Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-20_Balboa Village CAP Meeting Complete AgendaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Panel Meeting AGENDA Newport Harbor Nautical Museum 600 East Bay Avenue, Newport Beach Tuesday, March 20, 2012 -- 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. CAP Members: Staff Members: Terri Pasquale Michael Henn, Council Member Liaison Mark Hoover Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Ralph Rodheim Brenda Wisneski, Deputy CDD Director Craig Smith Jim Campbell, Principal Planner Jim Stratton Steve Badum, Public Works Director Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner Cindy Nelson, Project Consultant "Balboa Village ... a unique destination between the bay and sea where history meets the excitement of the future" 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes — February 21, 2012 (Attachment 1) 4. Correspondence Received (Attachment 2) 5. Current Business a. Branding Working Group — Status Report Recommended Action: Review and discuss b. Parking Management Plan (Attachments 3 and 4) Recommended Action: CAP direction on outstanding issues identified by staff C. Project Schedule Update Recommended Action: Review and discuss 6. Staff and CAP Comments 7. Public Comments 8. Next Meeting— Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. 9. Adjournment This meeting is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act. Among other things, the Brown Act requires that the agenda be posted at least seventy -two (72) hours in advance of each meeting and that the public be allowed to comment on agenda items before the committee and items not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Citizen Advisory Panel. Public comments are generally limited to either three (3) or five (5) minutes per person. It is the intention of the City of Newport Beach to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City of Newport Beach will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at least forty -eight (48) hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible (949- 644 -3005 or citvclerkOnewoo rtbea chca. eov). ATTACHMENT 1 Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Panel Meeting Draft Minutes DRAFT Cy k W,9012 111 Aa9191:421 I Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Panel Meeting MINUTES Newport Harbor Nautical Museum 600 East Bay Avenue, Newport Beach Tuesday, February 21, 2012 -- 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. CAP Members: Staff Members: Terri Pasquale Michael Henn, Council Member Liaison Mark Hoover Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Ralph Rodheim Brenda Wisneski, Deputy CDD Director Craig Smith Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Jim Stratton Fern Nueno, Assistant Planner Cindy Nelson, Project Consultant "Balboa Village ... a unique destination between the bay and sea where history meets the excitement of the future" 1. Call Meeting to Order — The meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. 2. Roll Call — All CAP Members were present. CAP Member Smith left at 5:00 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes — January 17, 2012 CAP Member Stratton motioned to approve the January 17, 2012, meeting minutes, the motion was seconded by CAP Member Smith, and the motion was approved by a 5 yes to 0 no vote. 4. Current Business a. Branding Working Group — Status Report A meeting was held with Gary Sherwin of Visit Newport Beach, Cindy Nelson, and CAP Member Stratton. Future tasks include an online questionnaire for residents and business owners, crafting a brand promise, and incorporating the core values from the previous visioning exercise. At the last CAP meeting, a member of the public questioned if the Council resolution creating the CAP provided for the creation of "working groups" and asked whether formal action needed to be taken by the CAP to appoint non -CAP Members. Staff sought an opinion from the City Attorney's Office and determined the need to formally vote on the appointment of non -CAP Members to the working group. A motion was made by CAP Member Stratton and seconded by CAP Member Smith to appoint Peyton Reed as a non -CAP member participant in the working group. The motion was approved by a 5 yes to 0 no vote. b. Parking Management Plan Brian Canepa, Nelson Nygaard, made a presentation and answered questions from CAP members and attendees of the meeting. The PowerPoint presentation is available online at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1962. The parking strategies discussed include demand responsive pricing, parking benefit district, residential parking permits, employee permits, minimum parking requirements and fees, shared parking district, wayfinding, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and ongoing data monitoring. The key issues from the discussion are summarized below: • Mr. Canepa clarified that no new meters are proposed, the prices and hours will vary, and the off - street meters would be free after 6:00 p.m. • Regarding the parking benefit district (PBD), the funds would be used for Balboa Village, there will need to be an oversight body, and no revenue analysis has been done yet for the potential funds. • The recommended cost of the residential parking permit (RPP) fees was determined by looking at other jurisdictions. RPPs would be available for each unit (duplexes, condos, etc.). There are 800+ units within the proposed RPP zone. Suggestions were made to include the median on Balboa Boulevard and to eliminate the area that extends from 7t" Street to Adams Street from the Business Improvement District (BID). • Regarding employee parking, the hours available could be adjusted seasonally and for weekends /weekdays. • The question of expanding the beach lot brings up concerns with costs, maintenance, removing public beach, and the actual need for additional beach parking. • The minimum parking requirements and in lieu fees were discussed. Some existing in -lieu parking fees from prior to the moratorium are still being paid. The recommendation to City Council may include a fair way to address the existing fees, such as not requiring a continuation of the payments. The fees would be only for new development or intensification of use. The pros and cons of impact and in -lieu fees were discussed. Ms. Brandt suggested that the recommendation could be a hybrid of the options and the City could revisit the situation in two years to assess any parking problems, redevelopment, etc. Ms. Nelson pointed out that changing development standards can be viewed as an incentive the City can offer to encourage new investment. • Metered parking fees and time limits were brought up. Mr. Canepa discussed the adjustable parking rates that could increase after two hours and be based on the amount of use. Some people will not visit the area because they do not want to pay for parking. However, with free parking the system gets abused and visitors cannot find parking. C. Economic Feasibility Analysis Kevin Engstrom, KMA, made a presentation on market conditions and implementation strategy, and answered questions from CAP members and attendees of the meeting. The PowerPoint presentation was attached to the agenda and is available online. The key issues from the discussion are summarized below: • There might be more of a demand for parking in the future with ExplorOcean and Balboa Theater. The parking consultants considered these two projects in their analysis. • The Palm Street lot is the only City -owned property within the Balboa Village area, aside from the beach lot, therefore development options were considered that could be a catalyst for new investment in the area. • In order to entice new businesses, tenant loans could be provided to improve financial feasibility. • Another option is a facade easement /rehabilitation program. The time frame is typically 5 -10 years for the easement /facade program. The City would construct all facade improvements at its cost and maintain an easement for 10 years to ensure the physical appearance of the building.. • A member of the public suggested that the Balboa Lot could be a nice space to have for craft fairs, markets, etc. if the lot is not developed with a structure. 5. Staff and CAP Comments Cindy Nelson discussed the timeline. The March meeting will include a discussion on the brand promise and the implementation plan. The April meeting will revolve around review and approval of the draft implementation plan. The implementation plan will be forwarded to the Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (NRC) in May, and then forwarded to the City Council for review in June /July 6. Public Comments • A member of the public questioned whether the remaining scheduled CAP meetings were necessary. • A member of the public mentioned Irvine Company's Bayside Drive remodel and opined that the ExplorOcean project would be better at a that location. Next Meeting — Tuesday, March 20, 2011, 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. 8. Adjournment — The meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m. ATTACHMENT 2 Correspondence Received March 15, 2012 P" co���NRy To: all CAP and Staff Members of the Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Panel ,1 'rod' March 13, 2012 From: Howard Hall, Balboa resident and property owner oP s MY FAMILY HISTORY Three generations of my family have cared that Balboa fared well. My gr ndppflerpand grandmother arrived here in 1910. My grandmother purchased a house in Corona del Mar (CDM). At that time there were only five houses in CDM. My grandfather was hired to run a ferry between Balboa ^and CDM. He worked for the Balboa Pavilion for several decades. My uncle and grandfather ran speedboats outof the Pavilion for tourist pleasure trips. Later they moved their operation to Edgewater and Palm Street and created Vallely Boat Rental. During World War II my mother managed the boat rental. When I was old enough, I also worked at the boat rental (1950- 1970). 