The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutC-3209 - PSA - Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Pedestrian Access• 11 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department C- 3a09(A) September 13, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 94- SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN RECOMMENDATION: �..' CITY 0 ° 'l7 SEF 13 q (a9 11 Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of plans, specifications and engineer's final estimate for redesigning the Balboa Pier parking lot in general conformance with Alternative 6A. DISCUSSION: On June 22, 1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Parking and Circulation Study of the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street/Central Balboa area. A . Professional Services Agreement was executed with the engineering firm of Austin - Foust Associates for the preparation of this study. A copy of the study is included as an attachment for your review. This study includes a detailed engineering analysis of possible alternatives for re- designing the existing parking lot and access. The goals of any re- design would be to improve pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus circulation. The other primary goal of the study is to address parking concerns and needs in the area. The study was coordinated with the preparation of the peninsula -wide Parking Management Plan, prepared by Meyer - Mohaddes Associates. The 1997 Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 report included a recommendation to redesign the Balboa Pier parking lot and to close Main Street, south of Balboa Boulevard, to pedestrian use only. This study analyzes the feasibility of that proposed plan. In 1991, the Balboa Pier parking lot and Central Balboa area was also studied in detail. A parking lot re- design plan was developed after a series of public meetings were held to develop a community consensus. The 1991 recommended plan is also included as an alternative in this study. The 1991 concept was incorporated in the adoption of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 1994. The Public Improvement Component of the Specific Area Plan classifies the modifications to the Balboa Pier Parking Lot as a Priority I improvement to be implemented within 2 years. E SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKIN REDESIGN • September 13, 1999 Page 2 The approach for the new study was to review the plans developed for the Balboa Pier • parking lot area, to craft new alternatives, and to compare the alternative plans against each other and the existing parking lot layout. The design process included a community outreach component so that residents and business owners would have input throughout the preparation of the study. Three public workshops were held to solicit the public's input. At the first workshop, the public was invited to comment on the BPPAC proposal and the 1991 Central Balboa Study proposal. The main component of the BPPAC proposal was the conversion of Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard to pedestrian use only, and the channeling of exiting vehicles from the parking lot out Washington Street to Balboa Boulevard. This plan would require a new traffic signal at Washington Street and Balboa Boulevard. Comments at the workshop indicate that area business owners are very interested in providing more parking for their customers and layover spaces for tour buses. The business owners raised concerns about restricting vehicular access on Main Street. Residents are concerned about tour buses, which currently park in the residential areas. The residents also support the construction of tour bus layover spaces to take the tour buses away from the residential areas. Both groups oppose the closure of Main Street because it would require a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street. Residents are strongly opposed to the installation of a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard. Residents also indicated that they were opposed to expanding the physical size of the parking lot, and that they supported additional landscaping around the perimeter of the lot. In response to these and other comments, a total of 7 alternative plans were. identified and evaluated. These plans are presented and discussed in more detail in the attached study. The alternative plans are numbered 1 through 6 and 6A, with 6A being a minor variation of Alternative 6. Alternatives 2 and 4 ( BPPAC alternatives) were eliminated from consideration during the process because of the inability of using the one -lane Washington Street as the only egress street during peak periods. Both alternatives also included the installation of a new traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street, which is strongly opposed by the residents. None of the other alternatives include a new traffic signal. Towards the end of the project, Alternative 6 was developed from a concept plan presented to the City by the Balboa Performing Arts Theatre Foundation. Their goal was to provide more short-term metered parking outside of the pay lot. Alternative 6 was presented at the final public meeting on February 10, 1999. Subsequent discussions with business owners and residents at both informal meetings and the August PROP meeting show support for Alternative 1 and Alternative 6A. A table is included on Page 14 of the study that compares the alternative plans to the existing parking lot. It should be noted that the existing parking lot has approximately 20 parking "spaces" which are currently being used for interior lot landscaping. There was significant discussion of the benefit of additional parking spaces vs. the loss of • interior parking lot landscaping. The general consensus was that if additional SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN September 13, 1999 Page 3 • landscaping was provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, then the interior landscaping spaces should be converted to additional parking spaces. • Alternative 1 is the 1991 Central Balboa Study recommended plan. This alternative produces the most net parking space gain of 84 spaces. The metered parking area adjacent to the boardwalk is eliminated, and the additional new bus parking spaces are closer to the residential area. The pedestrian access from the lot to Main Street is improved, and landscaping is added around the perimeter of the lot. The engineer's estimate for Alternative 1 is $ 750,000. Alternative 6A is the recommended plan in this study. This plan provides for: 40 additional parking spaces, an expanded metered parking lot to serve the theatre and businesses, moving the bus parking further away from the residential area and providing for 10 bus spaces, improving the pedestrian access from the lot to Main Street and adding landscaping around the perimeter of the lot. The proposed improvements would require the reconstruction of the entire parking lot as it exists today. The engineer's cost estimate for Alternative 6A is $ 663,000. The FY99 -00 budget includes $430,000 from the Off - Street Parking Fund for design and construction of this project. Additional funds are available in the Off- Street Parking Fund for this project. Respectfully submitte PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: Antony Brine Senior Civil Engineer Attachment: Austin -Foust Balboa Pier Parking Lot Final Report, May 1999 • f.kwrsVbwl shared\ council\499- 00Lseptember- 13\balboa pier parking lot redesign.dx 0 0 BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS Final Report Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 May 12, 1999 0 0 • 9 0 •BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION On June 22, 1998, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Parking and Circulation Study of the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street /Central Balboa area. This study is one of the first steps in the Balboa Peninsula Revitalization Program. This study includes an engineering analysis of possible alternatives for re- designing the existing parking lot and access. The goals of any re- design would be to improve pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus circulation. The other primary goal of the study is to address parking concerns and needs. The City's approach to completing the study included a community outreach component so that the residents and business owners would have input at the start and at key milestones during the study. