Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/1999 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session September 13, 1999 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Ridgeway, Debay, Noyes Absent: Mayor O'Neil CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. No items were discussed. 2. GREEN ACRES PROJECT UPDATE. Public Works Director Webb stated that the City has been involved in this project for a number of years and there are one or two action items that will be on the September 27th agenda for Council consideration. Utilities Engineer Mike Sinacori recognized Steve Conklin, Director of • Engineering and Associate General Manager for the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and indicated that Mr. Conklin can answer any specific questions on their efforts over the past three years. The proposed expansion for the Green Acres project was planned in the late 1980's and Council executed an agreement in the early 1990's to bring the reclaimed water into Newport Beach. Mr. Sinacori stated that the proposed Phase I expansion into Newport Beach in 1995 was actually deemed a low - priority project by the OCWD when they reconsidered their finances, looked at their overall system and the cost of the project. In 1996 the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) proposed discharging reclaimed water into the Upper Newport Bay. It was that proposal that led to the three -party intertie agreement between the City, OCWD and IRWD, which was signed in July of 1996. Referring to the exhibits displayed, Mr. Sinacori provided an explanation of the Intertie project. He noted that the central part of the system came on line in 1991, and serves the cities of Fountain Valley, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. The expansion project to the south (Newport Beach) and to the west (Huntington Beach) cost $16 million total. The Intertie agreement was to take the excess water that IRWD was going to dump into the Upper Newport Bay and utilize it for four months out of the year in the Green Acres system. The excess water would get discharged through the Sanitation District's facility and their outfall. It took another 1 to 1 -1/2 years to build the other facilities. The total money spent on transmission mains was about $4 million plus $2 million from IRWD. Prior to starting any of the work the City was obligated to have end -user agreements in place with the major users that the system was going to provide water for. The five end -users are the Newport -Mesa School District, Big Canyon Country Club, Newport Beach Country Club, the Bluffs Homeowners Association, and the City. The school district is going to utilize the water at Corona del Volume 52 - Page 675 INDEX Green Acres Project Update (89) • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 INDEX Mar High School once they can afford to re -do their irrigation system. The soccer field at Eastbluff School is now utilizing reclaimed water. The City has also put on -line the medians in Jamboree Road and Bonita Creek Park. Eastbluff Park will be completed later this year, pending other park improvements. The City and the Bluffs Homeowners Association have worked hard to get the association ready for the reclaimed water. They were cited for 40 violations of cross connections by the County, which could have resulted in the residents getting reclaimed water in their pipes. As of September loth all of the violations were corrected and the association is ready to receive the Green Acres water. In response to questions raised by Council Member Ridgeway, Public Works Director Webb explained that the City really hasn't spent $4 million. The $4 million was contributed by the OCWD to provide the transmission main into the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach has spent close to $1 million. The City is the provider of water to the citizens of Newport and it is the City's responsibility to get it to them. The two country clubs represent the greatest expenditure from the City side since two pump stations had to be constructed to provide additional pressure to get the water into the golf course areas. This was part of an agreement that the City entered into with the country clubs at the time the City was negotiating the end -user agreements and discussing the Intertie project. The City obligated itself to provide the initial infrastructure to allow them to be able to take the water. Mr. Webb clarified that the country clubs did not pay for the pump stations • since the City made the determination that from a conservation effort that the City needed to try to get it going. The country clubs spent well over $1 million each to convert their facilities. Council Member Debay further noted that there was also the political issue of IRWD putting their reclaimed water into the bay. She said the City did more than their share in order to circumvent that. Mr. Webb noted that the end -user agreement with the Bluffs Homeowners Association indicated that the City would provide, if necessary, a loan which would allow them to complete their work and would be paid back over a ten - year period. At the time the agreement was made there were two options. One option was to borrow the money from the IRWD and then lend it to the Bluffs, and the other was to lend it directly to the Bluffs at the going interest rate as determined by the City's Administrative Services Department. The City was short on funds because of the completion of the Groundwater Development Project, therefore the loan from IRWD was considered. At the next Council meeting, he indicated that staff will be asking Council to consider consummation of the loan and will be recommending that the City's water funds be utilized. The City's reserves are up, there are sufficient funds to handle this and the City has an obligation to go forward with this. Council Member Ridgeway noted that reclaimed water is more expensive than purified water and asked by what percent it is more than the water from the groundwater system. • Mr. Sinacori said that it costs in the neighborhood of $600 -$700 per acre -foot to