1 still live at the same address in Balboa that welcomed me in 1945. MY EXPERIENCE with the Citizen Advisory Panel meeting In the beginning, the proceedings seemed to give weight to citizen input. As one after the other of the meetings was held, the agendas were increasingly dominated by city staff and consultants. At the beginning, also, the area of concern was the BID (known as a Business Improvement District) running from Main Street to Adams. Another area impacted by the business district was a residential section stretching from Adams to Coronado Street. As the meetings continued, I have become greatly concerned that local opinions were being ignored in preference to special interests. One example seemed to be an extension of the meter times in the summer which would make Balboa more unfriendly than it already is. Another example would take away parking for tourists so as to provide special permits for business employees. In the concern for residents, the area of applicability was arbitrarily extended from Coronado to 7th Street. Now a permit was going to be required to park in front of your own house even though your location was not near the BID. This was done to "help" residents. I am very wary of the permit charges increasing as time goes on. In 1948, when the business meters were installed, two pennies allowed you to park for twenty -four minutes (verified in the Newport Balboa News Times, July 14, 1948). If you park now, I hope you have a bag full of quarters. I was, at the beginning, holding the belief that this revitalization process would benefit the business community and the residents alike. Now, I believe that the recommendations as put forward by the panel and the consultants will be more detrimental than the present City policies regarding Balboa. MY RECOMMENDATIONS Instead of looking at Santa Monica or Pasadena or for that matter Leavenworth, WA, we should examine our own Balboa Island. It has a central business district with extensive residences throughout. One other characteristic is that they have no revitalization committee because their businesses are doing just fine. Items to ponder: 1. Do away with the parking meters and create two -hour parking limits on street parking between Adams and Main Street. 2. Do not put further restrictions on residents such as special permits. I already have to buy a $ 150 pass just to move about the city meter system. 3. Our most iconic architectural structure is the Balboa Pavilion. Pattern our building changes around Its Victorian look. This would be similar to Coronado Beach with its famous building- The Del. 4. If we extend the meter hours from 6PM to 8PM, those people who come to eat at restaurants will probably just stay away reducing business activity even further downward. S. Increasing local business support is the only goal that will lead to diversification and improvement of stores in Balboa. This can be done if a parking friendly downtown area is available. 6. Over my lifetime of living in Balboa I have witnessed an overall decline in business from the boom years of the 1940's and 1950's. This can be reversed if we make some changes based upon what locally works. �f, 6L�a v- `7ft ATTACHMENT 3 Parking Management Plan Memorandum MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2012 To: Balboa Village Citizen Advisory Panel From: Cindy Nelson, Project Consultant CC: Kim Brandt, Brenda Wisneski, Jim Campbell, Fern Nueno Subject: Parking Management Plan At the February Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) meeting, an overview of the final draft Parking Implementation Plan was presented by Brian Canepa of Nelson/Nygaard. The Parking Management Plan (PMP) will be included in the Draft Implementation Plan to be presented to the CAP at the April meeting. At this point, staff is seeking direction from the CAP on the outstanding issues raised in the February meeting with regard to parking: 1. Residential Parkine Permit Rate Structure structure as follows: 1 st Permit $20 per year 2nd Permit $40 per year 3rd Permit $60 per year 4th Permit $100 per year The draft PMP recommended a tiered rate Discussion at the meeting centered on a) resident reaction to the proposed rate structure; b) full cost recovery for administration of the program; c) and the ability to guarantee a reasonable rate structure over time. A) The Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA), represented in discussions by Jim Stratton and Bruce Brandenburg, have proposed that the rates be $20 for the first and second permit, $60 for the 3rd permit and $100 for the fourth permit. In addition, they are now recommending that children living in those residences be given additional permits at the rate of $20 per year. Providing preference to children in a residence is not recommended nor able to be managed. The four permits per household take into consideration that families, i.e. children, may reside in the home. To allow for an unlimited number of permits to be issued would create potential parking shortages. Further, limiting the number of permits per household as proposed is intended to incentivize residents to use their existing garages for automobiles rather than storage. The allowance of four permits also provides relief for those that do not have the benefit of a garage on their property. 