Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Balboa Resident Parking Permit Program (PA2014-016) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed October 27, 2015 Item No. 14 Rieff, Kim From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:50 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Parking Permits on Balboa For the record. -----Original Message ----- From: Gay Holmes [mailto:igholmes55@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 1:39 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Parking Permits on Balboa Dear City Council, We cannot attend the meeting tomorrow night regarding the parking permits. But please reconsider. I totally agree with Susan Upson (Oct 24th Daily Pilot)that the residents shouldn't have to pay for parking permits. We shouldn't have to pay to park in front of our own house! And we shouldn't have to pay for friends/family that are visiting us! Don't send out another survey or discuss this any further. It is a ridiculous idea and would be a hassle in the long run to implement. (Are there going to be ugly signs posted everywhere along the streets so the poor unsuspecting tourists don't get a ticket?? Stop this craziness! Jaime and Gay Holmes 201 E Edgewater Ave From: Michelle DeNoon To: Campbell, James Subject: RP3 9 (follow-up letter) Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015 10:49:50 AM MICHELLE DENOON 315 ANADE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RP3... INFORMATION INPUT, AND REQUEST FOR THIS TO BE PRESENTED AT MEETING, ON THE 27TH. THE ISSUE IS "NOT" JUST THE "NO NIGHT-TIME PARKING FOR NON-RESIDENTS", IT IS THE ISSUE OF "NO DAY -TIME PARKING BY NON-RESIDENTS" WHO COME TO THE BEACH AND DISCOVER THEY CAN PARK ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND "HIKE" ACROSS THE BOULEVARD TO BEACH, OR USE THE NICE BAY SAND AREAS ALONG EDGEWATER PLACE. THEY ARE WELCOME TO USE THESE AREAS, BUT THEY NEED TO PARK ON BOULEVARD AT METERS, OR PIER PARKING LOT AS CITY INTENDED. I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES PARK ON MY STREET (ANADE AVE). THEY UNLOAD MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND LOAD UP MULTIPLE WAGONS FULL AND HIKE TO BAY AVE, TO ISLAND AVE, CROSS BALBOA BLVD TO BEACH, AND NOT RETURN FOR 6 HOURS OR MORE. AND MY NEIGHBORS ON MONTERO, MEDINA, AND ALVARADO, EXPERIENCE THE SAME ISSUE. WE RUN ERRANDS AND COME BACK TO OUR STREETS AND FIND "NO" PARKING AVAILABLE!!!!! WE LIVE HERE!!!! AND IF RP3 DOES NOT EXTEND TO ISLAND AVE, OR BEYOND, ON BAY AVE, THEN WE RESIDENTS WILL BE PARKING ON THOSE STREETS, IN COMPETITION WITH THEIR RESIDENTS. WHY NOT JUST MAKE THE PERMITS 24 HOURS FOR WE RESIDENTS???????. DOUBLE THE COST... STILL CHEAPER THAN THE YEAR ROUND NEWPORT BEACH CITY PERMITS, TO USE BLUE METERS. MONEY IS ACCRUED FOR CITY, AND WE HAVE PARKING AVAILABLE. I PURCHASED A YEAR LONG "SENIOR" CITY PARKING PERMIT FOR $65 DOLLARS, SO I COULD PARK ON BOULEVARD... WHICH "MAKES NO SENSE!!!! I WANT TO MAKE IT TO THE MEETING ON THE 27TH, BUT I AM CAREGIVING MY 89 YEAR OLD MOTHER... THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE... NO PARKING CLOSE TO HOUSE,WHEN I LEAVE FOR DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS. HAVE TO "DROP HER OFF", WHILE DOUBLE PARKED, ASSIT HER GETTING INTO HOUSE, GO BACK TO CAR, AND "HUNT" FOR PARKING. JUST MAKE THE PERMITS "24 HOURS FOR RESIDENTS"!PPP!. AT $32 ( I WOULD PAY $40-50 A YEAR, TO HAVE SPACES AVAILABLE). 24 HOUR PERMITS AVOID NON-RESIDENTS ALL TOGETHER, WHO CAN PARK AT BLUE METERS AS INTENDED.... PURCHASE OF PERMITS FOR "OUR" VISITORS STILL APPLIES. (MAYBE BY -THE -WEEK OPTION AS WELL... HOLIDAY PERIODS) 24 HOUR PERMITS!!!! MAKES SENSE!!!! SEND ANOTHER POST CARD TO US WITH THIS OPTION, AND I BET IT WILL HAVE OVERWHELMING APPROVAL!!!!! 24, 24, 24, 24, 24, 24! Michelle DeNoon mid.idme@yahoo.com 949 675 8347 From: Dato, Robert M. To: Campbell, James Subject: Question re Balboa Residential Parking Permit Program Date: Monday, October 26, 2015 10:01:57 AM Mr. Campbell: I am the owner at 127 E. Bay Avenue and have been since 1991. I am very much in favor of the permit parking program. But I have a question: My lot is currently zoned R2. Would that be considered two 'units" under the program? Thank you for any assistance you can provide. :•9 UNT. me, Robert M. Dato Certified Specialist, Appellate Law BuchalterNemer, A Professional Corporation 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 1 Irvine, CA 92612-0514 Direct Dial: (949) 224-6245 1 Cell Phone: (714) 878-2971 1 Switchboard: (949) 760-1121 Email: rdatoCa)buchalter.com I www.buchalter.com Notice To Recipient: This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For additional policies governing this e-mail, please see http://www.buchalter.com/about/firm-policies/. From: Kelly Honia To: Campbell. James Subject: Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP3) - Hearing Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:02:04 AM James Campbell Principal Planner City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell: We are in receipt of the notice of public hearing regarding the Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP3). We are unable to attend the hearing but want to express our concerns regarding the program. Our home is at 306 Lindo Avenue, just outside the proposed area of RP3. We are concerned that being just outside the RP3 area, we will see a significant increase in people attempting park on Lindo and