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) held a series of public workshops on behalf of the City to solicit resident and business owners input. This study has been coordinated with the preparation of the peninsula -wide Parking • Management Study. • BACKGROUND In 1991 a Parking and Circulation Study for Central Balboa was conducted at the direction of the City Council. Five public workshops were held to develop a community consensus on the traffic problems and solutions for this area. The key parking recommendation was to increase the amount of parking in the existing Balboa Pier parking lot. The parking lot redesign proposal developed in the 1991 study was incorporated into the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan as approved by the City Council in 1994. More recently, both the Urban Design Camp Peninsula Planning Study and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) Project 2000 reports include an improvement to the Balboa Pier parkinglot as well as a proposal to reconstruct Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard for pedestrian use only. Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd 0 • The City's current budget includes funds for the preparation of plans and specifications for • the Balboa Pier parking lot and Main Street pedestrian access. The design process includes a community outreach component so that residents and business owners would have input in the process. The two parking lot concept plans previously developed, the 1991 Recommended Plan and the BPPAC Recommendation, were used as a starting point for this study. This study analyzes and compares the previous proposals, and outlines new alternatives developed to improve Central Balboa parking and circulation. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing Balboa Pier parking lot contains 609 parking spaces in the main lot and 56 spaces in metered lots for a total of 665 parking spaces. Parallel spaces for OCTA bus layovers are provided. The existing parking lot layout is illustrated in Figure 1. Inbound parking lot traffic approaches the lot entrance via Palm Street. Palm Street is a two -lane one -way street southbound south of Balboa Boulevard. There is an existing signal at the intersection of Palm Street and Balboa Boulevard. Outbound traffic exits the area via Main Street or via Washington Street if the motorist has not entered the main parking lot area. Main Street is a two -lane one -way street northbound south of • Balboa Boulevard. The intersection of Main Street and Balboa Boulevard is signalized. Washington Street is a one -lane one -way street northbound south of Balboa Boulevard. Traffic counts along Palm Street, Washington Street and Main Street were collected during summer weekends in 1998. On a typical summer weekend (July 24 -26) the parking lot attracts approximately 5,400 trips daily. During the Fourth of July weekend, the parking lot attracts approximately 5,600 trips daily. During the Labor Day weekend, the parking lot attracts approximately 4,300 trips daily. Figure 2 illustrates the existing traffic in the study area. These streets are currently operating at capacity during the peak arrival and departure periods. Balboa Pier Parking I.ot and Main Street 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Ames Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd 0 • • B 4 ' „ „ „ „ I , I , I I � I I I I I � 0 i 5 I �■i■'�� 5 S ■ J 4 S 5 5 I •L tiMl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street Access Improvements Final Report 40 3 a E- 0 a m z a x m � w a r� z F k W Austin -Foust Associates, Inc onosarpt..wna • L J Figure 2 EXISTING ADT VOLUMES • Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd 0 0 BALBOA no scale z 0 ao�- CD 0 zQ zo Qo a_ n = ao g a TYPICAL SUMMER WEEKEND BALBOA no scale z 0 �o ( (D z oo _zo a CD a a. _ � :2W ri a d= 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND BALBOA no scale z 0 �o F-- 0 zo ao = c0 o �o v a LABOR DAY WEEKEND • L J Figure 2 EXISTING ADT VOLUMES • Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd 0 0 • PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A total of seven parking lot alternatives have been developed and evaluated. These alternatives are numbered 1 through 6 and 6A, 6A being a relatively minor variation of Alternative 6. There is no enlargement of existing asphalt area in any of the alternatives; therefore, there is no encroachment into the beach or park areas. Alternative 1 is the plan that emerged from the 1991 Balboa Pier parking study with a minor modification to incorporate diagonal OCTA/tour bus parking. Alternative 1 requires separate attendants for traffic entering and exiting the lot, provides four bus layover spaces, and improves pedestrian access to Main Street; however, Alternative 1 reduces storage for vehicles entering the lot. This alternative produces the most net parking spaces (84) while at the same time costing $750,000 or about $9,000 per space. On the basis of cost per parking space alone, Alternate 1 is perhaps the optimum choice. Figure 3 illustrates Alternative 1. •Alternative 2, shown in Figure 4, is the BPPAC recommendation. This plan eliminated any vehicular access to Main Street and introduced a new signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington • Street. Alternative 4, shown in Figure 5, modified the BPPAC plan to partially retain vehicular access, at least for local businesses, to Main Street which was reduced to one lane. However, public reaction to a proposed third traffic signal on Balboa Boulevard overwhelmingly negative, thereby eliminating both Alternatives 2 and 4 from further consideration. Other reasons for eliminating Alternatives 2 and 4 were related to the question of whether Washington Street is wide enough for two lanes of traffic, whether buses can turn on Washington Street and whether traffic could be handled with one lane on Washington Street. Alternative 3 is the modified existing plan which largely retains the existing parking lot layout and circulation. The central parking area has been redesigned to provide 10 tour bus spaces (in addition to OCTA buses) and make better use of an area of the current lot deemed relatively inefficient by some people. Other than tour bus parking this design does not increase automobile parking. However at a cost of `only" $281,000 it is also the least expensive. Some people expressed that $281,000 for 10 tour bus spaces was quite high. Nonetheless, several residents, who did not favor Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd L 4 1 'y r 0 0 U y E 0 N A mm �& t I t r t t �• i E� �1a ca6 k3 5, Rb S 6 Y \ � y ntn z 0 1 E, 0 �z W m �0 U W m za W W i• aE- E ril (D ti Balboa Pier Parking L.ot and Main Street 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd �J F_ I L • + + : � |� -m � 11 a a )k §k) 1 1 itu if lill 11 all I 11] -4 1111 ILI 11 107, 1,11 M45il m;1mliII1111111111! � I l I I I � I l I I I � H I 1111INHHHHH1 I m I I! G I F/ z 0 WZ zo 04 _oar Parking Lot and Main Street 7 Amitin-Foust Associatim, Ina A=ss Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd 0 0 Its o ++i N v E, Z E - Balboa Pier Parking Lut and Main Street 8 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Ao s Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd E E • � . ............... . ... zErlm, ;7 ............ t ............... ............... IT - 74� ..... ..... jIj v E, Z E - Balboa Pier Parking Lut and Main Street 8 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Ao s Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd E E • � . ............... . ... zErlm, ;7 ............ .............. ............... ............... v E, Z E - Balboa Pier Parking Lut and Main Street 8 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Ao s Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd E E • 9 .any change at all to the existing lot, did indicate this option was the least objectionable. Figure 6 illustrates Alternative 3. Alternative 5 was the outcome of a public workshop discussion regarding the placement of the bus parking. This plan merely shifted the tour bus layover spaces to a point in front of the hotel instead of existing residences. The owners of the Balboa Inn stronglyopposed this alternative because of the potential impacts to their hotel. While this option was initially supported by some business interests, that limited support was quickly withdrawn when it became apparent the issue simply boiled down to residents versus hotel uses. Statistically, Alternative 5 is quite similar to Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is illustrated in Figure 7. Alternative 6 also emerged from the public workshop process, only this time a group representing the theater and other businesses sought more short -term metered parking. Alternative 6 provided such an option but at a very high cost, $818,000, with essentially no gain in total parking. Alternative 6 provides for bus layover spaces which are located further from the residences than currently or with any of the other alternatives. Figure 8 illustrates Alternative 6. Alternative 6A, • illustrated in Figure 9, was developed in response to the criticism of the high cost but otherwise appealing aspect of the added short -term meters of Alternative 6. A significant cost reduction (down to $663,000) is achieved through retention of the northerly third of the existing lot, and only affecting new construction of the remainder of the lot with the exterior landscaping. Table 1 presents a matrix comparison of the alternatives. Table 2 summarizes the cost of each alternative. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS The first public workshop was held September 9, 1998. The subject of the first workshop was development of alternatives for the Balboa Pier parking lot. Approximately 45 residents and business owners attended the workshop. A questionnaire was circulated to the workshop attendees seeking their opinions on the main concerns with the Balboa Pier parking lot, their solutions to the parking lot problems, and which features of the BPPAC recommendations they oppose or support. The main component of the BPPAC recommended plan is the conversion of Main Street south of Balboa • Boulevard to pedestrian use only and the channeling of exiting vehicles out Washington Street to Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main street 9 Austin -Foust Associales, Ina Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpl.wpd 8 z 0 Pr V F1 a ...... .... ? . . . ................................. . ...... ....................... N. t if, V ..... J-- . . ......... . ...... - --- ------- Ig H.1..L.HA U 0111 HIM! T T MHIHM ....................... . ........................... .......... ..... ... . ............. ............ .................. . .......... ....... 7, 0 z Balboa Pier Puking Lot and Main Street 10 Austin -Foust Assodates, Inc AxIcIeI;I; Improvements Final Report 01 7058rpt.wpd • • 0 • 0 0 Y Z a v ' N N 0 V C LL V 6 � a Y 3 a (W w J 1 FAK Q °s 0 •1! I I nC1DMWA Y Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street Access Improvements Final Report I t t n1� 8 I J =� I 1 rt l hF i. AM } V tlt a S 1 Ys i tlt 1 - a s ��1I V a I a vai Li 6 Wi �d �aaosa II IIIIIIIIIIII1 — III II III hI = 111111 X1111111 � = 111111111 1111111 1 -1 -11 X 1 1 1 1�1 1 1 1 1 1 II I IIf 1 1111111111 1111111111111 III 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 � 111111111111111111 � 111111 111111111111111111111111 IIII IIII 111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIliilll Illilllll IIII I � III �IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII�I) a�— (IIIIIII � Ililllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiliillll ; IIIIIIIII I1111111111gi I1111111111111111i �IllllllllllllllllHi illllllll� 11 V z m a 'w" w a Austin -Foust Associates, Ina 017058rpt.wpd pdwidiggoLlo • au1'salcuossy lsnod -ugsnd a r H � CO ■ ■ 5 ' 5 5 ' • uodapl 1euLq sluawawjdwl ss=V zi IaaAg UIUW puu 1a18wPlud laid no9lefl t !il i S • 1 lei s I�{I- I�{I -I{- �I�I- I�{I- '�{I -I� • � � 4 IIIII�IIIIIII ' IIIIIIIIeJlllllllll `I` §€ s , � B ++ o � � 2 ~ F 9 A n >N r r • • • • pdwidiS OLTO uodaa leu!j swawanoidwl ss=V oul `sarzuossy lsnog -misny £l mils UIUW pue 3a7 8w1jed laid eogleg • ........................ ...... I I .......... ......... ........!... �...._.. I I At I I I IIIIl11111111111111111111111111111 •• @ I , e . I I II I• I I ► $ I I p3 I I C I I I 1 I c � I I � a aIT al I 6 e E $ I •• I •YI.RC� I I R. • I \ • I I \ Y 1 I +�1 I I Ir I7 • I C I I I I�� ,tea .. 9® rr R. rtlZ Tlyoo r y r'eii I-I 9 Goo • °ri IBn �� o %I Qn P �+�r. m _ k ° } ~ to n S n 2 N N • .mmw Z n N i � E Pi � P • ! Table 1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX CONDITION EVALUATED EXISTING ALT.1 ALT.3 ALTS ALT.6 ALT. 6A 1. Additional Parking Spaces +20• +84• +21' +83' +28' +40' No interior landscaping 2. Additional parking spaces N.C. +49 -2 +50 +2 +16 With interior landscaping 3. Tour Bus Spaces 0 4 10 4 8 10 4. Accommodate OCCA YES YES YES YES YES YES 5. landscaping in Front of Residential N.C. YES Partial N.C. YES YES YES 6. Main Street Ped Mall NO Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial 7. Impact on Ferry Access N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. 8. Impact on Safety @ Boardwalk N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. N.C. 9. Improved Ped Access from Parking Lot N.C. YES YES YES YES YES 10. Engineer's Estimate of Probable -- 5750,000 $281,000 $732,000 $818,000 $663,000 Construction Cost • Includes peripheral landscaping and conversion of interior landscaping to parking spaces N.C. - no change Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 14 Austin -Fousa Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd • • • • • • • ! BID ITEMS ALT Table 2 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE ALT ALTS ALT ALT6A 1. Asphalt $150,000 $50,000 $150,000 $150.000 5100,000 2. PCC Curb $100,000 550,000 $85,000 $120,000 $90,000 3. Landscaping $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 4. Ticket Booth $100,000 - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 5. Striping $50.000 555_000 $50.000 $50.000 540_000 Sub -total $600,000 $225,000 $585,000 $620,000 $530,000 Contingencies 15% $90,000 $34,000 $88,000 $136,000 $80,000 Engineering & Program Admin 10% $60.000 $22.000 559.000 $62.000 $53.000 TOTAL $750,000 $281,000 $732,000 $818,000 5663,000 Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street Access Improvements Final Report 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 017058rpt.wpd Balboa Boulevard, which would require signalization of the intersection of Washington Street and • Balboa Boulevard. Nine new parking spaces would be added to the Balboa Pier parking lot. Comments at the workshop indicate that area business owners are interested in providing more parking for their customers, increased nighttime lighting, and layover spaces for tour buses. The business owners also raised concerns about restricting vehicular access to Main Street. Residents are concerned about tour buses which currently park in residential areas. The residents would like layover spaces provided for tour buses also. Both groups oppose concentrating exiting traffic onto the narrow Washington Street and signalizing the intersection of Washington Street at Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Point residents strongly oppose signalizing the intersection. Residents also oppose expanding the physical size of the Balboa Pier parking lot, support removing interior parking lot landscaping to gain additional spaces, providing perimeter landscaping to screen parked vehicles, and support raising parking fees and prohibiting overnight parking in the parking lot. The second workshop was held December 9,1998 and was attended by 28 people. Alternatives 1 through 4 were presented to the residents and business owners. The residents and business owners in attendance were surveyed to determine their preferences for the alternatives. Out of 30 questionnaires, Alternatives 1 and 3 received 25 (83 percent) and 22 (73 percent) votes, respectively. • Alternatives 2 and 4 were eliminated based on the infeasibility of using Washington Street as the only egress street from the lot during peak hours. Also the strong objection from residents to an added signal on Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street was a secondary factor. Approximately half the residents would prefer perimeter landscaping to landscaping within the parking lot. Residents between Palm Street and Washington Street do not want the tour buses parked directly in front of their homes, but the hotel owners do not want the tour buses parking directly in front of their pool area. Theater and business owners requested more short -term metered parking. Based on comments received at the meeting and from the questionnaires, two additional alternatives were developed. The final workshop was held February 10, 1999. Thirty -two residents and business owners were in attendance. Alternatives 5 and 6 were presented. Business owners sent letters indicating their support for Alternative 1(Appendix B) prior to this workshop and the discussion of Alternatives 5 and 6. Results of a survey at the third workshop indicate that the majority of the residents and business owners support Alternative 3 (48 percent) and Alternative 1 (37 percent). Alternative 6 received support also (19 percent). • Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 16 Austin -oust Associates, Inc Access Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.tvpd • RECOMMENDATIONS • i 0 The results of the public workshops indicates there is support for both Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 1 provides the most additional parking spaces while Alternative 3 provides only an increase in OCTA/tour bus layover spaces. The bus layover spaces in Alternatives 1 and 3 would have to be modified to provide handicapped access. Alternative 6A provides a compromise between Alternatives 1 and 3. Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street 17 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Access Improvemenis Final Report 017058rpt.wpd APPENDIX A WORKSHOP PRESENTATION Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street A -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Acmes Improvements Final Report 017058rpt.wpd • 0 0 i BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT DESIGN STUDY WORKSHOP NO, 1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT By: JOE FoUST, P.E. AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (714) 667 -0496 PENIAULA REVITALIATION BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP NO. 1 SEPTEMBER 9, 1 998 PURPOSE OF STUDY 1 DESIGN ENGINEERING FOLLOW -ON TO BALBOA PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 2. IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE PARKING LOT DESIGN A. EXISTING LAYOUT B. BPPAC 2000 RECOMMENDATIONS C. "WORKSHOP" CREATED ALTERNATIVE(S) TASKS 1. EVALUATE BPPAC RECOMMENDATIONS A. BALB ❑A PIER PARKING AND CIRCULATION'S B. MAIN STREET "PEDESTRIAN ONLY" PLAN? 0 • 2. SOLVE IDENTIFIED PARKING MANAGEMENT ISSUES A. OPPORTUNITY To ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROBLEMS - TOUR BUS LAYOVER B. IMPROVE AESTHETICS C. OTHER ISSUES 3. DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES FROM COMMUNITY INPUT • BALBOA IIARKING DESIG1A STUDY ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRIE • WORKSHOP NO. 1 2. do 4. WHAT IS (ARE) YOUR MAIN CONCERN(S) REGARDING THE CURRENT BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? WHAT, IF ANYTHING, COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE PARKING LOT? D❑ YOU HAVE AN OPINION REGARDING THE BPPAC RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BAL60A PIER PARKING LOT? YES N O IF SO, WHAT FEATURES D❑ YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE? WHAT OTHER TRAFFIC OR PARKING RELATED CONCERNS D❑ YOU HAVE REGARDING THE BALB❑A PIER PARKING LOT? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS 0 • 0 BALE OA PIER PARKING LOT DESIGN STUDY WORKSHOP NO. 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 9 BY: JOE FOUST, P.E. AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 (714) 667 -0496 • 0 �C z� P1 O q0 Q � p C W W O W U U + + z CL. z z oN U o W W O U O U U + z z z z z z N W c. U N F m + °° Y z r G _ U C 00 C W ti a y p m N •° c 'ca ❑ o U C O C z 3 a N N o W W O z r. C U U N O c� z Q C- C aE N .m O o F N 9 cl a _V Q O a c Q N O r �3 s Y tE c O r U �o to Rn 0 o C C- V r m � C m o tn 10 U o C CT-� In E O C W Q7 � 3 L � U (n .J W W O W U U + + z CL. z z oN U o W W O U O U U + z z z z z z N W c. N F m c Y r G _ U C 00 C W ti y p m N •° c 'ca ❑ o � y C O C z 3 a C q U 5 r. 1v > ` N a r. C O N O c� � Q C- C aE N .m O o F N 9 N _V Q O a c Q N O r �3 s Y tE N Sz3 O r .-r Rn 0 o C C- V r m � C m tn 10 U o C CT-� In E O C O L Q7 � 3 L � U (n o. �z �3 v E E dv ¢ H ¢ ¢3 Z a •--� N ri V vj �O [� 00 Q. O N W c. N m c Y r G O 00 C W ti N C CZ — 6 U C O C z o= o d N > ` N a r- N L o C ca O Y L co3� Q C- C E N .m O O L C N 9 N _V Q O a c U o N O r �3 s E N Sz3 .-r • • BALBOA PARKING DESIGN STUDY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WORKSHOP NO. 2 1. WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES COULD YOU SUPPORT (INCLUDING USE OF LANDSCAPED SPACES IN EXISTING LOT) ? 2. DO YOU BELIEVE ANY ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES NEED TO BE EVALUATED? IF SO, BRIEFLY DESCRIBE. 3. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING AND IMPROVING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALBOA PARKING LOT IN EXCHANGE FOR INCREASED PARKING ATTAINED THROUGH REMOVAL OF THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPING (I.E., PALM TREES)? 4. D❑ YOU SUPPORT INCREASED NIGHTTIME LIGHTING, PERHAPS WITH LOW LEVEL MOUNTING HEIGHTS, FOR SECURITY PURPOSES? 5. DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PROVIDING TOURING BUS PARKING IN THE BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT? 6. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS E • • 0 0 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION WORKSHOP #3 Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 February 10, 1999 • 0 0 �J • U 0 CD N + 00 00 W W R '�. U z U z oo0 ; 00 e P; 0 �J • U 0 M O 00 Ln N Cn CA :: d z O en 0 �J • U 0 N cq CD z e P; c4 m » c a Y L R a 0 m CD = W ti U U CD :0 + v kn a4 r- R 0 W L 1�1 'O R L = y N a W y O y A R R U O H w W C cz q R R L W Q Q a p c y n. o c E R ° ° c o.c E W U .E. 7 vi �6 n 00 0� O a 0 �J • 0 11 x> 0 0 0 0 ON 0 0 N 0 CD 0 0 ON 0 0 C m � d9 69 69 69 Vy 00 69 49 0 Cl 0 I O N 0O S .--i o O O h O W T N w � n 64 VY f19 69 69 Vi W% x> 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 (j] Q ¢ 6�4 Cl 6�9 �z� 4~A 6N9 P4 B 3 U NzWW� .. a 0 o 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 g 0 0 o oQO � t7 U�z 0 C e W E - � c U d y 0 bD U u c a3 F ti N C R V1 o U c w BALBOPPARKING DESIGATUDY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE WORKSHOP NO. 3 • FEBRUARY 1 O, 1 999 1. WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES COULD YOU SUPPORT? 2. D❑ YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE PERIPHERAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BALB❑A PARKING LOT? 3. SHOULD THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS BE CONVERTED TO PARKING SPACES? • 4. WHERE D❑ YOU BELIEVE BUS PARKING SHOULD BE LOCATED? 5. D❑ YOU SUPPORT DEDICATION OF A LARGER PORTION OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT TO METERED PARKING (SUCH AS ALTERNATIVE 6)? NAME (OPTIONAL) ADDRESS • • E 0 Ll Balboa Pier Parking L.ot and Main Street Access Improvements Final Report APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE B -I 0 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc OI7058rpt.wpd 01/19/99 Balboa Merchants[Owners Association Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 N. Tustin Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Attn: Joe Foust Dear Joe, The Balboa Merchants/Owners Association Board of Directors reviewed the Alternative Plans for the Balboa Municipal Lot your firm presented at workshop #2 in December of 1998. Our conclusions were unanimous and strongly recommend the following: 1. Alternative #1 is the best choice. 2. Increase the peripheral landscaping around the lot in exchange for increased parking attained through the removal of internal landscaping inside the lot. This would be in addition to the increased landscaping proposed in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums and the additional landscaping on the boardwalk from Palm St to Adams. 3. We strongly recommend increased nighttime pedestrian lighting for security purposes within and around the lot, extending to the entry ways into town on Palm St, Washington St. and Main St. 4. If this plan or another is approved, construction should not take place in the summer months, and should be phased in so that the lot is never completely closed to parking In addition to our recommendation, I have enclosed six other questionnaires completed by various businesses in the Balboa area. If you have any questions please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Britta Pulliam President, BMOA P.O. Box 840 Balboa, CA., 92661 Ba.lbna, Bo `hp Sea - A Womd.erfitl. Place to Be! • • • O N T H E S A N D December 10, 1998 Mr. Joe E. Foust Austin Foust Associates Inc. 2020 N. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana CA 92705 Oalboa 9)777 A T N E W P O R T Re: Balboa Parking Design Studv /City Counsel Meeting Dear Mr. Foust, Pursuant to our phone conversation, this letter shall confirm that Balboa Inn strongly supports alternatives 1 and 3 as proposed in your meeting of Dec 9th, 1999. • Alternative 5 was proposed to relocate the bus parking area close to the pier and the Balboa Inn swimming pool. We strongly oppose this plan. The bus lay over area in front of the hotel will seriously increase the noise level for the hotel residents and guests using the pool area as well as obstructing the views form all rooms. This change will probably result in substantial loss of income for the hotel operation. I will be looking forward to hearing from you in the next few days. Sinc r ly yours, Raymond artin Pourmussa Property Manager • cc:Tony Brian City of Newport (parking and traffic) 105 Main Sereer • Balboa, California 92661 • (714) 675 -3412 11 t tRag c00 ?v ��QORigEAC EAt ti LOTS A FISH - 797.7,0 `��S' March 2, 1999 Anthony Brine, P.E. Transportation Engineer City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Mr. Joe E. Foust Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 W. Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92605 Re: Balboa Pier Parking Proposal Action Plan Dear Mr. Brine and Mr. Foust: • Following the last meeting on the Balboa Pier Parking Lot, I reflected upon the various proposals and I have reconsidered some of my comments. At that meeting, I may have given the �pressicn that TI ,1v�. nv pCr pw'i :is Space iiiay At ue a pr�.Ct:Cal S^1nt10. ^.. By this letter, I want to make clear that my earlier judgment was in error. Having given further thought to the comments of you, Mr. Foust, and after consulting with other knowledgeable people, I now believe that $10,000.00 per parking space is a very wise and prudent investment for our city. Also, the removal of the small landscaped medians within the parking lot in order to allow for more parking spaces makes a great deal of sense. This parking lot is a needed facility which should be utilized to its greatest potential. • • We all know that the greatest need of the merchants within our community is an • increased number of patrons. We all know that those patrons would include visitors, residents and n •Anthony Brine, P.E. Joe E. Foust March 2, 1999 Page 2 0 seasonal renters, all of whom need, make use and benefit from greater parking facilities. As such, increasing the City's ability to provide for more parking and accommodate more people only serves to fill its obligations to the public as a steward of our beautiful beach lands. I thank both of you for your time and effort in conducting a most fine and useful meeting. DJG:vaa f. \client \00809 \63 \briafous.302 • 1] Very truly yours, Robert Roubian PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS STUDY This Agreement, entered into this 22nd day of June, 1998, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and Austin -Foust Associates Inc., whose address is 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, California, 92705 -7827 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant'), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a Municipal Corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. City is planning to implement a Parking and Circulation Study for the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and the Main Street/Central Balboa area ( "Project') C. City desires to engage Consultant to complete the "Project' including: traffic count collection, public outreach program, preliminary plan preparation, traffic analysis, and preparation of a final report, upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. D. The principal member of Consultant for purpose of this Project is Joe E. Foust, P.E. -1- E. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 22 "d day of June, 1998, and shall terminate on the 1s' day of December, 1998, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section, and the scheduled billing rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without prior written approval of the Transportation and Development Services Manager. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of twenty -two thousand one hundred dollars ($22,100.00). -2- 0 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the position of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of the Transportation and Development Services Manager and based upon the monthly invoices. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of the Transportation and Development Services Manager. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with the schedule of the billing rates as set forth in Exhibit "B ". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. -3- i C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10 %) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by 6 0 reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details and means of performing the work provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only in the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. -5- 6 0 7. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Joe E. Foust, P.E. to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "B ", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by position and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of the City Engineer. Consultant warrants it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 8. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with the schedule included as a part of the Consultant's proposal. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 0 0 Consultant shall not be responsible for delays that are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition, which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City Council. -7- 11. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, n =9I' property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all.acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence (active or passive) of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation and errors and omissions, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company certified to do business in the State of California, with original endorsements, with Best's A VII or better carriers, unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and ME rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. D. Professional errors and omissions insurance which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million Dollars ($1,000,000). Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give to City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or -10- 0 ! any of the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or co- tenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint- venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived as against Consultant and City -11- 9 assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time and in such forms as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. City will orovide access to and upon request of Consultant, provide one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Antony Brine, P.E., shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his /her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered -12- • 0 pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of withholding as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7 %) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. -13- 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or a restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. -14- 6 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, tronsferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Antony Brine, P.E City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3311 Fax (714) 644 -3318 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Joe E. Foust, P.E. Austin -Foust Associates 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 Fax: (714) 667 -7952 26. TERMINATION In the event either party hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions -15- /7 • hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt by defaulting party from the other party of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. -16- l 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereon. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 31. CADD DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall not include the professional stamp or signature of an engineer or architect. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to -17- • 0 indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. i!119I.U]:4ddi 111 VA The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Robin Clauson Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach ATTEST: City Clerk f:\groups\pubworks\agmt\98\afa.do f:" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Co omtior i City of Newport Beach CONSULTANT By: v �E r 5T do • Exhibit A I" II6WIT�ol1I "0 14W -TWITI i E PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES The consultant shall provide the following services in conjunction with this agreement: A. Review of previous studies for re- design of the Balboa Pier parking lot. Review of the Project 2000 Study and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study (BPPAC), both completed in 1997. Review of all existing parking lot plans. Review of the 1991 "Central Balboa Parking and Circulation Study." B. Proposed design schedule showing time of completion for each task and milestone. C. Participation in up to four (4) public meetings/workshops and one (1) City Council presentation as part of a public outreach program. The goal of the public outreach program shall be to solicit resident and business owner input regarding the parking and circulation concerns in the Central Balboa area. Circulation concerns include pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus traffic. Parking concerns will be primarily identified by the Parking Management Study. The first workshop shall be held after the Consultant has become familiar with all of the past studies and their recommendations. The additional workshops, up to four (4), shall be scheduled at appropriate periods during the course of the study. D. Completion of a detailed feasibility analysis for a minimum of three (3) project alternatives with the possibility of four (4) alternatives. Alternative 1 shall be the preferred alternative from the 1997 Project 2000 study. Alternative 2 shall he the preferred alternative from the 1991 Central Balboa study. Alternative 3 and 4, if needed, shall be developed by the Consultant based upon input from the initial public meeting. The feasibility analysis shall evaluate, at a minimum, the following community desires /concerns: 1) How many additional parking spaces can be provided without encroaching into the beach or park areas? 2) How well are private tour busses accommodated from both loading and parking aspects? 3) Is there reasonable accommodation for OCTA bus loading and layover needs? 0 0 Professional Engineering Services Agreement Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street Access Improvements 4) Is there adequate capacity to handle peak inbound and outbound traffic flows to the parking lot? 5) Is another traffic signal required at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street? If so, will it increase the likelihood that motorists on Balboa Boulevard will have to make more stops? 6) Does the alternative provide more landscaped area in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums and throughout the parking lot? 7) Does the segment of Main Street function wholly or partially as a pedestrian mall? 8) Impact of queuing for ferry boat along Balboa Boulevard? 9) Effect on safety at all crossings of the existing Boardwalk 10) Additional issues arising from community outreach program E. Complete conceptual engineering design plans for the preferred alternative of the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street, incorporating the elements approved during the feasibility analysis and public outreach program. F. Prepare Engineer's quantity and cost estimate for proposed project. G. Prepare a Final Report containing the findings and recommendations from the tasks described above. as VN a on P �n a W J D I W S U N W T j IG O 7 � I J v N C � N L V p N > O N a I J r a � I W ' U I U I as v on W RIB F O a z a a a �5 N C � N p > O O o f � � C o O v a c 0 o O O o¢ O p o> a v N o - a o W V1 C O O O C O O o L > > v E' E E C y Y o —y v °: w E o > D w Q o 3 N e d¢ p 0 O O J y L y u v u I 00- w[ d d w -0 c- N d a0i N v >� > O O C N 7 C O N N> C O O N C O u dw C) 0- o a K o U Q [O U O w Li C5 2 - Y r a � I W ' U I U I as v on W RIB F O a z a a a �5 0 0 EXHIBIT B Personnel Allocation Classification Rate Hours Cost Principal Traffic Engineer, P.E. $130 56 $7,280 Transportation Engineer 80 80 6,400 Design Drafter 55 80 4,400 Techrucal /Clerical 50 40 2000 SU - TOT.AL 520,080 Direct Expenses: Traffic count, by TDS. Inc. Estimate 6 pk arrival /departure period counts 51.200 Estimate 6 24 -hour machine counts 420 Estimate 2 ped counts 200 Estimate 2 ferry counts 200 TOTAL S22.ID4 June 22,1998 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL UN Z FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS– AWARU- OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Austin -Foust Associates Inc., for the preparation of a Parking and Circulation Study of the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street/Central Balboa area. DISCUSSION: In 1991, the City prepared a parking and circulation study for the Central Balboa area. Several alternative configurations for a re- design of the Balboa Pier Parking Lot were developed and evaluated in this study, which was completed by Austin -Foust Associates. Last year's "Project 2000" Study included recommendations to reconstruct Main Street south of Balboa Boulevard for pedestrian use only, and to re- design the Balboa Pier Parking Lot to increase parking, improve access and provide new bus drop -off and layover areas. The current study will analyze and compare the previous proposals, and will also develop new ideas to improve Central Balboa parking and circulation. The consultant will coordinate their efforts with Meyer - Mohaddes Associates, who are currently preparing the peninsula -wide Parking Management Study. A comprehensive scope of work for this Parking and Circulation Study was developed by staff and is detailed in the Exhibit A of the Professional Services Agreement (attached). The extensive public outreach program established during the BPPAC process will be continued. At least four (4) public meetings with area business owners and residents will be held. A detailed feasibility analysis will be completed for three (3) project alternatives. One alternative will be the "Project 2000" recommendation. The second alternative will be the 1991 Central Balboa study recommendation. The third alternative will be developed through the public outreach process. Preliminary design • plans and an engineering cost estimate will be prepared for the preferred alternative. SUBJECT: BALBOA PIERORKING LOT AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS June 22, 1997 Page 2 Requests for Proposals (RFP) were sent to a total of five (5) firms, and proposals were received from three (3) firms. The three (3) firms were interviewed by Public Works and Planning staff, along with a Central Balboa business owner. Based on a careful review of the firms' qualifications, proposals, and the interviews, the firm of Austin -Foust Associates Inc. was selected as the preferred firm. The key factors that distinguished Austin -Foust Associates Inc. was their previous experience in, and extensive knowledge of, the study area; their public outreach approach; and their understanding of the project goals. It is recommended that the Council authorize the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Austin -Foust Associates Inc. The negotiated fee is $22,100, which would be drawn from the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Pedestrian Access project (Account No. 7022- C5100376), and is included in the FY 97 -98 approved budget. Respectfully submi �a PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director Antony�E. Traffic Engineer Attachment: Professional Services Agreement \\ dp�sys \groups\pubworks \wuncin98\ une- 22\pier.doc L 0 0 0 11 • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS STUDY This Agreement, entered into this 22nd day of June, 1998, by and between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), and Austin -Foust Associates Inc., whose address is 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, California, 92705 -7827 (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant'), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a Municipal Corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of the City. B. City is planning to implement a Parking and Circulation Study for the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and the Main Street/Central Balboa area ('Project'). C. City desires to engage Consultant to complete the `Project' including: traffic count collection, public outreach program, preliminary plan preparation, traffic analysis, and preparation of a final report, upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. D. The principal member of Consultant for purpose of this Project is Joe E. Foust, P.E. • -1- 0 0 0 E. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant and desires to contract with Consultant under the terms of conditions provided in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned Parties as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 22nd day of June, 1998, and shall terminate on the 151 day of December, 1998, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the duties set forth in the scope of services, • attached hereto as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services in accordance with the provisions of this Section, and the scheduled billing rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. No rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without prior written approval of the Transportation and Development Services Manager. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement shall not exceed the total contract price of twenty -two thousand one hundred dollars ($22,100.00). -2- 9 • C� 0 0 3.1 Consultant shall maintain accounting records of its billings which includes the position of the employee, type of work performed, times and dates of all work which is billed on an hourly basis and all approved incidental expenses including reproductions, computer printing, postage and mileage. 3.2 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City payable by City within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice subject to the approval of the Transportation and Development Services Manager and based upon the monthly invoices. 3.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for extra work without prior written authorization of the Transportation and Development Services Manager. Any authorized compensation shall be paid in accordance with the schedule of the billing rates Sas set forth in Exhibit "B ". 3.4 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses which have been specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Such cost shall be limited and shall include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services which Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Approved computer data processing and reproduction charges. -3- 0 0 • C. Actual costs and /or other costs and /or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 3.5 Notwithstanding any other paragraph or provision of this Agreement, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement, City may withhold payment of ten percent (10 %) of each approved payment as approved retention until all services under this Agreement have been substantially completed. 4. STANDARD OF CARE 4.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement and that it will • perform all services in a manner commensurate with the community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City nor have any contractual relationship with City. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has or shall obtain all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 4.2 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by n U CS • 0 0 reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies, or any other delays beyond Consultant's control or without Consultant's fault. 5. INDEPENDENT PARTIES City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the details and means of performing the work provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement which may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance of the services or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean that Consultant shall follow the desires of City only in the results of the services. 6. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or interest in the work to be performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the Project. -5- 0 0 7. PROJECT MANAGER 0 Consultant shall assign the Project to a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Project term. Consultant has designated Joe E. Foust, P.E. to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not bill any personnel to the Project other than those personnel identified in Exhibit "B ", whether or not considered to be key personnel, without City's prior written approval by position and specific hourly billing rate. Consultant shall not remove or reassign any personnel designated in this Section or assign any new or replacement person to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its r personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of the City Engineer. Consultant warrants it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. B. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of the services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed by Consultant in accordance with the schedule included as a part of the Consultant's proposal. The failure by Consultant to strictly adhere to the schedule, may result in termination of this Agreement by City, and the assessment of damages against Consultant for delay. Notwithstanding the foregoing, • U 0 0 Consultant shall not be responsible for delays that are due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 8.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition, which purportedly causes a delay, and not later than the date upon which performance is due. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays, which are beyond Consultant's control. 8.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall irespond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand delivery or mail. 9. CITY POLICY Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 10. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE REQUIREMENT All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state and federal law, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City Council. 0 -7- 0 11. PROGRESS 0 Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 12. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, allegations of liability, suits, costs and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, or any other claims arising from any and all acts or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply even in the event of negligence (active or passive) of City, or its employees, or other contractors, excepting only the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees, and shall include attorneys' fees and all other costs incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing, any award of attorneys' fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. 13. INSURANCE Without limiting consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the • 0 Ll . term of this Agreement policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to City. Certification of all required policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Except workers compensation and errors and omissions, all insurance policies shall add City, its elected officials, officers, agents, representatives and employees as additional insured for all liability arising from Consultant's services as described herein. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company certified to do business in the State of California, with original endorsements, with Best's A VII or better carriers, unless otherwise approved by the City Risk Manager. • A. Worker's compensation insurance covering all employees and principals of • Consultant, per the laws of the State of California. B. Commercial general liability insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation, contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this Project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit. C. Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and 0 rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined • single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. D. Professional errors and omissions insurance which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million Dollars ($1,000,000). Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) days' prior notice has been given in writing to City. Consultant shall give to City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, that Consultant shall look solely to its insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either Consultant or City with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right of subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. 14. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS i, Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or -10- 0 0 any of the services to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without consent of City shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or co- tenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint- venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power, or twenty -five percent (25 %) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture. 15. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS • Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document s reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be the exclusive property of City. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed documents for other projects and any use of incomplete documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived as against Consultant and City -11- E assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. Consultant shall, at such time and in such forms as City may require, furnish reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY The information, which results from the services in this Agreement, is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. 17. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of his responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to provide the following: A. City will provide access to and upon request of Consultant, provide one copy of all existing record information on file at City. Consultant shall be • entitled to rely upon the accuracy of data information provided by City or others without independent review or evaluation. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. 18. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Public Works Department. Antony Brine, P.E., shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his /her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered • NVZ 0 0 pursuant to this Agreement. 19. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 20. WITHHOLDINGS . City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute • with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of withholding as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7 %) per annum from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. -13- 0 21. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 9 In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and /or a restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under any other sections of this Agreement. 22. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 23. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act "), which (1) requires such . persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. SEE • 24. SUBCONSULTANT AND ASSIGNMENT A. Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services included in this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted without prior written approval of City. 25. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: • Antony Brine, P.E City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (714) 644 -3311 Fax (714) 644 -3318 • All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attention: Joe E. Foust, P.E. Austin -Foust Associates 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952 26. TERMINATION In the event either party hereto fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions -15- 0 9 hereof at the time and in the manner required hereunder, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days, or if more than two (2) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) days after receipt by defaulting party from the other party of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, the non - defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. 26.1 City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon termination of this Agreement, City shall pay to the Consultant that portion of compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of termination. 27. COMPLIANCES Consultant shall comply with all laws, state or federal and all ordinances, rules and regulations enacted or issued by City. 28. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein whether of the same or a different character. -16- 0 29. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions hereon. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written execution signed by both City and Consultant. 30. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as 0 compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. • 31. CADD DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall not include the professional stamp or signature of an engineer or architect. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to -17- 0 0 indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of • such CADD data. 32. PATENT INDEMNITY The Consultant shall indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A Municipal Corporation By: By: Robin Clauson Thomas Edwards, Mayor Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach ATTEST: CONSULTANT By: By: City Clerk f:l groupslpubworks\agmt\98\afa.doc M is i 0 Exhibit A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT AND MAIN STREET ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES The consultant shall provide the following services in conjunction with this agreement: A. Review of previous studies for re- design of the Balboa Pier parking lot. Review of the Project 2000 Study and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study (BPPAC), both completed in 1997. Review of all existing parking lot plans. Review of the 1991 "Central Balboa Parking and Circulation Study." B. Proposed design schedule showing time of completion for each task and milestone. C. Participation in up to four (4) public meetings /workshops and one (1) City Council • presentation as part of a public outreach program. The goal of the public outreach program shall be to solicit resident and business owner input regarding the parking and circulation concerns in the Central Balboa area. Circulation concerns include pedestrian, private auto, public transit, and private tour bus traffic. Parking concerns will be primarily identified by the Parking Management Study. The first workshop shall be held after the Consultant has become familiar with all of the past studies and their recommendations. The additional workshops, up to four (4), shall be scheduled at appropriate periods during the course of the study. D. Completion of a detailed feasibility analysis for a minimum of three (3) project alternatives with the possibility of four (4) alternatives. Alternative 1 shall be the preferred alternative from the 1997 Project 2000 study. Alternative 2 shall be the preferred alternative from the 1991 Central Balboa study. Alternative 3 and 4, if needed, shall be developed by the Consultant based upon input from the initial public meeting. The feasibility analysis shall evaluate, at a minimum, the following community desires /concerns: 1) How many additional parking spaces can be provided without encroaching into the beach or park areas? 2) How well are private tour busses accommodated from both loading and parking aspects? 3) Is there reasonable accommodation for OCTA bus loading and layover needs? Professional Engineering Services Agreement Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street Access Improvements 4) Is there adequate capacity to handle peak inbound and outbound traffic flows to the parking lot? 5) Is another traffic signal required at the intersection of Balboa Boulevard at Washington Street? If so, will it increase the likelihood that motorists on Balboa Boulevard will have to make more stops? 6) Does the alternative provide more landscaped area in front of the Rendezvous Condominiums and throughout the parking lot? 7) Does the segment of Main Street function wholly or partially as a pedestrian mall? 8) Impact of queuing for ferry boat along Balboa Boulevard? 9) Effect on safety at all crossings of the existing Boardwalk 10) Additional issues arising from community outreach program E. Complete conceptual engineering design plans for the preferred alternative of the Balboa Pier Parking Lot and Main Street, incorporating the elements approved during the feasibility analysis and public outreach program. F. Prepare Engineer's quantity and cost estimate for proposed project. 0 G. Prepare a Final Report containing the findings and recommendations from the tasks described above. i u O m 7 v L V N N L1J I I n mn N N m, E E cu J i EXHIBIT B Personnel Allocation Classification Rate Hours Cost Principal Traffic Engineer, P.E. $130 56 57,280 Transportation Engineer 80 80 6,400 Iksign Drafter 55 80 4,400 Technical/Clerical 50 40 2.000 SUB -TOTAL 520.080 Direct EsTenscs: Traffic count, be TDS. Inc. Estimate 6 pk arrival/departure period counts 51.200 Estimate 6 24 -hour machine counts 420 Estimate 2 ped counts 200 Estimate 2 fem counts 200 TOTAL 52"L" • •