Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Sunset Ridge Park Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application for Access Road and Parking Lot (17P13) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 15 Dear Mayor Dixon: The subject that I wish to discuss is the parking lot that Newport Beach is planning for Sunset Ridge Park. All I hear is that the crossing at Superior Boulevard is unsafe for adults and children to cross to the sports area of the Park. I am a homeowner at Newport Crest and I am totally opposed to the City putting in a parking lot that I believe is not needed and will cause devaluation of home values and adversely affect quality of life in our community. Since the Park opened, many residents of Newport Crest including myself have taken the opportunity to walk through the Park, down the stairs and across Superior Boulevard to obtain access to the beach. Recently there was a meeting at Newport Crest with Dave Webb and his associates and they too expressed their concern with the crossing at Superior and PCH. I believe the first thing that the City should do is to make this crossing a safer one for all residents and pedestrians who wish to use it to visit Sunset Ridge Park or to gain quick access to the beach. The City should definitely reduce the speed limit of vehicles coming down Superior and should also erect signs stating that a right turn is not permitted when the lights are RED. Additionally, the green arrow on the right turn should be removed so that cars cannot zip around the corner from Superior to PCH. Once this important crosswalk is made safer, the City should then construct a bridge over Superior Boulevard which would remove all the elements that could endanger pedestrians crossing this busy intersection. My second thought on the parking lot situation is that you have an existing lot that is across the street on Superior which basically has one or two cars in it per day. I am sure that this parking lot is one of the most unprofitable lots the City owns at this point. I suggest that after the bridge is built, making it safer for pedestrians, that this parking lot be used for all the athletic field activities that utilize Sunset Ridge Park. One of the problems that the City is facing is people may want to use the parking lot but don't wish to pay five dollars to park their car and walk over to Sunset Ridge Park. A solution I feel that the City should consider is, everyone who is either playing soccer or baseball on a regular basis (with a school, church or club) with sufficient identification should be able to apply to the City for a city -issued sticker for their vehicle allowing it to be parked in the lot free of charge. The City could also allocate a number of designated spots from which the City would collect revenue for regular beach parking. If this idea is implemented and proves successful, then I believe that the City should forego its plan of creating a parking lot at Sunset Ridge Park. If the City should determine that more parking space is required, there are areas where the Superior parking lot could be extended such as further up the road or to the side where the City briefly considered building a community center with a 2-3 story parking lot. Since I was told that the Sunset Ridge parking lot will probably not be completed for at least two years, utilizing the existing parking lot would be a good experiment for the City to undertake and to evaluate whether this parking would work out for both the City and Sunset Ridge Park. What I heard from City Staff attending the recent Newport Crest meeting was that the distance from the Superior parking lot to the playing fields was too Page 1 of 2 far for children to walk. In my opinion, if these children are playing baseball and soccer an extra 100 yards is not an inconvenience and is a great warm-up before they participate in their sport. The other important matter to consider is that a parking lot at Sunset Ridge Park will bring some elements to the Park that I don't feel the City is ready to address. If you have people attending a sports facility or a game, I am sure that there will be drinking out of participant's cars and I am not sure what else might go on. If the parking lot has free parking it will turn into beach parking and then you will really have problems with the adults and children who wish to participate in sports activities. If the Sunset Ridge Parking Lot is approved, then parking permits for those involved in organized sports activities will be essential to avoid the issues mentioned above. Sincerely, Stanley Rosenthal 26 Ima Loa Court Newport Beach, CA 92663 stanleyrosenthal@me.com 949.633.9194 Page 2 of 2 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 15 April 25, 2016 To: The Newport Beach Mayor and City Council Re: Sunset Ridge Parking Lot The purpose of this correspondence is to put you on notice of my opposition to the proposed parking lot at Sunset Ridge Park. I hereby request that this Council direct the Planning Department to halt work on that parking lot, and explore alternatives. The Park, (where the proposed parking lot would be located ) was developed according to a Park Plan that underwent revision as a result of a process that we, the public participated in. That process included a Notice and Comment period during which concerned citizens discussed, analyzed and considered the impact of a park at an environmentally sensitive coastal location. The original Plan had initially included a parking lot. Objections, based on unacceptable environmental impacts that a parking lot would entail, were debated