operating speeds,
and features incorporated in the design. As background for
understanding this variation, consider the following examples of
construction costs for selected projects which are of particular
' interest for this study.
o San Diego -- San Diego's 16 -mile system was built
at -grade using an available railroad right -of -way for
most of its length at an average cost of $5.4 million
' per mile. The system is currently being upgraded for
double -track operations which will increase its average
per -mile capital cost to about $7.7 million.
o Seattle -- Seattle's 1.6 -mile waterfront trolley system
operates on upgraded railroad tracks. It is mostly
4 -26
I
one -way track with passing tracks at selected locations.
Total capital costs were approximately $2.2 million per
mile in 1981 -82 dollars.
o Orange County Transit District -- The OCTD's 'minimum
operable segment' (or starter line) consists of at -grade
operations over approximately 14 miles of double- tracked
exclusive right -of -way. Capital costs in 1982 dollars
' are estimated to be $16.4 million per mile.
' Each of these examples involves primarily at -grade LRT operations
as would be developed for the study area, but capital costs range
' from $2.2 million to $16.4 million per mile. For evaluating LRT
alternatives for the study area, it is judged that capital costs
should be expected to fall in the middle of this range but only
rough cost estimates are possible at this time. Estimated costs
for planning purposes are based on the following assumptions.
1. At -grade double track operations in existing street
' rights -of -way.
2. Operating speeds restricted to 25 -30 miles per hour
which will serve to simplify train control system
requirements.
3. No major utility relocations, structures, or other
costly construction treatments (more detailed studies
are required to verify this assumption).
Based on these assumptions, the following system development cost
factors (in 1983 dollars not including engineering and
contingency costs) may be applied:
o Per mile (for right -of -way preparation and trackwork,
electrification, control systems and signalization) --
$3.8 million to $5.9 million per mile;
4 -27
I
I
11
[l
I
I
I
11
I
[1
I
o Per vehicle (including maintenance and storage.
facilitise) -- $0.2 million to $1.5 million per vehicle
depending on whether new or rehabilitated vehicles are
employed; and
' o Per station -- from $100,000 to $400,000 per station.
' In considering LRT system alternatives, operating costs also need
to be taken into account. Operating costs also show considerable
variation when data from existing operating systems are
tabulated, due to a variety of factors including labor costs and
' work rule provisions, operating speeds and other conditions, and
higher maintenance costs related to the use of older equipment in
some cases. Per vehicle mile, costs range from about 93 to over
$12 with most existing systems being in the range of $4 -$6 per
vehicle mile. Per vehicle hour, costs range in a similar manner
from about $30 to nearly $100 per vehicle hour.
c
Ij
I
I
' 4 -28
1I
�J
1
I
I
i
i
1
�l
11
[1
1
I
CHAPTER 5
RIGHT -OF -WAY AND PARKING ASSESSMENT
Chapter 4 described the importance of using reserved or exclusive
rights -of -way for either bus or light rail transit operations to
the maximum possible extent in order to avoid conflicts with auto
traffic and maintain high transit operating speeds. In the study
area, this can only be achieved by utilizing existing arterial
street rights -of -way which presents important traffic, parking,
' and community impact considerations. To identify feasible
rights -of -way for transit operations, the study team toured the
study area noting areas that presented opportunities for transit
' system development as well as areas where system development was
judged to be problematic. Based on this investigation, it was
' determined that right -of -way alternatives for shuttle transit
services in the study area are limited to the existing
' rights -of -way of Balboa and Newport boulevards.
' This conclusion regarding potential transit rights -of -way should
not be surprising. First, Balboa and Newport boulevards are the
major transportation arterials of the study area which provide
sufficient width and continuity to permit reserved or exclusive
lane transit operations. Further, since both streets are
' presently carrying large traffic volumes, certain 'negative'
impacts of transit system development and operations (such as
visual and noise intrusion) become of considerably less
importance. Other street rights -of -way (such as Seashore Drive
in West Newport and Bay Avenue in the Central Peninsula) were
considered for transit operations but presented, in the study
team's judgment, unacceptable negative impacts on the existing
area as well as limitations for efficient transit operations due
to the right -of -way alignment and width.
In this chapter, a summary of the study team's assessment of key
community impact considerations is presented followed by a
discussion of possible system development rights -of -way utilizing
5 -1
Newport and Balboa boulevards. Lastly, the proposed transit
Systems are dependent on the extent of restricting peninsula
parking and parking on the periphery of the study area which,
based on the study team's investigations and results of
recently- completed studies, should be considered at the
Caltrans -owned parcel on the north side of the Pacific Coast
' Highway east of Superior.