produce the reclaimed water. The district subsidizes the City, so it costs the City roughly the same to purchase the reclaimed water, as it would be to Volume 52 - Page 676 0 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 produce it from its wells. In response to Council Member Glover, Mr. Webb indicated that the Bluffs have re -done their system and are now seeking a $145,000 loan. In response to her question about whether the City has to have certain findings to make this loan, Mr. Webb indicated that the City has had a number of situations (assessment districts) where the City has worked out a loan. He said that to the best of his knowledge the City does not have to have any specific legal findings, however that will be clarified before it is brought forward on September 27th. 3. BALBOA PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that this plan has been worked on for quite some time. She indicated that the parking management plan was the #1 priority identified for further work by the Council when the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) report and the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study were brought to them. At that time the Council also talked about doing extensive public outreach efforts as peninsula revitalization issues were worked on. She indicated that there have been numerous public workshops. Gary Hamrick, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., noted that there are 16 options available as part of the plan. In terms of the overall scope of work, Mr. Hamrick indicated that the major tasks included a very comprehensive inventory of parking (where is parking located, what type of parking is it, what are the fees, what are the time limits, is it public or private). Written surveys of businesses and residents were conducted to find out what people had to say and a series of three public workshops were held throughout the process which led up to discussions of the options available. Personal interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including commercial and residential representatives, and utilization and duration surveys were conducted in order to provide a technical analysis of what the actual problems are (how long do people stay in the meters, how long do they stay in non - metered spaces, how busy is it and is it really a problem in some areas versus others). They looked at other beach city programs, and a land use and parking code model analysis was provided to determine the actual land use on the peninsula and if the parking is adequate and if not, who is using the parking. Since the peninsula is so large and varied, it was split up into four study areas for purposes of starting to quantify and identify the individual issues so that the local issues could be identified. He noted that every single parking space throughout the entire peninsula was surveyed in the field and charted on maps and graphs in order to determine where the parking supply is compared to the parking demand. He noted that they did not count private garages, but every commercial private parking space and every single public space was inventoried. Referring to a graphic, he indicated that they actually measured the number of on- street parking spaces and looked at the types of meters and the location. All of the public parking lots were inventoried (metered and ticketed lots) to look at the types • of meters and the location, In terms of the inventory, there are about 10,500 total spaces on the peninsula. Almost 3 /4ths of them are publicly owned and operated spaces and 30% are private commercial spaces in private lots. In terms of the public spaces, 40% are 6 -hour meters, 38% are located in the Volume 52 - Page 677 INDEX Balboa Peninsula Parking Management (85) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 • Balboa Pier lots and the remainder are scattered and are meters with varied duration - 20 minute, 30 minute, one, two and 12 hours. Twenty -seven percent of all the public spaces are currently blue posts. He noted that the largest proportions of the spaces are on- street non - metered and mostly in the residential areas. The next largest proportion is the private commercial at just over 3,000 and then the on- street metered along the medians at Balboa Boulevard and other locations. Using graphics to illustrate, he explained the different types of parking available and noted that it is very unusual for a beach area to have that many 6 -hour long -term meters. In response to Council Member Glover, Mr. Hamrick explained that the blue meters are meters that the City has designated so that residents, business people and even non - residents can purchase permits in order to park at those meters without actually feeding the meter. Mr. Hamrick stated that they also inventoried the meter fees throughout the entire peninsula and referred to a graphic to illustrate the distribution of the current meter fees in terms of cost per hour. He noted that in the McFadden -Lido area essentially the meters are $0.25 (blue) with some beginnings of the higher costs ($0.50 and $1.00 as you start to go south). Around Newport Pier the parking is all $1.00 and $1.00 per hour throughout the whole of the Balboa Boulevard median and then once you get to Central Balboa there is a mixture of fees ($0.25, $0.50 and some $1.00). He explained that the City actually took aerial photographs of the peninsula on a time series throughout the day on a typical summer weekend day and a weekday to find out how the parking is used in the early morning, mid - afternoon, and late afternoon, in order to • look at the patterns. The graphic shows the weekday for the first part of the study area (West Newport residential, Lido, City Plaza area, Cannery Village, McFadden Square) and the dark lines represent those streets where there was 85% or greater utilization of parking. Typically when parking is designed, capacity is looked at as about 85 -90% of the total supply. Anything over 85% or 90% is considered to be effectively fully utilized and the point at which you would look for some type of improvement. He noted that in this