surrounding streets as a result of the program. The proposed program will not do anything to solve the overnight residential parking problem, but will simply move it into a wider area. The ONLY potential solution to satisfy all residents of Balboa Peninsula is to expand the program to cover the entire peninsula, not merely the limited zone that is being contemplated. Anything less than a program covering the entire peninsula will simply push the parking issues out to a wider area and negatively impact residents along the borders of the proposed area. We would be happy to discuss this with you or your staff at your convenience. Thank you for attention to our concerns. Best regards, Keith and Kelly Honig 306 Lindo Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92661 Cell 818/521-7009 Rieff, Kim From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:40 PM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Balboa Overnight Resident Parking Permit Program (RP3) From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 4:39:37 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Balboa Overnight Resident Parking Permit Program (RP3) -----Original Message ----- From: Randy Black [mailto:randysocal@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 3:25 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Balboa Overnight Resident Parking Permit Program (RP3) To the honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I live in phase one of the affected area and strongly support the proposed RP3 parking permit program. As a physically disabled person, street parking becomes much more difficult when I am forced to park many blocks away because all of the spaces near my home are occupied. The permit program would be a great boon to the elderly and disabled in our area. It is clear after all the polling and previous meetings that a majority of the residents (particularly in phase one) support the program. The objections of the opponents appear to primarily arise from an unwillingness to pay $16 per year for an annual permit. While the $16 amount seems quite reasonable to me, the opponents' objections could be alleviated by making the permit cost even more nominal. Respectfully, Randy Black Received After Agenda Printed October 27, 2015 Item No. 14 Comments on Council Item 14 (October 27, 2015) The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(aD-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 14. Balboa Resident Preferential Parking Program (PA2014-016) 1. Since the avowed purpose of the proposed program is to exclude visitors from parking on public streets in a popular coastal recreation area without permission from local residents, I suspect it is very unlikely the California Coastal Commission will ever grant a Coastal Development Permit for such a program. a. Compounding the problem, I thought the CCC's granting of a CDP was possible only if the City had previously found the proposal consistent with all other codes. b. But the program described in the staff report is manifestly inconsistent with NBMC Chapter 12.68 ("Residents' Preferential Parking") as it currently stands, including such details as the kind (left rear bumper stickers) and number (maximum of three per unit, including visitors) of permits allowed. 2. Given that the existing code will have to be modified by ordinance, the staff report confusingly enumerates on pages 4-6 the findings necessary for a new ordinance adding the area to the list of RP3 zones in NBMC Section 12.68.060 ("Preferential Parking Zones— Locations and Restrictions") without actually proposing an ordinance at this time. a. Of those "Required Findings," I have particular problems with Findings 1 and 2: that parking by nonresidents is depriving residents of access to a majority of the spaces. While I find it quite possible that in the middle of a summer day a majority of the spaces in this area are occupied by visitors uninvited by the residents, I find it very difficult to believe a majority of the spaces are occupied by uninvited visitors during most of the hours proposed – for example, at 3 a.m. on a winter night, or even at 3 a.m. on a summer night (especially on the streets more distant from the commercial area). ii. The staff report says only that parking in the area is "routinely impacted by non-residents." That is undoubtedly true, but it is quite different from claiming non-residents occupy more than half the spaces in the requested area during the requested hours. b. The response to Finding 3 implies that alternative overnight parking is readily available on the metered streets and lots of the commercial village. I'm not sure there is, currently, any arrangement to pay in advance for a car that will be left overnight and picked up the next day. I suspect such an arrangement is available only in the Balboa Pier lot. c. The first part of the response to Finding 4 (and the statement at the top of page 3 of the staff report) about the level of support conflicts with the information presented at the BVAC meeting on May 13, 2015. October 27, 2015, Council Item 14 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 According to that report, the response rate to the 1,297 ballots sent out was indeed 57.2%, but of those the fraction showing support for the RP3 was 51.8% not 57.8%. Those numbers are supported by an updated report submitted to BVAC on September 9, 2015, at which time three additional ballots (1 in favor and 2 opposed) had been received. It is in that report that the 59.1 % support figure appears, but it is not clear exactly what sub -area that figure refers to. iii. It might be noted that this includes ballots sent to non-residents (such as absentee landlords and non-liveaboard mooring holders), and that not every resident was allowed to vote (more like one ballot per address or unit?). d. The response to Finding 5 seems nothing more than pure speculation as to where the displaced visitors might go, and that instituting the RP3 in one residential area will not impact nearby residential areas. To the contrary, I thought the reason for the two phases was a suspicion that spillover from Phase 1 would affect the Phase 2 area, and that if and when Phase 2 is instituted it might generate still move spillover. 