ICOMMUNITY IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
' The identification of a transit technology and routing requires an
awareness of various system physical characteristics which may have
' positive and negative impacts on persons living or working near, and
using transit services. The potential community impacts due to
reserved or exclusive right -of -way transit operations in major street
rights -of -way are summarized in Figures 5 -1. More specifically, at-
grade bus or LRT operations introduces impact considerations of
varying magnitude and potential importance for community residents,
' including:
o visual intrusion -- including the disruptive effect of noise
barrier walls, safety fencing, and overhead catenary lines;
0 noise in excess of ambient levels;
o disruption of through and cross street traffic -- due to
transit operations in existing traffic lanes;
o pedestrian barrier -- of particular concern in view of the
high level of beach activity in the study area;
o disruption during construction;
o air pollutant concentrations in excess of ambient levels --
' particularly where frequent bus operations and involved;
o station area changes -- including both positive changes in
connection with major activity centers (such as McFadden
Square on the Balboa Pier) and potentially disruptive changes
in residential areas; and
5 -2
bz
P
I
1
L
11
I
L
1
o
Y
Y N
LUN N
W u
' Q E u u
U
1%1 4- 10
CC L Y 4
Y N
N N N C
d N QI •r
b O G b
C1 L Ip L
n V r Y
Q
cc
m
V
W
N N E •r E
O O> i Y
' > +J .0 b 4- Ip
W I Y O3 Y
1
N N
N - n4 n
C
0. b 4- >, O O.'R
0 S.- Y Y Y 5- L
Yr•r L O
O
V_ O U•r - -O G �O
Y4- O L N � C
,^ N 4- E w N "O O
' Y/ H N• r N Q W 4J 0
W N V t W L N Y 0
U Y C O_•r 10
Ix
U N C 61 >O Y
Ix
IU. cc o Q
f- Z L Q
N
N t U
O 4-
V
QM Q 3 w m s .o u
cr
V V Y L (V •r
L c 3 Y 4-
' OI O L N 4-
1C
WIG
Y
V Y L
U r- IC
O b •.- O q Y
T L r U U
O E
U n C.>= N d
V 10 al O N
> E S L
� C C
J �bU
•r r U
wd
4 L
M Y
L N
L 010
O d
L
� •r 3
u o
Y
L d C r
nun
N CJI
I-, Y C
L Y a.,
OL G O> i
O> O > G
L ••- -r y Y >,
OJ i Y L C b
•r 10 n Q) 3
LY rno 0l
>p N •r Y 0 O O
ro W>,4i -41
1, L •O L -C
Y Y >6 U qm
N T N -. -•r
4- L b N 4- L
to a 3 N4-
N L 1 u ro a
Y4- W &_ i-C
10 O O C 4J i-,
d
i
0 a a-
QY q E
d 1 L
i 4 O
u
U C 04-
N
to to Y
.c n•r E to
O N W O r
•r WEE n
Y a E r
to i G L
Y O C-, --
N E •r E4--
Y
O
O
4-
O L
d
Y Y
Y S 3
U
•>p L •r
E O N
O
'
co
Y u
C L
D
d
U
m7
O
V
DIY
�
d
E L
J N
'
w
1/TI O N
bS
wd
4 L
M Y
L N
L 010
O d
L
� •r 3
u o
Y
L d C r
nun
N CJI
I-, Y C
L Y a.,
OL G O> i
O> O > G
L ••- -r y Y >,
OJ i Y L C b
•r 10 n Q) 3
LY rno 0l
>p N •r Y 0 O O
ro W>,4i -41
1, L •O L -C
Y Y >6 U qm
N T N -. -•r
4- L b N 4- L
to a 3 N4-
N L 1 u ro a
Y4- W &_ i-C
10 O O C 4J i-,
d
i
0 a a-
QY q E
d 1 L
i 4 O
u
U C 04-
N
to to Y
.c n•r E to
O N W O r
•r WEE n
Y a E r
to i G L
Y O C-, --
N E •r E4--
Y
O
O
4-
O L
d
Y Y
Y S 3
U
•>p L •r
E O N
I
U
o LRT operations may cause vibration problems to adjoining
properties.
For the study area, the potential for both positive and negative
' community impacts should guide system development planning. More
specifically, transit system development should be planned to account
' for the following aspects.
o The potential for reinforcing activity centers at McFadden
Square and the Balboa Pier (and possibly in the Via Lido and
' Cannery Village areas) with transit system 'stations' could
be significant, based on the experience in other cities where
transit systems have effectively served to shape development
' patterns.
' o The residential character of the Peninsula Point, Central
Peninsula, and West Newport areas should be preserved.
Transit operations in these areas is viewed as being
disruptive (except along the major traffic - carrying streets).
In finalizing system alternatives for the study area, community impact
considerations have been taken into account based on the particularly
' unique characteristics of the study area.
' ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM ALIGNMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
For the proposed study area shuttle system using reserved or
exclusive right -of -way, two alignments or routings are
reasonable. These routings are depicted in Figure 5 -2 and may be
described as follows:
1
5 -4
m= m m m m m m
2
a
0
9
0
O
0
m
a
z
O
r
r
0 rnC/)
cz
i X
m
m
K i n --I
z 3 �Zr
') m Z
O rn 0
�aC Z o
,,
oom �-
�
In m> Z C C 0 $
-�
O
mCc) � � v � m
C
N poa"C�=
m
9
z
m
�o
O
m
-1
m
D
{
.MIAs
D
{
0
m
m
.D
z
0
v
r
m
n
m
m
z
2
a
0
9
0
O
0
m
a
z
O
r
r
0 rnC/)
cz
i X
m
m
K i n --I
z 3 �Zr
') m Z
O rn 0
�aC Z o
,,
oom �-
�
In m> Z C C 0 $
-�
O
mCc) � � v � m
C
N poa"C�=
m
9
z
m
�o
O
m
-1
m
D
{
.MIAs
D
{
= m m = m m m m � m m m m m m m m = =
A- B- C- D- H -I -J -K
' From a potential remote parking lot or facilities.east of
Pacific Coast Highway via Balboa Boulevard to Balboa Pier
(approximately 3.5 one -way miles).
A- F.- F- G- H -I -J -K
' From a potential remote parking lot or facilities east of
Pacific Coast Highway via Newport Boulevard to McFadden
' Square then via Balboa Boulevard to Balboa Pier
(approximately 3.1 one -way miles).