particular example, there is about 50% - 65% overall utilization, indicating that there isn't a tremendous problem during the day in this area during the summertime period. He said they weren't able to determine who was parking in each space, but looked at the trends of how many leave and how many arrive. He indicated that in a residential area you tend to see very high utilization in the late evening or early morning. Looking at a similar graphic for Sunday at 11:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., the survey showed at or over the 85% threshold at 2:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m. Every single street is fully occupied, which is because of the people who live there as well as the beach goers and commercial related employee parking. He referred to another graphic which showed the peak parking occupancy overall for the Tuesday and the Sunday that were surveyed, showing that even on Tuesday the public lots are 80% occupied. The on- street parking is lower at 55 %, which indicates that the residents are going to work and there isn't as large of a beach crowd on weekdays. The private lots are 54% used, which is very typical even in the most highly utilized parking areas. Overall he said there is still about 40% available on Tuesday, however on Sunday the public lots are well over 90% full, so essentially there is very little or no parking • remaining and even the on- street parking is nearly 90% full at the peak time on Sunday, which indicates problems for the residents who live on those streets (residential non - metered streets). He noted that the private lots are not very heavily utilized overall. Volume 52 - Page 678 INDEX • Ll City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 The other element of the technical analysis involved parking duration or turnover (how long do people stay in the spaces once they go there). In the Newport Pier area they found that in the 1 -hour meters, 65% or more stay more than one hour by either putting more money into the meter at the end of the hour or they get a ticket. It was lower in the Balboa Pier area, however still almost one -third stay longer than one hour. For the 6 -hour meters, 77% in the Newport Pier area are staying less than four hours, so they are not fully utilizing those 6 -hour spaces. In the Balboa Pier area, 85% are staying less than four hours. What this indicates is that there are very short -term meters where people want to stay longer and very long -term meters that aren't being used for six hours. Previous studies have shown that people normally come to the beach and stay from 2 — 4 hours. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Thomson's questions, Mr. Hamrick reported that the City has actually done some investigation into the time limits and his firm looked at this in detail with respect to the validation issue and other issues for the Balboa Pier lot and found a large number coming into the pier lot stayed 1— 2 hours. He noted that the 1 -hour meters tend to be right next to the commercial businesses, which is appropriate, and in other communities 2 -hour meters in the beach area are the most common. He said it is very rare to have 6 -hour meters unless it is like the Balboa Pier lot and it is a ticket situation. Referring to another graphic, he indicated that it refers to the final major part of the analysis, which shows what the land uses are that actually utilize the parking, or who demands the parking (beachgoers, restaurant, or retail). Unfortunately, he said they couldn't quantify visitors and beachgoers coming in because there is no way to do that except by counting them on the beach. He said they can quantify the demand for all of the land uses on the peninsula. The graphic shows which of the actual buildings (the commercial land on the peninsula), require the most parking. It shows that restaurants require about one -third of the total parking supply (the largest component), followed by commercial retail (all the stores & shops), followed by office. In the two categories (restaurant and shops), it is well over 50 %. Commercial vessels (Catalina charters, fishing charters) are at 7 %. He noted that the City code requires parking for restaurants, offices and all of these land uses, however there is no code requirement for parking for beachgoers, which creates a major problem with an area like the peninsula. He said there is almost an infinite demand for beach parking. To summarize the overall key findings, he said that essentially all public parking is utilized on summer weekends, on- street parking is quite well used year round (based on conversations and older studies), private parking tends to be under - utilized, meter time limits often exceed or don't correlate to the amount of time that people want to stay in the location they are visiting, meter fees are generally low compared to other beach cities ($1.00- 1.50/hour), parking intrusion in residential areas was identified as the major residential concern, and restaurants generate about 113 of the commercial demand followed by retail, office and commercial vessels. In response to questions raised by Council Member Adams, Mr. Hamrick noted that residential on- street parking was not taken into consideration since in theory residents should have their own parking on -site in a driveway or garage. He indicated that they can generate that information by looking at the number of housing units to figure out the theoretical demand. As part of previous studies a number of goals were brought forth and presented to the public in the workshops. The public was Volume 52 - Page 679 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 INDEX • asked to prioritize the goals. As a result, protecting residential parking came out very high, somewhat mixed was encouraging business patronage, parking aesthetics was somewhat mixed, improve linkages to public transportation was mixed, reduce summer roadway congestion was a high priority, improving intersection visibility was a relatively high priority, enhancing pedestrian accessibility was quite mixed, enhancing bicycle travel was overall