3. Regarding the long paragraph on page 3 of the staff report dealing with staff's confidence, despite the incomplete balloting, in the existence of majority support for the program, I happen to be the resident referred to in the first sentence and author of the software tool used. a. That software is archived at: http://ldrv.ms/1MIFTiw and includes a "ReadMe" file expressing a number of cautions regarding the potential use and misuse of the tool. b. It might be added that the software tool was developed in response to the comments of former Council members Leslie Daigle and Nancy Gardner on Item 20 on the Council's November 25, 2014, agenda, in which they questioned staff's ability to demonstrate "to the Council's satisfaction" that a majority of residents support the RP3 when positive responses had been received from less than 50% plus 1 of those residents. That issue, and additional difficulties in making that assessment, is discussed in more detail in the "ReadMe" file at the above location. c. That said, staff has never contacted the author to solicit his opinion as to whether his tool is being properly and meaningfully applied in this report, and it is impossible to verify staff's conclusion since the data on which that conclusion is based (that is, the numbers input to the program) are not revealed in the staff report. i. That said, the staff report may misleadingly give the impression it is possible to have 99.6% confidence that the 56.6% favorable result is somehow the "correct" answer. At most the software tool would indicate that a 56.6% or higher result would not have been observed in the limited sample if the true level of support in the population as a whole was less than 50%. In addition for the results of the tool to be meaningful, its assumptions about randomness and lack of bias in the polling need to be met, which, as detailed in the "ReadMe" file, is unlikely to be the case here. Received After Agenda Printed October 27, 2015 Item No. 14 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:32 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP#) - Our Property at 504 East Oceanfront Attachments: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device.pdf In the City Clerk's inbox. Kim From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:14 PM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP#) - Our Property at 504 East Oceanfront From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:14:16 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP#) - Our Property at 504 East Oceanfront For Item 14 tonight. From: Jim Petrilli [mailtoJameslpet(5cImail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:55 AM To: Campbell, James Cc: Ward Brien Subject: Fwd: Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program (RP#) - Our Property at 504 East Oceanfront Dear Mr. Campbell: Myself and my wife Shelly Petrilli and her parents Ward and Anne Brien, own the a property at 504 East Oceanfront. This property is the third lot East from Adams Street. These lots are very narrow, so from our alley our property is located approximately 20 yards from Adams street. We have owned this property for over 25 years and ourselves as well as our tenants at the property often park on Adams street overnight when there is availability. We received the attached notice and read that if the proposal goes through that only residents of the area will be apply to apply for permits. On the attached notice it appears that the first two lots east of Adams Street on the Oceanfront are within the zone but our lot being the third is not. Is this correct? We want to make sure that we would be considered a resident of this area also. If we are not then this does not seem fair to us as this we would not ever be able to park a car on Adams overnight when this is the main access point to our property and as that we are only 20 yards from Adams Street. To further bolster my point, on the attached map you will notice that the four lots on the east side Adams street that are just north of Balboa street are shaded and these four lots extend further from Adams street then my lot is located from Adams street. I am not sure what kind of residences these are, put if they have a unit that is towards the back of this lot, that resident would be able to get a parking pass for Adams street, but residents at my property that might be closer to Adams street would not be able to. Can you please let us know if there is any way to insure that if this proposal goes through that we will be considered a resident of this area and will be able to purchase parking passes. Thank you, James Petrilli 2501 Bamboo Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-632-3352 Pads 0 :asEl*##AAwq F!!i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ R HOLLON `3NIHV3H MUM ■ T.