' The route segments which have been shaded in Figure 5 -2 are
judged to be problematic for reserved or exclusive transit
' operations. A brief description of each segment including those
identified as being problem segments follows for Balboa Boulevard
' and then for Newport Boulevard.
' Balboa Boulevard
A -B
This is a critical problem area from the remote parking
' lot to Balboa Boulevard. Vehicles exiting the lot must
operate in Pacific Coast Highway before turning into
' Balboa Boulevard. Without major structures that would
require new right -of -way in the vicinity of 44th Street,
' it is likely that this section could only be made
operable by special signals to control Coast Highway
traffic plus major reconstruction of the Coast
' Highway - Balboa Peninsula intersection that would
probably involve use of already developed land on the
southwest corner of this intersection.
5 -6
i
L1
I
1 !J
1
!J
�br
C -D
D -H
WW
This section of Balboa Boulevard from the Coast Highway
to 32nd Avenue has two traffic lanes in each direction
plus parking along the center median in the east /bound
direction.
Balboa Boulevard widens to two traffic lanes in each
direction plus a center turning lane and curb parking on
both sides from 32nd Street to the McFadden Square area.
In the vicinity of McFadden Square, Balboa Boulevard
merges with Newport Boulevard presenting a confusing
pattern of traffic movements. This has been identified
as a difficult section due to the complex traffic
movement requirements which need to be accommodated in
conjunction with transit operations. Future development
plans for the McFadden Square area should incorporate
elements to address traffic patterns in this area.
From McFadden Square to Alvarado Street, Balboa
Boulevard is two traffic lanes in each direction plus
parking along both the center median and curb on both
sides. Left turn movements are permitted only at
selected intersections.
5 -7
I�
I -J
From Alvarado Street to approximately Adams Street,
Balboa Boulevard narrows to two traffic lanes plus curb
parking in each direction.
J -K
■ From approximately Adams Street to a terminal facility
' in the vicinity of the Balboa Pier has been identified
as a potentially problematic area for reserved or
exclusive lane transit operations due to uncertainty
regarding locating the terminal, providing access and
egress from this terminal, and the high level of
commercial business activity in this area.
Newport Boulevard
' A -E
This segment from the remote parking area to Newport
Boulevard on the west side of the Coast Highway may not
be feasible without expensive rebuilding of the existing
' interchange to accommodate transit operations.
E -F
Newport Boulevard from its interchange with the Coast
Highway to about 30th Street provides four traffic
lanes, two in each direction plus one or more turning
lanes and /or curb parking. Traffic turning movements
through this business area are heavy and complex which
may make transit operations in a reserved or exclusive
right -of -way infeasible.
5 -8
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
L
1
I
F -G From 30th Street to 25th Street, Newport Boulevard
operates as a pair of one -way streets each with two
traffic lanes and curb parking on each side. South of
25th Street, Newport Boulevard enters the McFadden
Square area already noted as being a problematic
segment.
1 Based on this preliminary analysis, exclusive or reserved
right -of -way transit operations along Newport Boulevard would be
substantially more costly and present operational problems
through the Newport Beach central business area that makes its
feasibility questionable. Bus or rail transit operations in
mixed traffic (possibly with selected priority treatments where
possible) could be considered for these segments although rail
operations for the A -F. segment would still require expensive
rebuilding of the existing Newport Boulevard- Pacific Coast
Highway interchange.
Further examination of the Balboa Boulevard alignment is
appropriate at this point. This alignment as illustrated in
Figure 5 -2 is approximately 3.5 miles in length. Along its
length, different types of route segments have been identified.
Nearly three - quarters (approximately 2.6 miles) of the proposed
routing involves the use of four and six arterial streets where
there appear to be no major obstacles to system development
provided that traffic, parking, and environmental impacts can be
accommodated. The remaining 0.9 miles of the proposed routing is
considered to be problematic for reserved or exclusive lane
transit operations. However, mixed traffic operations along
segments D -H and J -K should be possible without adversely
affecting system performance to a large degree. For segment A -B,
ibus transit operations in mixed traffic with special
signalization treatments and possibly some modifications to the
intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway appear
to be feasible (although further studies should be undertaken to
confirm this judgment). Light rail transit operations might be
5 -9
1
I
accommodated in a similar manner for this segment but further
investigation of this approach is clearly necessary,.
PENINSULA PARKING
In review of the existing traffic for winter - summer and weekday -
weekend conditions, it became evident that parking is a major
component of travel on the Balboa Peninsula. Particularly during
summer - weekend conditions, parking is filled to capacity
causing significant congestion as users circulate the peninsula
streets in an effort to find an available space. This high
parking demand primarily impacts the residents as those that
leave the peninsula on a summer- weekend may not have the
opportunity to return until after the beach /tourist parkers have
left the peninsula at the end of the day.
An understanding of the existing parking supply was identified as
being essential in analyzing peninsula travel. In order to
identify peninsula parking supply, the study team reviewed
previous peninsula parking studies, conducted field surveys and
reviewed the city's aerial photographs of the peninsula. These
spaces were inventoried for both public and private parking
spaces and are presented in Table 5 -1.
As illustrated on Table 5 -1, there are slightly over 7,000
peninsula public parking spaces. These are defined as metered
and unmetered on- street curb and off - street parking lot spaces.
Approximately 75% or 5350 of the public parking spaces are
unmetered located primarily in the residential portions of the
Ocean Front and peninsula districts.
Metered public parking is primarily located in the Central
Newport and McFadden Square districts with some metered parking
along Newport Boulevard in the Peninsula District.
5 -10
>a
Q
E
O
V
U
z
H
P'.
6
P.
F
I U
Ln H
a
Gu F
.a v.