freely and fairly within the allotted time. The final version passed because the parking lot had been removed. Rather than address objections to the parking lot head-on in real-time; rather than present arguments to the effect that benefits would outweigh harmful impacts ... the City instead conceded the point made by concerned citizens and other interested parties. Having conceded the undesirability of a parking lot, the City explicitly re -fashioned the Plan into a revised and (or so it claimed at the time) feasible alternative sans parking lot. For the City to now seek to build a parking lot after that exact feature was successfully opposed and perforce deleted, in line -item fashion, from the original Plan is worse than if the City were proposing ab initio an unanticipated addition that had not already been debated and rejected. This is not a fresh idea to plug an unanticipated gap in the Plan as passed. To the contrary, this seeks to restore the very feature that was eliminated in order to achieve passage. If the City wants to restore the status quo ante and eliminate the park that can be done. Presently, in fact, that is the only alternative. If as the City now seems to contend the Park is not feasible at this location without a parking lot, then the only course would be to eliminate the Park and restore the area to its natural condition. What cannot be done is to reintroduce the exact feature that had been a "deal -killer" for the original plan. To do so would defeat procedures established to ensure the protection of environmental safeguards, the preservation of coastal integrity and the meaningful participation of concerned citizens. in other words, where (1) professional planners succeed in gaining passage of a project by use of the cruel expedient of misinforming citizens (and the Coastal Commission) about the viability of a workaround that these planner themselves devise only to (2) later resurrect the objectionable feature, in this case a parking lot; well, that makes a mockery of the very concept of procedural environmental safeguards. If done deliberately, such a tactic would be the epitome of "bait and switch." If permitted to succeed, such tactic would set a precedent incompatible with California environmental law. Please forward my objection to the appropriate Legal Department. Thank you, Dennis and Stephanie Conway 16 Ima Loa Ct. Newport Beach Footnote: Alternatively, the City in Good Faith needs to explore viable alternatives, such as the bridge over Superior. This should have been done BEFORE the City installed the park, and endangered visitors at the Superior /PCH Intersection. The City and the Planning Department should not benefit from endangering citizens' lives, and now using that Citizen Outrage to fuel their "Do -Over". Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 15 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:15 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Sunset Ridge Park Entrance Road From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:14:58 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office; Webb, Dave (Public Works) Subject: FW: Sunset Ridge Park Entrance Road For the record. -----Original Message ----- From: Lynn Friedman [mailto:haus2ful@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:07 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Sunset Ridge Park Entrance Road Dear Newport Beach City Council Members, Please do NOT approve the building of a new entrance road. It crosses through the Gnatcatcher habitat, a big enough reason to decline its approval. Please vote NO on this road. I hope you take account of the citizen's wishes and the environmental ramifications when making your decision. Thank you, Lynn Friedman Newport Beach resident 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2016 Item No. 15 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:15 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer, Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Sunset Ridge Park CDP, Item #15 From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:14:43 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office; Webb, Dave (Public Works) Subject: FW: Sunset Ridge Park CDP, Item #15 For the record. From: Paul & Cathy Malkemus [mailto:pcmalkemus(c)gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:03 AM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Sunset Ridge Park CDP, Item #15 Mayor and Members of City Council: Re: Sunset Ridge Park entrance and parking lot The California Coastal Commission issued the City of Newport Beach a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the construction of Sunset Ridge Park with the stipulation that the entrance road and parking lot be eliminated from the planned project. Coastal Commission members specifically asked City representatives if they could make the planned park work without the entrance road and parking lot and the City's representative stated, "We will make it work". The City agreed "in good faith" to the conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission and the park was constructed. What changes to the original plan were made to "make the park work"? What changes were made post construction to "make the park work"? The real point is, what, if anything was done either prior to actual construction of or after completion in an attempt to "make the park work"? City staff members indicate that the park, without the entrance and parking lot, appears to be working adequately, except for the baseball element. Baseball organizations are inclined not to use the facilities due to