`sSMr= dWT 7MVIBOdL � ■ ■ ■ 9926 VO'WegS IMMON ■ ■ 31NObi NV300 ti05 � ■ ■ � juap4sa8 Jo aauMO t' ■ N ■ ■ ■ ■ 5169-SS9Z6 V3'g3Q3QuadMaN ■ 89Lf XO$'Ud ��µxnettyJ ■ ■ r G Z t .P iC is l #tk ra 3AU(I I-I)Ua3 JIAlo 001 r ■ IN 1141-1a10 Si!o aga3o ooUjo `'bodMa�'b IA 5 a9-ra irfs"fr'nuf°.f■caf arm. i �� fie i ��� ` I�6�° ' •� � l�,� �� � fir 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ Room a ■ all October 27, 2015 Item No. 14 From the Desk of ' E 1 . F-- L_F) Deanna M. Schnabel _� 20115 OCT1. Aid. 9: 5I. October 11, 2015 - .11 . _ r - The Honorable Edward D. Selich CP, City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mayor Selich: Subject: Support— Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) I encourage you and the members of the Newport Beach City Council to approve the proposed RP3 program put forth by residents. The program represents the first viable option to improve parking for residents since the Red Cars were eliminated and the peninsula became a year-round residential location. Why is it needed? 1. The area west of the Balboa Fun Zone is comprised of mixed use housing, e.g., single and multi family homes, apartments, rentals, and older properties built between 1920 and 1960. These older properties have no parking, one car lots, or garages designed for Model A's. Parking is inadequate to begin with. 2. The neighborhood's close proximity to the Fun Zone makes it a convenient parking area for employees, customers, fisherman, Catalina Flyer patrons, and, beach goers. (The area east of the Fun Zone does not have street parking until you reach Peninsula Point.) In recognition of parking congestion, the City of Newport Beach as hired seven different consultants between 1993 and 2015 to study the issue. Each of these consultants has recommended programs similar to the RP3. • 1993 RUDAT Balboa Concept Plan O 2011 Nelson Nygarrd ® 1996 Urban Design Camp ® 2013 Nelson Nygarrd • 2000 Project 2000 ! 2013 Urban Land Institute ® 2009 Walker Report The RP3 does not guarantee residents a parking space in the evening. It simply gives them more opportunity to find parking near their homes while redirecting Fun Zone users to the pay parking lots near the Balboa Pier. Furthermore, it does not exclude the public from the beach because they have free parking during daylight hours, and pay parking during evening hours. This is an important Coastal Commission issue. 1 understand that a few residents oppose the RP3. I also understand that change is difficult for some people. It has taken our residential group five years to bring this issue before the City Council for consideration. I encourage you to adopt the program, if only on a trial basis to see if it works. At the end of that time, the program can be evaluated and eliminated if it proves unsuccessful. Thank you for your attention. Sine rely, Received After Agenda Printed october 27, 2015 Item No. 14 From: Cly Clerk"s Office To: McDonald. Cristal: Mulvey. Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: RP3 Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:11:17 PM From: Campbell, James Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:11:16 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: RP3 Late correspondence for Item 14 From: The McKellars [mailto:twojlm@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:07 PM To: Campbell, James Subject: RP3 Jim, thanks for your call and taking time to explain the City's position on the above. However, I would cast my vote as negative, opposed to the Balboa Residential Permit Parking Program. Sincerely/ James McKellar 326 Anade Ave Received After Agenda Printed October 27, 2015 Item No. 14 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:25 PM To: McDonald, Cristal; Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Balboa Resident Preferential Parking Program From: adam mikkelsen Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:24:52 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Fwd: Balboa Resident Preferential Parking Program Dear Sir - I wanted to submit a comment for the public hearing tonight (I am unable to attend). I live at 310 Montero, and am supportive of the proposed program. It should (hopefully) make it significantly easier for local residents and their guests to obtain parking, particularly during the summer when people on fishing trips and Catalina excursions leave their cars parked in the local streets for days on end. My one issue is with the phase 1/phase 2 proposal. Montero is the dividing line for this. My concern is that in phase 1, all of the non -permitted visitor traffic will be 'pushed' back to parking on Montero and west of Montero, making it even harder for residents and their guests to find parking on those streets. My suspicion is that Montero is close enough to the fun zone for it not to be deterrent to visitors - in fact I often see fisherman leaving from the fun zone parking on Montero and Anade and walking to the commercial fishing boats. My suggestion would be to implement the program in one phase, so that the streets west of Montero branching off from east bay ave (i.e. Montero to Island) are all subject to the program from day one, and long term visitor parking is more likely to end up in the carparks at the pier. yours sincerely Adann Mikkelsen 949 322 5508