¢o
F
0
0
z
H
z
W
a.
C
w
a
d
W
.4
o
O
0
0
0
Q
n
O
N
O
N
F
r,
cc
r
r
a
0
N CO
H
u
M
Q
-.1
o
H-
G
a
v.
i1
u
a
G v
s+ 4
•� v
0
cc
x .O
a
0
N CO
>
u
M
Q
-.1
H-
G
a
v.
pC
O
N
m
th
W
74
G
r
co 0
r-I
m
L u
O -^ O O O O c
F r-4 In O In In In
I A It rl 00
P W r r M n
v:
v
1•+
Z41
=1 O c c O O
H a In In V1 O In
pL In In Cl)
w
U
H •O I
a a I
on w 1 O O O O
a 41 I to O In O
p, 41 1 00 �O 1°t 00
ra
m
u
u
a
G v
s+ 4
•� v
0
cc
x .O
a
0
N CO
u
3
Q
G
a
v.
O
z
m
F
74
G
r
co 0
U
W
-4
4)
::l
w
)
to
w
G
S4
--O
G
•*--I
0.•r+
cc
co
L
N
G
W
G
4J
H
U
4/
U
41
O
ca
c
U
z
a
F
ra
m
u
oG G
G v
•� v
x .O
N CO
0.�
41 4!
p
co 0
> 4
)
t•+ G
0.•r+
L
-) O
u G
U
.)
0
mq
m
m
4J
LJ
11
i+
O
O
r4
4
'O A
G 0
OL
of
to ra
m
G
G
U
4)
- 4
-`l
m 4.)
m
m
m
l4 U
m
a
a
mm
>4
a)
u
aJ
OG
oL
a)
4J
G p
m
41
4)
•.4 O
L4
41
u p
$4
M
N
m
m m
I
1
a x
4)
w
w
4r u
m
0
O
v $+
>
>, 0 oc
rz
c
c
3t."
a
m
m
0. 4J •st
A
A
vZ co
•o
) a
'4
O
•p
.-:j-I
41
u
u
G+j w
u
v
m OC
G
0
a.+
4-J
m m
•..
r4
(1)
41
$4 m $4
U
�4
4-)
G
$
P
8 A bE
i
u
u
O U
G
m
m
u0t~
u
I
1
to m 0
m
O
0
0
u
0
G
m u
4) v
v
oc
U)
m
m++ W
G
4)
4)
4) 1! P
OC
•rl
ti
v
M 444
G
x
0
0
014 m
rw
1-4
rd
r4 -•.I 1
.i
CO
U
U
U 044
$4
a
G
G
G m W
m
H
H
F4 44 0
a
4)
14
4)
m
b
1-I
N
4
td
D
>4
N
>
O
41
41
41
•.+
•O
4
4
>
W
r]
41
+
w
z
a
a
I
Private employee and customer lots are located in the commerical
areas of Central Newport and McFadden Square.
Given the significant number of free parking spaces close to the
beach it is easy to recognize the popularity of Newport Beach by
the summer beach users and tourists.
Although there are a significant number of public parking
facilities, parking demand exceeds supply during the summer
week -end period. This results from the competition for these
finite spaces between the peninsula resident and the beach user.
This condition is not as prevalent during the summer weekday
period as many of the peninsula residents leave the peninsula for
. work, etc., and therefore free -up many of the public free spaces.
Discussions with city staff and local residents indicate that
1 during the winter parking supply generally exceeds demand except
in isolated locations.
■ Because of the competition of parking demand between resident and
I beach user during the summer periods, either some form of parking
control or pricing may be warranted in conjunction with the
selected land use and transit alternative.
In -Lieu Parking
The City of Newport Beach currently allows commercial businesses
to provide all or a portion of their required commercial
off - street parking in a municipal lot by paying an annual fee of
' $150 per space, assuming a municipal parking lot is within
reasonable proximity to the commercial business.
Given the relatively high cost of land in
Central Balboa, the
City Planning
Department conducted a 'In -Lieu' Parking Study in
March 19$1 to
determine whether this $150
annual fee was in line
with the value
of providing said parking.
This analysis
indicated that
an annual fee commensurate
with peninsula land
5 -12
values, construction costs, etc., are actually in the range of
$1,000 to $3,000. Given the high land cost, the high end of the
range reflected a small surface parking lot. The lower end of
the range reflected a large parking structure.
In comparing the current in -lieu parking fee with the actual cost
to provide said parking, a significant disparity exists. It
would therefore appear reasonable that the in -lieu fees could be
increased to cover the value of the parking at a minimum. If a
portion of the in -lieu parking were to be provided at a remote
lot and serviced by transit, then the in -lieu fee could cover a
portion of the transit capital and operating costs.
REMOTE PARKING FOR TRANSIT SHUTTLE SYSTEM
The proposed transit shuttle system is dependent on the availability
of parking spaces on the periphery of the study area. The most
logical site in the study area that can accommodate a peripheral
parking facility is the Caltrans -owned parcel on the north side of
Pacific Coast Highway between Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard.
Hoag Hospital, however, is in the process of acquiring this parcel
from Caltrans for expansion purposes. Therefore in order to provide
remote parking and hence consider a transit shuttle program, the City
of Newport Beach will be required to negotiate joint use of this
property.
The study team's preliminary investigation determined that the net
useable acreage could provide approximately 1200 surface parking
spaces, with allowances for two access points, a facility for transit
system passenger loading and unloading, and additional space allocated
for transit vehicle storage. No provision was made for transit
vehicle maintenance or administration facilities.