the lack of close proximity parking. Soccer teams are currently using the park and do not appear to have difficulties dealing with the lack of parking. Has there been any consideration to removing the baseball field? Would ball field construction and removal be offset by the savings associated with not constructing an entrance road and parking lot? The park has quickly evolved and has become more of a neighborhood park. People walk, run and bicycle to and from and within the park. Frequent visits to the park indicate the most used aspects of the park are the children's play area and runners doing laps via the grass and walkways. Has the City considered constructing a running/walking surface and/or work-out stations as a substitute and providing more community service to residents - both youths and adults? Further note, an additional area that seems to get quite a bit of activity is the grassed area that is planned for the parking lot. This quiet section of the park provides a bit of solitude particularly for close by residents that visit the park. Please consider postponing this item or voting not to support the staff recommendation until a more complete survey and plan can be completed. It appears that there are additional plans in the works that include joining both Sunset View Park and Sunset Ridge Park (and a planned dog park) via a pedestrian bridge that may further negate the need for a Sunset Ridge Park parking lot. It seems like this particular aspect is being rushed through because staff members are seizing a somewhat opportune time to "piggy -back" on the Newport Banning Ranch development project. Why not wait and see what happens with the Newport Banning Ranch development hearing with the California Coastal Commission that is scheduled for May 12, 2016? Thank you for your consideration: Paul Malkemus 7 Aries Court Newport Beach RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED ITEM NO. -1-'- 15 DATE: Li I )-Lo . I L -E -- Ap ri 125, 2016 To : The Newport Beach Mayor and City Council Re: Sunset Ridge Parking Lot The purpose of this correspondence is to put you on notice of my opposition to the proposed parking lot at Sunset Ridge Park. I hereby request that this Council direct the Planning Department to halt work on that parking lot, and explore alternatives. The Park, (where the proposed parking lot would be located ) was developed according to a Park Plan that underwent revision as a result of a process that we, the public participated in. That process included a Notice and Comment period during which concerned citizens discussed, analyzed and considered the impact of a park at an environmentally sensitive coastal location. The original Plan had initially included a parking lot. Objections, based on unacceptable environmental impacts that a parking lot would entail, were debated freely and fairly within the allotted time. The final version passed because the parking lot had been removed. Rather than address objections to the parking lot head- on in real-time; rather than present arguments to the effect that benefits would outweigh harmful impacts ... the City instead conceded the point made by concerned citizens and other interested parties. Having conceded the undesirability of a parking lot, the City explicitly re -fashioned the Plan into a revised and (or so it claimed at the time) feasible alternative sans parking lot. For the City to now seek to build a parking lot after that exact feature was successfully opposed and perforce deleted, in line -item fashion, from the original Plan is worse than if the City were proposing ab initio an unanticipated addition that had not already been debated and rejected. This is not a fresh idea to plug an unanticipated gap in the Plan as passed. To the contrary, this seeks to restore the very feature that was eliminated in order to achieve passage. If the City wants to restore the status quo ante and eliminate the park that can be done. Presently, in fact, that is the only alternative. If as the City now seems to contend the Park is not feasible at this location without a parking lot, then the only course would be to eliminate the Park and restore the area to its natural condition. What cannot be done is to reintroduce the exact feature that had been a "deal -killer" for the original plan. To do so would defeat procedures established to ensure the protection of environmental safeguards, the preservation of coastal integrity and the meaningful participation of concerned citizens. In other words, where (1) professional planners succeed in gaining passage of a project by use of the cruel expedient of misinforming citizens (and the Coastal Commission) about the viability of a workaround that these planner themselves devise only to (2) later resurrect the objectionable feature, in this case a parking lot; well, that makes a mockery of the very concept of procedural environmental safeguards. If done deliberately, such a tactic would be the epitome of "bait and switch." If permitted to succeed, such tactic would set a precedent incompatible with California environmental law. Please forward my objection to the appropriate Legal Department. Thank you, Dennis and Stephanie Conway 16 Ima Loa Ct. Newport Beach Footnote: Alternatively, the City in Good Faith needs to explore viable alternatives, such as the bridge over Superior. This should have been done BEFORE the City installed the park, and endangered visitors at the Superior /PCH Intersection. The City and the Planning Department should not benefit from endangering citizens' lives, and now using that Citizen Outrage to fuel their "Do -Over".