a lower priority, and generating reasonable revenues was a somewhat lower priority. At the workshop, a couple of priorities were added by those in attendance: 1) acquire more property to provide additional parking, which received a mixed high -low priority; and 2) don't change anything. He explained that all of this technical background information led up to the development of a series of options for parking management. They are presented as options rather than as a prioritized set of recommendations, so that the community and the Council can jointly discuss and decide which ones are appropriate. He said that staff has reviewed all of the options that his firm presented and put them into three categories: 1) approve options for priority implementation; 2) approve options for later implementation following staff preparation; 3) approve options for further staff review and development; and 4) one item not to be pursued. In terms of the West Newport residential, Lido, City plaza, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square area some of the major options put forth for consideration include phasing out the $0.25 per hour meter fees and phasing it in up to $1.00 per hour. He noted that many of the options can only be • implemented following review and approval by the Coastal Commission through a coastal permit. He explained the processes that can be used to obtain Coastal Commission approval and noted that as far as fees the Commission does not have any written guidelines about the raising of fees, however they have some unwritten rules that they follow. He noted that one of the ideas for this particular area is to unify and bring the parking fees closer to the market price that other beach cities charge in order to serve the population appropriately. One of the other elements recommended for this area is remote parking with a shuttle system, which is an important aspect especially if residential permit parking is considered. Another recommendation is to modify around the Newport Pier area some of the meter time limits to make them reflect how the meters are being used, which would take Coastal Commission approval. Also, changing some of the 1 -hour meters to 2 -hour meters is an option. In the Central Balboa commercial area, some of the recommendations include changing 1 -hour meters to 2 -hours to provide better utilization by customers, changing all the meter fees to $1.00, consideration of a valet parking operation to serve the businesses as a group, implementing a bus layover area for private buses, implementation of a validation system for the large Balboa lot to encourage business use of the lots, and to look at a reserved parking system for the charter and sport- fishing vessel operations. Mr. Hamrick summarized the options (not in the order as recommended by staff). • Option 1 — Increase meter fees in Central Balboa to $1.001hour, and in Lido /Cannery Village to $0.50/hour to be phased in over time so there is never more than a $0.25 /hour increase in any one given year. Volume 52 - Page 680 • u 1] City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 Option 2 — Modify meter time limits to most effectively utilize spaces Option 3 — Extending meter time limit in commercial areas of the peninsula to 8 P.M. Option 4 — Implement a "Business Parking Permit" program to allow owners and employees of businesses on the peninsula to park for extended periods at selected meters. Option 5 — Create Visitor Parking Information Guide/Map. Option 6 —Implement trial period shared valet parking program during peak season. Option 7 — Implement a shared use parking program. Option 8 — Pursue implementation of resident permit parking on affected streets on an as- needed basis. Option 9 — Implement bus layover area for private buses. Option 10 — Work with operators to develop charter /sport fishing vessel parking permit system to allow charter boat and sport fishing passengers to park all day in designated areas. Option 11 — Chalk mark tires for purposes of ticketing overtime vehicles at meters. Option 12 — Conduct regular (quarterly or bi- annual) monitoring of lot utilization and land uses. Option 13 — Add parking off - peninsula with peak season shuttle system Option 14 — Install an interactive, real time signage program to provide parking information. Option 15 — Post signs restricting vehicles over six feet in height and /or add standard 10 to 15 foot red curb sections at selected intersections along Bay Avenue and Balboa Boulevard. Option 16 — Balboa Pier lot validation program Council Member Ridgeway concurred with Council Member Adams and said that the hypothetical demand for the residential on- street parking is needed since in Central Balboa there is clearly a conflict of goals between residents and commercial businesses. He said that what is missing in the report and professional analysis is the conflict in Central Balboa from about 18th Street down to Medina. Council Member Adams said that he feels that the real parking demand by land use should be reviewed not necessarily using the code demand, but taking into consideration the time of day, as well as the residential demand Volume 52 - Page 681 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 during those times of day. INDEX Council Member Glover stated that she feels somehow the City needs to get a better analysis of the number of beachgoers coming to the peninsula. She noted that through her experience in Laguna Beach as a business owner, increasing fees is better for businesses because of the parking turnover. In response to Council Member Adams, Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that as part of the further analysis for implementation, staff will provide net cost and revenue estimates for each of the options. Council Member Ridgeway, as District 1 representative on the Council, indicated that he thinks many of the options are excellent, globally they will help the peninsula and he is very supportive of many of the recommendations. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson explained that the Council will discuss this more at a future evening meeting and more of the refined options with cost estimates will be laid out for consideration. He encouraged staff to provide the cost estimate (raw data) as soon as possible to assist them in evaluating the options. He voiced concern about the number of visitors to the peninsula versus the number of parking spaces and said that maybe code enforcement can look at the number of garages in that area that are used for purposes other than parking. • Council Member Debay reported that she recently toured a facility for sale on Superior that has a parking structure on an adjacent lot with a large surface parking area around the office building. She said she has been encouraging the broker to let the City know when a buyer does appear on the scene to see if maybe the City might be able to participate in that property in some way or another regarding the parking structure. Council Member Ridgeway noted that if the parking on the peninsula were doubled in the summertime it would be used. He said he thinks the City needs to manage what it has and pointed out that Mr. Hamrick has advised that off -site or remote parking areas don't work. Tom Hyans, President of Central Newport Beach Community Association, distributed copies of comments on the 16 options, and noted that they participated in all three workshops and would like to continue to participate in the future. He said that when the implementation plans are put together it should be done at a PROP meeting or in study session rather than being done before a full Council so there can be some discussion. He said that the residential area between the two piers along Balboa Boulevard is primarily non -owner occupied duplexes. As far as meter feeding, he said it is his experience that the shorter duration meters tend to be $0.25/hour and the longer duration meters (i.e. 6- hours) tend to be $1.00/hour and at least around McFadden the cheap meters are the ones being fed. • Bob Rubien, Crab Cooker, said that he hopes the City opposes any measure that makes the community less accessible to those who are not fortunate enough to be able to live in Newport Beach. Regarding the residential permit program, he said he couldn't imagine how it could be administered in Volume 52 - Page 682 • • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 any way that would not accomplish anything but bitterness. He said he favors leaving things alone until the City can provide more parking. He said the extension of the meters until 8:00 p.m. has been reviewed previously, would not provide any benefit and would force people to go to the residential areas to park since there are no meters. Other measures should be exhausted before going to this extreme. He spoke in support of changing the meter rates to $1.00/hour but not waiting a few years to do it. In reference to the anti - feeding of the meters he pointed out this proposal would basically eliminate the tradition of the family outing at the beach. Bob Black, Balboa Merchants & Owners Association, stated that the Board has not addressed these items yet, but will be doing so shortly. He said he thinks many of the ideas look very good and questioned whether there was anything in the report about the metered areas on A & B Streets. Council Member Ridgeway explained that those streets are addressed in the Balboa Pier parking lot redesign report and Ron Baers is doing some design work to address the issues. Stuart McKenzie, 1205 West Bay, noted in reference to comments made about the utilization of garages, that many years ago (in the 60's) the City checked every garage on the peninsula, however it didn't accomplish anything. The garages were cleaned out for the inspection and the next day the owners utilized them for different purposes. He stated that there are many curbs on the peninsula that are painted red that don't need to be painted. He questioned why the 10t1i Street beach is painted all red when there could be parking spaces there. Many years ago the Police Department let the residents park red along side each curb and there is nothing in the code that allows this. He also noted that on the weekends cars are parked in front of the school in the loading zone and by code it isn't allowed, however it should be allowed. Chuck Remley, 101 E. Balboa Blvd., said that the house he lives in is 100 years old and there is no garage and adjacent houses also have no garages. As part of the argument for a residential parking permit, he stated that he owns a business and every year buys a permit so he can park at the blue meters. He said there are a lot of people in Central Balboa that don't have parking spaces for their cars. He said there is a rental property around the corner from him with 4 -5 bedrooms with a two -car garage and when it is rented for the week there are more than two cars that arrive and it impacts the parking. Council Member Ridgeway pointed out that the City has summer rentals of one - bedroom units and when they are rented 5 -7 cars show up during those periods. Following discussion about the timing of this issue, it was determined that this item would be brought back to Council at a regular meeting for discussion, debate and action after it has gone back to PROP. 4. BALBOA PIER PARKING LOT REDESIGN. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to continue this item to September 27, 1999. Volume 52 - Page 683 INDEX C- 3209(A) Balboa Pier Parking Lot Redesign (38) • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes September 13, 1999 In response to questions about timing, Public Works Director Webb indicated that this item will require Coastal Commission approval which takes about three months, therefore it would really be pushing it to get something in place by next summer. Without objection, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Mayor O'Neil PUBLIC COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT - 6:00 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 8, 1999, at 3:40 pan. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 0t/ •G�� Recording Secretary �J(AUB�vne, �!l. 4Jar�r�� City Clerk ,d.- J. 6>,Lay Mayor Volume 52 - Page 684 INDEX