Integrating this site into the proposed transit shuttle system appears
to have several constraints. As already noted, grading limitations as
well as traffic circulation virtually eliminate any viable direct
5 -13
access to Newport Boulevard east of Pacific Coast Highway. Accessing
Newport Boulevard would most likely be via a new signalized
exit /entrance at Pacific Coast Highway, and a left turn, to southbound
Pacific Coast Highway to Newport Boulevard on -ramp. Accessing the
site from eastbound Newport Boulevard would be somewhat circuitous
along the Newport Boulevard /Pacific Coast Highway interchange system.
Accessing Balboa Boulevard could be accomplished via the exit /entrance
on Pacific Coast Highway, mentioned above, with a left turn required
in each direction of travel. In addition, the site could access
Balboa Boulevard from an entrance at the new alignment of Superior
Avenue; however, this entrance could have considerable grading and
cost considerations. In short, site access and egress deserves
more detailed investigation should it be determined to proceed with
implementation of the proposed shuttle transit system.
5 -14
CHAPTER 6
COMBINED LAND USE AND
TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Building on the definitions of land use alternatives, transit
system alternatives, right -of -way and environmental assessment
and the trip projection and market segmentation analysis
presented in the preceding chapters, a series of combined land
use and transit system alternatives were developed for detailed
investigation. Only a limited number of alternatives could be
examined within the scope of the study, and six alternatives were
decided upon that would encompass all key factors for assessing
the feasibility of shuttle transit services on the Balboa
Peninsula.
Over 60 combined alternatives were identified as being possible.
Alternatives are possible for various combinations of:
o Land use -- capacity constraint, trend, and master plan
buildout;
o Season -- winter or summer;
o Shuttle system -- none (except for expanded regional
services), downtown- oriented bus services, shuttle bus
services operating in mixed traffic, shuttle bus or
light rail transit services operating in partially or
fully reserved right -of -way (shuttle system alternatives
could be managed and operated by the OCTD, the City, or
other appropriate agency or private contractor); and
o Parking management program -- none, or program designed
to complement transit system alternatives.
Clearly, not all possible combinations need to be addressed.
Based on the analysis results of the preceding chapters, the
study team narrowed the number of possible alternatives to those
which appeared to be the most feasible.
M
I
In narrowing the number of alternatives to be considered, the
study team applied its judgment concerning severzl key issues.
Most importantly, it was determined that shuttle transit services
could only be effectively employed to attract selected types of
trips. Since the shuttle transit system alternatives under
consideration would only provide service to the peninsula area,
study area residents would be an extremely difficult group to
capture with transit service. In other words, the volume of
intra- peninsula trips that could be attracted to shuttle transit
services would not significantly affect traffic conditions, and
external trips made by residents would not be served by the
transit systems under consideration. However, work trips made to
the study area and other trips involving longer -term parking
including beach and tourist trips might be effectively captured
by shuttle transit services without adversely affecting the
employees, beach and tourist visitors, and others making these
I trips. Further, the volume of these trips would be sufficiently
large that significant impacts on traffic levels could be
achieved as desired.
The study team also concluded that an effective parking
' management program should also be considered in conjunction with
shuttle transit services, designed to complement the
effectiveness of the proposed transit services. The parking
management concept may be similar in nature to current systems in
1 operation on Newport Island. Additional components for
application to the study area would be the consideration of
permits for employees and special considerations for the short
term parking needs of commercial and tourist - oriented businesses.
IALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY
IAs already noted, six alternatives were selected for further
investigation. Each of these six alternatives is summarized in
the following paragraphs and presented in Table 6 -1.
1 6 -2
77
w
a
W
F
'+
Q
Q
E
ul
Q
W
a
H
E-
W
Q
a
0
W
Q
w
F
U
C4
a
W
W
U)
H
F
a
�a
w
E
a
a
a�
ro
I~
u
v
rd
ro
34
O
W
raro
v
al
0
0
U
ro
sa
N
a)
a)
w
0)
C
X
N
ro
N
ro
a
I
a
H
G
ro
N
ro
v
sa
U
H
E
C7 W
z
H W
N
N
N
N
as
°
z°
r
�
z
r
K c z
wwwo
mD I
H W x
O
O
O
O
a1
a1
z W
z
z
z
z
>+
awz
aw
n
w
z F4
0
N
C
N
N
ro
H a
o
0
0
�
o
•� ro sa
zx
z
m
z
m
w
aaH
w cn
a
as
v
v
U H
G
C
q
W W
z
z
>
>
>
z
x
Uz[f1
z
u
N
>4
s4
s4
u
o
v
a
ai
(D
a)
a
w
w
cn
3
m
3
cn
)
m
3
u
41
m
�
a
�
ul
-p ro
41 ro
:5
•.- a
-H u
ro
ro
ro
� o
N
co
N N
N
w
w
.OU ro
CL I;
¢. C
N
S4
N
N -H
L
ro 0
ro 0
E
F
F
ro 0
u
u
zC0
H
a�
ro
I~
u
v
rd
ro
34
O
W
raro
v
al
0
0
U
ro
sa
N
a)
a)
w
0)
C
X
N
ro
N
ro
a
I
a
H
G
ro
N
ro
v
sa
U
H
Capacity Constraint Land Use
Two alternatives were defined for this land use alternative, one
for the winter season and one for the summer season. In this
case, traffic growth is controlled by limiting land use
development so that resultant traffic volumes (during the winter
months) can be accommodated by the street network operating at
its capacity. In the summer months, it is proposed that a
shuttle bus system be operated on weekdays and weekends (in
conjunction with parking management controls) to accommodate
beach - related and tourist activities. Regional bus services will
be expanded as appropriate to handle increased passenger demands
in accordance with county -wide service policies and standards.
