Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 - Appeal of Lido Marina Village Parking Management Plan Amendment - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed January 23, 2018 Item No. 7 January 23, 2018, City Council Item 7 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 7. Appeal of Lido Marina Village Parking Management Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2017-019 (PA2017-135) The corrected passages shown in italics below are from the draft resolution of denial. 1. It does seem strange Electra Cruises feels the Planning Commission was being misinformed by staff and the applicant, but (even though, I believe, being present in the audience) made no effort at the time, in writing or in person, to correct the record. 2. Staff's statement (page 7-3 of 1/23/2018 staff report) that "the appellant has not provided a copy of the [parking] agreement" — the essence of which seems to be that at times when the LVM parking structure is full, DJM has promised to offer Electra patrons (at no extra cost to them) an alternate off-street parking location with shuttle service to and from it -- also seems strange, since a signed copy of the agreement is reproduced on pages 7-301 and 302, and both applicant and appellant (in Attachments F and G) say it has been repeatedly presented to the City. The statement that the disputed private agreement is not "germane" to the appeal also seems a bit peculiar since the success of the proposed Parking Management Plan itself is contingent on other private parking agreements (see, for example, Conditions of Approval 6 and 7, as well as 11, which seems closely related to the Electra agreement). 3. Page 7-10: The second "whereas" needs to be amended, and an additional one added, to indicate the January 9, 2018, hearing was noticed, but not held and continued to January 23, and add the particulars of the January 23 hearing. 4. Page 7-11: "E. Shuttle Management Plan dated August 9, 2015 2017' 5. Page 7-12: "In accordance with NBMC Section 20.40.110(8)(1) (Reduction in Off -Street Parking), the following conditions are set forth for the parking reduction and Parking Management Plan (PMP1:" 6. Page 7-12: Fact A.3: "Off-site parking via shuttle service is available for employees at 540 Superior Avenue during peak parking periods." [? from page 7-65, it is actually 530 and 540 Superior] 7. Page 7-12: Fact A.4 is very poorly worded, leaving it uncertain what "customers" the parking is for, and whether it is available to them or to valets only. 8. Page 7-13: Fact C.1 states the shuttle service to 540 Superior Avenue will be available "for employees or patrons," where elsewhere it seems understood it is for employees only. Either way, given the limited hours of the shuttle operation (4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on some days and apparently random "peak periods" on others), I am uncertain how anyone arriving by it has any assurance a return ride will be available when they leave. 9. Page 7-13: Does the 55 on -street spaces include those in front of the LVM shops along Via Lido? If not, why not? If so, why is Via Lido not listed? Note: the table on page 7-55 (dated January 23, 2018, Council Item 7 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 11/3/2014) lists "new" Total street parking as 64. Is that still current after changes to Central Avenue Pier plaza? 10. Page 7-14, Fact CA: "The parking facility at 3700 Newport Boulevard provides twenty (20) valet parking spaces and is located within adjacent to LMV and will be accessible for LMV from 7.00 p.m. through 2:00 a.m., daily, when office uses are closed." ["LVM" is quite specifically defined in the first "Whereas" of the resolution, on page 7-9, as consisting only of the DJM properties. It appears 3700 Newport Boulevard (the first office building on the left after crossing the bridge] is "within Lido Village" but not within LVM as defined in the present resolution.] 11. Page 7-14, Fact D.3: "The off-site parking lot located at 3700 Newport Boulevard is a private surface parking lot within abutting LMV and on -street parking is not utilized to satisfy the required parking requirements." [note: contrary to this finding, in Fact J.2 on page 7-17, the existence of 55 on -street parking spots appears to be cited as a key component of the PMP.] 12. Page 7-15: Fact F.4 seems redundant with, and could be effectively combined with F.3. 13. Page 7-16, Finding G: The finding of consistency with the General Plan should presumably include consideration of policies not just in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, but also it other elements such as the Harbor and Bay Element, as well as the Implementation Program. 14. Page 7-16, Fact G.2, sentence 2: "Analysis undo of the parking monitoring data and implementation of the amended PMP will ensure that an adequate supply of parking is provided for LMV based upon the shared use of parking within LMV and off-site parking for patrons or employees when parking demand warrants it." 15. Page 7-17, Finding I: 1 believe the previous building at 3450 Via Oporto was completely gutted, redesigned and rebuilt to make may for Nobu, without benefit of a Coastal Development Permit, even though to most that would seem like development, or consideration of access impacts. I also see no evidence the project has improved views of the harbor from the interior of LMV. 16. Page 7-18, Fact K.4: The statement that "renovation of the site involves very limited intensification" seems highly questionable if one is comparing this to the blighted, high - vacancy state that the other facts claim preceded this revitalization. 17. Page 7-20, Condition 1: "... any amendments to the PMP shall be reviewed and be approved by the Community Development Director with notice on the Planning Commission agenda prior to expiration of the appeal period for decisions of the Community Development Director." Is this understood to mean an actual notice of a chance to appeal the Director decision will appear on the Brown Act compliant printed and posted agenda page? Or that an announcement will appear buried within the processing of an agenda item during the meeting, such as a verbal mention within a "Directors' Report"? The former would be a good innovation, but I do not recall ever seeing notices of a chance to appeal anything other than agenda items (if even that) on the actual posted agenda page. 18. Page 7-20, Condition 2: "In no case shall higher intensity land uses (e.g. restaurant and nail salon that have a higher parking requirement than the base retail rate) exceed the maximum January 23, 2018, Council Item 7 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 gross floor area of uses identified in the Land Use Summary dated November 3, 2014, attached as Exhibit "D" to this resolution." 