1 B) It is estimated that 2,000 parking permits may be issued in any given year. There are currently 890 residential homes (single family, condos, apartments) in the proposed district boundaries. The rate for permit parking elsewhere in the city is based on the fair market value of the exclusive use of such spaces (i.e. the value of the city's real property). The City recently completed a study to determine the market value of the public parking spaces reserved for exclusive use; this information was then used to set the current pricing schedule. The existing permit process is administered by City staff; however, due to reduced resources, the current and proposed parking permit program may be outsourced, the cost of which would have to be covered by the fees charged. C) The City Council recently established new parking permit fees based on the study noted above, and also approved a Consumer Price Index adjustment. A long -term commitment to a fee structure in this case is not realistic as was discussed at the last CAP meeting. It is important to note that staff does not view the proposed RPP to be a revenue generating program as has been raised by the public at several meetings. The intent would be to properly manage the parking impacts during peak season to those residents who live on the Peninsula year round. Required Direction from CAP: Consensus on number of permits per household and a tiered rate structure for the Residential Permit Parking Program. The consultant recommendation as noted above is based on a review of other similar beach community permit rates, as well as issues pertinent to Balboa Village. It should be noted that further refinement of the permit fees will be required if, and when, the City Council directs staff to proceed with implementation of the program. At that time, a study of the market value of the public property for private, exclusive use will be conducted, along with a comparison of other beach communities with residential permit parking. The City Council will then establish the appropriate rate for the parking permits. The CNBCA, the business community and other interested parties will have an opportunity to provide input at that time to the City Council. 2. Guest Passes The CNBCA has recommended that guest passes be included in the Residential Permit Parking Program. Nelson/Nygaard researched other beach communities on this matter, and determined the following: Hermosa Beach: One guest permit per residence per year at $40 /permit. Up to 20 one - day permits five times each year at $1.00 /permit up to 5 permits; permits 6 -20 are free. Huntington Beach: Two guest permits per year; one -day visitor /temporary permits are unlimited and are available to RPP holders with 3 days minimum notification at $1 per day per pass. 2 Laguna Beach: No guest passes based on information available and resident permits are not transferable to guests. Manhattan Beach: Does not appear to have a guest pass or one -day visitor /temporary pass program based on information obtained online. Redondo Beach: Two guest permits per year at $15 /permit; one day visitor /temporary permit is not available. San Clemente: One guest permit per year at no cost; no one -day visitor or temporary permit. Santa Barbara: One guest permit per year at $20 /permit; up to 15 one -day visitor or temporary permit up to 15 per event at no cost. Santa Cruz: Up to two annual guest permits at $25 /permit; up to 30 daily permits per household each year for one -day visitor /temporary permits at $2 /day per permit. Santa Monica: Up to two annual guest permits per household at $15 /permit; up to 25 one -day visitor /temporary permits per event date and up to 300 day permits per year per residence at no charge. Nelson/Nygaard has cautioned that caution should be exercised in a guest pass program due to the limited number of parking spaces available during peak periods should the City wish to allow for guest passes in the RPP. Required Direction from CAP: Consensus as to whether guest passes should be included in the proposed program, and specific direction as to the number to be issued if deemed important. 3. Parking Management District The Nelson/Nygaard report included a recommendation to establish a Parking Management District whereby any net parking revenues generated within the boundaries of the Balboa Village study area would be set -aside for eligible uses within the District, i.e. new capital improvements, strectscape, facade improvement programs, etc. Staff continues to research this issue further and will present their findings at the April CAP meeting: Conclusion Based on input from the CAP at the February meeting, the balance of Nelson/Nygaard's recommendations will be incorporated in the draft Implementation Plan. A brief recap of those recommendations are: 1. Install smart meters where needed and remove time limits for all metered spaces. Implement demand -based pricing for on and off - street parking facilities. 