In summary, two alternatives have been defined in conjunction
with the capacity constrained land use development scenerio.
Restricted land use development will serve to limit traffic
growth in the winter months while shuttle bus services operating
in mixed traffic from remote parking facilities to the study area
have been included for the summer months.
Trend Land Use
This is considered to be the most likely scenerio for future land
use development, and also is believed to permit the study area to
grow in accordance with the city's current objectives for
balanced development. Three alternatives have been defined for
trend land use development as follows.
o Winter -- regional bus service plus shuttle bus services
oriented to the central business area in conjunction
with central area parking controls. With remote parking
north of the Pacific Coast Highway, this alternative has
been designed to intercept employees and others
requiring longer -term parking in the central area. This
approach is similar to that defined in the 1977 Wilbur
6 -4
Smith and Associates Central Newport Beach Parking
Study.
o Summer -- regional bus service plus shuttle bus services
(operating in mixed traffic) serving both the central
area for employees and peninsula for beach visitors and
tourists are included in this alternative to relieve
traffic congestion conditions on both weekdays and
weekends. A parking management program would be
designed to reinforce the shuttle transit concept,
restricting parking in the study area for certain types
of trips.
o Summer -- this alternative is the same as the one
described above, except that the shuttle bus system is
operated in a partially or fully reserved right -of -way
and only limited parking controls are instituted in the
study area.
Master Plan Buildout Land Use
One alternative was defined for the Master Plan Buildout Land Use
Alternative. The traffic volumes associated with this land use
development are high and require major transportation system
improvements to be implemented. For this final alternative,
winter conditions were assumed with development of a light rail
transit system operating in partially or fully reserved
right -of -way together with complementary parking controls in the
study area.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Six alternatives have been specified as described in the
preceding section. In detailing the characteristics of the
alternatives, system performance results were approximated and
then successively refined with system characteristics also being
refined as appropriate. Thus, the characteristics of each
6 -5
I
,I
alternative presented in this section have been developed after
one or two 'cycles' of evaluation analysis.
Transit Services
All of the alternatives assume that regional bus services will
continue to operate as presently is done, with service levels
modified as appropriate in accordance with ridership levels and
operating standards. It is possible that regional bus services
could be modified to interface with shuttle services at the
remote parking lot but this was not studied. In short, the study
team does not anticipate substantial growth in regional bus
ridership and, correspondingly, service changes should be
expected to be modest.
rShuttle transit services vary for each alternative specified in
this chapter.
Routing
Bus or rail transit services designed to accommodate beach
visitors and tourists will generally operate along Balboa
Boulevard from the Caltrans parcel (to be used for remote
parking) to the Balboa Pier as described in an earlier chapter.
Peninsula shuttle services might be routed through the central
area via Newport Boulevard to provide access to parking spaces in
the central area as well as to serve employees and others
requiring longer term parking on summer weekdays who may be using
the remote parking facilities shuttle bus services. They may also
be implemented specifically for employees and others requiring
longer term parking. In this case, buses will operate from the
Caltrans parcel via Newport Boulevard through the central area to
I32nd Avenue or possibly McFadden Square.
J
6 -6
eI
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Days /Hours
Peninsula shuttle services are assumed to operate on weekdays and
weekends, generally for approximately 12 hours per day from June
through August. Central area shuttle services would be operated
on weekdays only, generally for approximately 12 hours per day.
{ /chi 01 oc
For peninsula shuttle services designed for beach visitors or
tourists, high capacity sightseeing or transit vehicles have been
specified. For central area shuttle services, smaller vehicles
providing a seated passenger capacity of 10 -15 appear to be
appropriate. As will be seen in the following chapter, the
designation of high capacity equipment for peninsula shuttle
services is to provide the necessary passenger carrying capacity.
Freauencv of Service
For all alternatives, it has been assumed that service
frequencies will not be longer than five minutes between vehicles
in the same direction. It is believed that service frequencies
of this level are necessary for shuttle services to be perceived
by users as being sufficiently convenient to encourage continued
use.
On the other hand and perhaps more importantly, minimum
frequencies have also been specified which will serve to limit
the capacity of the shuttle system. For selected alternatives,
the capacity of the shuttle transit system does become a limiting
factor (rather than parking availability or traffic volumes at
the Pacific Coast Highway study area screenline). While it is
recognized that several factors affect specification of minimum
frequencies, it has been assumed as two minutes for buses
operating in mixed traffic, one and one -half minutes for buses in
6 -7
reserved rights -of -way, and two minutes for LRT or trolley
vehicles operating in partially or fully reserved rights -of -way.
Parking Management
Parking Management contains five essential elements. These are:
1. Conversion of some unmetered parking spaces to metered;
2. Modify current pricing and time limits;
3. Institute a parking by permit program;
4. Increase in -lieu fees to cover actual cost of providing
parking spaces; and
5. Construct a remote parking facility at the Pacific Coast
Highway Caltrans parcel.
Preliminary suggested changes in these elements are as follows.
Actual recommendations will depend upon selected land use and
transit alternative.
o Convert all parking spaces on Newport Boulevard south of
McFadden Square to metered parking. This would increase
the percent of metered to total parking in the Peninsula
District from 10 to 50 percent. At Balboa Pier parking
area, during the summer period, continue with attendant
collection of a fee commensurate with local state
beaches (approximately $3.00).
o Convert unmetered parking spaces on Balboa Boulevard to
metered parking.
o Increase metered parking cost and parking time limit in
commercial areas.
o In the residential area within the Ocean Front and
Peninsula District, implement a residential parking
permit program similar to other programs within the city
.