19. Page 7-20, Condition 4: How many spaces are there in the LMV parking structure? Is the requirement to provide 341 self -park spaces plus 35 valet ones feasible after removing the spaces necessary to make room for the 131 to 137 valet -parked employee cars in the PMP? Page 7-139 (from the Planning Commission staff report) suggests 341 and 376 are the total capacity of the structure. To me, after removing an entire level for employee valet parking, it doesn't seem feasible to expect 341 self -parking spaces to still be left. 20. Page 7-20, Condition 7: "A minimum of one hundred (100) parking spaces shall be provided free of charge for employees at 540 Superior Avenue on Fridays, and Saturdays from 4:00 p.m. aml to 10:00 p.m. and when anticipated parking structure occupancy exceeds eighty- five (85) percent (such as for special events or when the property manager and Community Development Director anticipate higher demand in the parking structure)." [Again, how 6 hours of allowed parking will serve employees working longer shifts is not clear from this. And it is apparently 530 and 540 Superior. Moreover, the plan now seems to be, in addition to the 100 spaces in the Superior lot, to reserve 131-137 free employee spaces in the LVM parking structure (see comment on Condition 16, below), yet that is nowhere (I can see) clearly stated in the Conditions of Approval.] 21. Page 7-21: Condition 9 appears to be a continuation (or sub -part) of Condition 8, and not a separate condition. Stating it separately is confusing. 22. Page 7-22, Condition 16.a: "Discount fees for purchasing long term parking passes (i.e., fifteen (15) percent off for a twelve (12) month parking pass, five (5) percent off for a six (6) month parking pass)." [?? The intent of this condition is unclear. Are the percentages amounts off? Or a fee that is that percent of the normal fee? Also, are these suggestions discounts or required ones. If they are only suggestions, it should say "e.g." not "i.e." The whole idea of the incentive program of Condition 16 is a bit mystifying since page 7-35 of the PMP indicates employees will be allowed to park in the structure for free. How is offering a discount an incentive for something that is already free? Isn't Condition 16 now intended only to encourage employees to use the shuttle (not parking passes) to free up pressure on the parking structure? It sounds to me like this needs a rewrite, including a clearer requirement that use of the structure will be free to employees when space is available on "Level 4." On page 7-35, LAZ estimates they can stack 131 vehicles in the designated free employee areas. On page 7-36, they show a plan for 137. How many employee vehicles are expected at any one time?] 23. Page 7-22, Condition 16.b: "Discounts on purchases at LMV shops for those using the shuttle." [or with prepaid parking passes?] 24. Page 7-22, Condition 16.c: same comment as 16.a. 25. Page 7-22, Condition 16.d: I have trouble understanding this. I assume "prepaid parkers" are already using the on-site structure. How is permission to use it a "prize"? 26. Page 7-23, Condition 20: "A minimum of three (3) vertical access public walkways shall be maintained between Via Oporto and the lateral public access walkway along the waterfront, January 23, 2018, Council Item 7 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan policies." ["vertical access" means a pathway perpendicular, as opposed to parallel, to the coastline. It does not mean a literally vertical walkway.] 27. Page 7-23, Condition 20.b: "The second (2nd) walkway shall be provided and maintained between 3424 and 3432 Via Oporto (APN 423-123-06 and APN 423-123-05) where an existing public access easement is currently located." 28. Page 7-23, Condition 20.c: "The third (3rd) walkway shall be located at 3400-3420 Via Oporto (APN 423-123-07) with the final location to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director." [There are currently multiple accessways through this six -address strip (see pages 7-46 and 7-56). Shouldn't they be protected and maintained?] 29. Page 7-25, Condition 34, last sentence: "The The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements." 30. Page 7-30: The estimate in the Overview of the PMP that "the total parking supply is 422 spaces and consists of surface parking and garage parking" would seem to include public street parking. 31. Page 7-30: The paragraph about after-hours self-service "Pay & Display" use of the 3700 Newport Blvd private parking spaces seems incompatible with the resolution's understanding of this as a valet -parked car storage area. 32. Page 7-33: The valet greeting area may be better than, but seems at best only partially compatible with, Condition 32 in the resolution that valet services be conducted in designated parking spaces. 33. Page 7-40: The projection that the peak demand comes on Thursdays at 1:00 p.m. does not seem to match the data presented in the staff report. 34. Page 7-41: LAZ appears to be offering to "manage" several on -street public parking areas. That seems contrary to the idea public parking is public, and not controlled by private operators. 35. Page 7-55: "E*hih�v": Land Use Summa ^'' [Delete label apparently surviving from an earlier CUP. This appears to be part of Exhibit D, now.] 36. Page 7-59: "Shuttle Management Plan dated August 9, 206 2017' 37. Page 7-65: The "Hanging Tags" seem insufficient to meet Condition 17 of the resolution requiring tenant and employee vehicles be identified in the lower corner of the windshield. Are the tags something in addition to that? 38. Pages 7-65 and 7-70: Having read most of the LAZ Shuttle Management Plan (without attempting to note or correct typos), it continues to appear that with 4:00 to 10:00 p.m. operating hours, the shuttle service will be usable only for employees or patrons who both don't need to arrive in LMV before 4:10 and are able to leave before 9:50. Otherwise, it will either not be available, or they will be left stranded. Is this the intent and expectation?