2. Establish an employee parking permit program for Balboa Village. 3. Revise minimum parking requirements and eliminate the in -lieu parking fee program in Balboa Village in its entirety at this time. 4. Require shared public /private parking for future development or intensification of use in the area. 5. Develop and coordinate a wayfinding program. 6. Implement targeted improvements for bicycle and pedestrian use. 7. Establish an ongoing data collection, monitoring and evaluation process. The consensus position from the CAP on the above outstanding issues will be incorporated into the draft Implementation Plan along with the other areas of opportunity discussed over the past months. In addition to the above, CAP Member Stratton forward an email (attached) that included two other recommendations. The response is as follows: 1. Loading zone at public pier on Fernando Street: the request has been forwarded to the Public Works Department to determine the feasibility of allowing for a loading zone. We will forward their response to the CAP once received. 2. Exempt commercial and city property from the RPP restrictions on Balboa Boulevard east and west of Island Street: Nelson/Nygaard is recommending that the existing "green" painted curb in front of various commercial properties on Balboa Boulevard will convert to available permit parking spaces after 6pm which is consistent with the time frame currently posted for the green zone. Please call me if you have any questions in advance of the meeting. El ATTACHMENT 4 Correspondence Dated March 9, 2012 March 9, 2012 Dear Brian: As mentioned after the February BVCAP meeting, I told both you and Cindy Nelson that I would tender our CNBCA Parking committee's recommendations regarding the Nelson Nygaard Balboa Village Parking Management Plan dated February, 2012. The committee genuinely appreciates the City of Newport Beach and Nelson Nygaard's efforts to incorporate many of the suggestions we made to benefit the Balboa Village businesses, patrons and the adjacent residential neighborhood. That being said, we would urge the city and parking consultants to consider the following additional suggestions: I . Guest Parking — We believe that this option is essential to the success of the parking permit program because it gives residents the option to host family gatherings and special events and does not penalize them for their proximity to the Balboa Village. We have found several programs that addressed these permits fairly simply. Santa Monica has automated this option and residents can access the guest permits online once they are in the system. This type of operation relieves city staff of excess paperwork once the computer program is established. We recommend a fee of $2.00 per permit per day. 2. Loading Zone at Public Pier on Fernando Street — Since our committee and Nelson Nygaard have recommended that mooring renters not have parking permits, it only seems fair that boat owners have a place to load and unload material before they park their vehicles in the Tidelands parking lot. We don't know if this is a possible option. 3. Exempt Commercial/City Commercial/City Property from RPP Restrictions — Applying the overnight parking restrictions to city and business property on Balboa Boulevard east and west of Island Street may be problematic. Therefore we recommend their exemption. 4. Permit Fees — We recommend a slight modification to the fee structure proposed by Nelson Nygaard. We suggest $20 each for the first two permits, $60 for the third and $100 for the fourth. We believe this fee schedule will be more palatable to the mostly two person households that comprise our area. It also allows people living in legal non- conforming properties to obtain permits at the same rate as those living in legal conforming properties. 5. Fee Exemption — There are families in the proposed RPP area who have one or more children living at home and who are driving their own vehicles. In those cases and upon verification of a valid driver's license with the same address, we recommend that the children may purchase additional permits at the $20 rate. To do otherwise appears to discriminate against larger families. There may be other exceptions that we may have to accommodate once approved by Coastal Commission. The CNBCA Parking committee and Staff will be working on implementation. Our committee has circulated a petition to garner support for a "resident driven parking permit initiative." While making contact with some residents has been difficult we have been able to meet a majority of them within the Adams and 7th Streets, and Edgewater to Ocean Front Avenues boundaries and have received the support of 93% of those reached. We continue to work to meet with more of our neighbors. Thanks for working with us on this. Sincerely, Jim Stratton, Chairman CNBCA Balboa Village Parking Committee Cc: Mike Henn, Councilman, City of Newport Beach Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Cindy Nelson, Consultant and coordinator for the BVCAP CNBCA Balboa Village Parking Committee