(Newport Island). Eligibility for receiving /purchasing
a parking permit could be extended to the entire City.
o Increase in -lieu parking fees from $150 annually to a
minimum of $3,000 to offset the cost to actually supply
1 in -lieu parking or provide shuttle to remote lot.
o Implement a remote parking facility at the Pacific Coast
Highway Caltrans parcel. The number of spaces required
depends upon (1) land use alternative, (2) transit
system, and (3) amount of parking removed on the
peninsula necessary to implement program (i.e. to
iprovide exclusive lanes).
I
I
I
[l
L
I
I
6 -9
i9
I
I
17
F�
Id
I
I
I
I
i
I
11
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 7
COMBINED ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 7 -1 summarizes the study team's evaluation of the six
selected land use and transit system alternatives. A brief
discussion of the evaluation results for both the winter and
summer alternatives follows to highlight key conclusions.
WINTER ALTERNATIVES
IThree winter alternatives were investigated -- one each for the
1 capacity constraint, trend, and master plan buildout land use
plans. For the capacity constraint alternative, traffic volumes
at the screenline and elsewhere in the study area are increased
but traffic congestion levels are judged to be acceptable albeit
perhaps somewhat worse in selected locations than for existing
' conditons. The supply of parking spaces is adequate to meet
demands although localized imbalances in the central area might
exist depending on the nature of new development projects. Since
traffic and parking conditions are acceptable, the development of
a transit shuttle system and remote parking facilities for
selected trips to the central area is not warranted.
tFor the trend land use alternative, it becomes necessary to
encourage remote parking with a shuttle bus connection to the
' central area for 200 -300 employees and others making trips
requiring longer term parking. This shuttle bus system could
also serve as a circulator bus service in the central area for
general public use. Traffic volumes at the study area screenline
are approaching maximum capacity but traffic congestion levels
are generally acceptable. Elsewhere in the study area, traffic
congestion will be worse than for the capacity constraint land
use alternatives but problem areas should be localized depending
on the nature and location of new development projects.
7 -1
I
'as
a
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
l_J
1l
TABLE 7 -1
EVALUATION SUMMARY FOR
SELECTED LAND USE AND
TRANSIT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Capacity
Capacity
Trend
Trend
Trend
Master Plan
Constraint
Constraint
Buildout
FSE
Winter
Su mner
Hinter
Summer
Summer
Winter
BUS IN MIXED
X
X
TRAFFIC
BUS IN RESERVE
%
RIGHT -OF -WAY
LRT IN RESERVE
X
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CENTRAL AREA
X
K
X
SHUTTLE
CORDON
TRAFFIC VOLUME
84
106
90
106
106
110
(THOUSANDS)
LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC
acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
CONGESTION
DESIGN
DAILY RIDERSHI
-0-
12,000
500
20,000
30,000
44,000
(THOUSANDS)
CAPITAL
($ MILLIONS)
-0-
12.5
3.5
24.5
40.3
168.00
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL AND
-O-
210
0.9
4.0
6.3
25.4
OPERATING
REMOTE PARKING
_
300
300
1700
2300
10,400
SPACES
BEACH VISITOR
REDUCTION
_
-
-
5500
7700
-
PARKI2:G SPACES
REh:OVED
800
300
For this second winter alternative, the need for remote parking
is dictated by pressures on available parking in the central
area. While adequate parking may be available, it was judged
that imbalances in the demand for and supply of parking spaces
within the central area would necessitate either providing
additional spaces in the central area or remote parking as
defined for this alternative. However, it should be noted that
this analysis has been based on several assumptions, and a more
detailed investigation of central area. development and parking
characteristics is probably warranted before proceeding with
implementation. Table 7 -1 shows the capital costs for developing
the remote parking facilities and shuttle bus system, and also
the annual cost of operating the system for nine months and
amortized share of the capital cost (amounting to an estimated
cost of $0.9 million).
The third winter alternative is for the master plan buildout land
use alternative. The results summarized in Table 7 -1 clearly
show that this alternative is not feasible, resulting in traffic
volumes which substantially exceed street capacity levels,
unacceptable traffic congestion, and major capital expenditures
for remote parking and transit system development in an attempt
to alleviate traffic and parking conditions. Analysis results
' indicate that this land use alternative should be discarded from
consideration for the study area's development.
' Key Winter Findings and Conclusions
Study analysis has indicated that development of limited remote
j parking facilities with central area shuttle bus service should
' be considered as land use development approaches that called for
in the trend plan. Fundings will be required for implementing
this approach and, based on preliminary estimates developed in
this study, it appears that in -lieu parking charges of $3,000
annually would be adequate for complete funding. Again, it
should be noted that a number of assumptions were made in
7 -3
pl
carrying out this analysis, and more detailed consideration of
central area development plans including limits on the number of
in lieu parking spaces is probably warranted before proceeding
with implementation of the remote parking and transit system
development program.
iSUMMER ALTERNATIVES
Three summer alternatives were investigated -- one for the
capacity constraint land use plan and two for trend land use
development. Each of these alternatives is reviewed below.
Capacity Constraint
In this case, implementation of remote parking facilities in
conjunction with bus shuttle operations serving the peninsula is
needed to avoid excessive traffic volumes and congestion. Study
' area parking for beach and related trips is also not sufficient
but controlling traffic volumes and congestion is the primary
determinant of remote parking and transit service requirements.
Table 7 -1 summarizes the key evaluation results related to this
alternative. It is estimated that providing 800 parking spaces
' at the Caltrans parcel would be adequate and with effective
parking management and transit services to the peninsula, traffi
volumes and congestion would be controlled within acceptable
' limits. Capital costs are estimated to be 512.5 million,
two - thirds of which is for the development of remote parking
' facilities. Annualized capital costs plus operating costs only
for the summer months are estimated to be $2.0 million annually.
It is reasonable that some portion of the costs of the parking
facilities and transit system operations be charged directly to
beach users. For the summer months, it is estimated that nearly
1 million autos are parked in the study area by beach users (an
Li 7 -4
c
Li 7 -4
average of about 11,000 each day for the three summer months).
' on this basis, parking charges for beach users of approximately
$2.00 per day would be sufficient to cover the costs of parking
facilities development and transit system operations. This
charge (subject to more detailed refinement of parking management
and pricing strategies) is in line with charges currently made at
other beaches in the vicinity.
Trend (Shuttle in Mixed Traffic)
i
' This is one of two alternatives defined for the trend land use
plan. In establishing this alternative, it differs from its
companion alternative for trend shuttle bus system operates in
mixed traffic rather than in a reserved or exclusive
' right -of -way. For this alternative, both traffic and parking
conditions in the study area were found to be determinants of
remote parking requirements with the former being the primary
determinant. However, the capacity of the shuttle bus system for
transporting beach visitors and tourists limited the number of
' remote parking spaces which could be provided, resulting in an
estimated 5500 beach visitors (or about 12 -13 percent of the
estimated number of beach users from outside the study area) not
being able to use the beach.
Traffic volumes at the study area screenline are at maximum
' capacity levels, and traffic congestion conditions should be
acceptable except for selected locations which may be
problematic. Effective parking management in conjunction with
careful land use development planning should serve to minimize
potential traffic congestion problems. Parking in the study area
' will be approaching its capacity with possible localized
problems. The central area shuttle bus system specified for the
trend land use alternative will be operated through the summer
months as an element of this combined alternative.
C
7 -5
e�
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
p
1
L
I
I
The capital costs for development of 1700 remote parking spaces
' and shuttle bus system are estimated to be $24.5 million as shown
in Table 7 -1. Annualized capital costs and summer operating
costs are estimated at $4.0 million. If paid for by parking
charges levied on beach users (about 850,000 autos parked by
beach users for this alternative), this would require a daily
parking charge of about $4.70 which would probably serve to
discourage beach use. Thus, if current beach activity is to be
' maintained with remote parking and transit shuttle, an additional
source of funding must be identified for this alternative.
Trend (Shuttle on Exclusive Lane)
As already noted, this alternative differs from the preceding one
in that shuttle bus service is operated on an exclusive or
reserved right -of -way to the maximum extent possible. This
difference introduces two key factors into the analysis -- first,
the level of service provided by the shuttle bus system should be
higher (a concern of both Alternatives II and IV is that the
' shuttle bus system operating in mixed traffic will 'break down'
in localized traffic congestion, affecting the system's ability
to operate effectively and serving to significantly discourage
beach use); and second, development of an exclusive right -of -way
' will result in the elimination of an estimated 800 street parking
spaces along Balboa and Newport Boulevards which will necessitate
' increased remote parking and transit system capacity.
Table 7 -1 shows the results of this alternative which are similar
in many respects to those already presented for the first trend
land use alternative, except that costs are higher for its
implementation and an estimated 7700 beach users cannot be
accommodated due to transit system capacity limitations. For
this alternative, annualized capital costs and bus operating
costs for the summer months amount to about $7.75 per auto parked
I
' 7 -6
i
I
I
11
I
1
h
1
11
1
I
L
I_I
1
1
I
1
[l
I ,
I
9'
by beach users over the summer months. As for the first trend
land use alternative, other sources of funding support would he
needed to implement this alternative if reasonable beach parking
rates were to be maintained.
Key Summer Findings and Conclusions
It is clear from this study analysis for the summer alternatives
that the city should undertake a combined program of remote
parking, shuttle transit services, and parking management if
continued development of the study area is to be permitted
while avoiding unacceptable levels of traffic congestion.
Further, study analysis demonstrates that special attention will
be needed if such a strategy is to be effectively developed and
funded under trend land use conditions without resulting in
decreased beach usage by non - residents of the study area. The
two alternatives investigated for trend land use development
during the summer months indicated a number of the trade -offs and
issues which need to be considered further in this regard, and at
this point, both policy guidance from the city coupled with
follow -up actions to initiate remote parking, shuttle transit
services, and parking management on a limited basis during the
summer months in the study area are needed to provide a sound
foundation for the study area's future development.
CONCLUSIONS
The first phase of the Balboa Peninsula Bus /Trolley Study
concludes that:
o The capacity constraint and trend growth land use
alternatives can potentially be balanced with the
planned highway system.
o A transit shuttle system could effectively address
highway capacity deficiencies if transit demand is
artificially induced with remote parking areas and
peninsula parking management programs.
7 -7
o
The Conceptual Recommended Alternative (Figure
7 -1) be
selected for further refinement in Phase II.
If the
City Council elects to continue with the transit
shuttle
be
and the
second phase of the study the primary objectives
would
'
to:
o
Refine the preferred transit system land use
alternative,
o
Develop a comprehensive transit implementation
program,
and
o
Provide necessary environmental documentation to support
implementation of the preferred alternative.
1
7 -8
4s
•
Do-
so
s
= m m m m m m = = m = m m = = = m = =