HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-03-24 #O , , .
•
• AGENDA REPORT
D
11)
ATE: March 24, 2003 • I
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council / 1
P
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Main St. Parking Meter /Preferred Parking Application
Budget Amendment
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Amend the budget to provide $24,000 from the General Fund to fund a parking study for
the California Coastal Commission application regarding the installation of parking
meters along Main St. and the restriction of parking to 1 hour maximum between 5 St.
and 12 Sts. The study would analyze the impacts associated with parking behavior and
existing supply & demand if the new program were to be initiated. Authorize the City
Manager to enter into an agreement with W.G. Zimmerman engineering to provide the
study for an amount not to exceed $24,000.
BACKGROUND:
In September, 2002, the City Council voted 3 to 2 forward an application to the
California Coastal Commission for consideration regarding the installation of parking
meters along Main St. and 1 /2 block (commercial areas) of Ocean, Central, and Electric
Avenues. Additionally, the Council voted to include within the application a request to
add additional 1 hour parking restrictions from 5 St. to 12 Streets.
After Staff submitted the application to the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission
staff responded with a letter detailing issues which must be clarified in order for the
application to be deemed complete. One of those issues was the requirement of a study to
be performed by a "qualified individual," which details the behavioral effects the
proposed parking meters and additional restricted parking will have on the parking supply
and the changes to be expected by parking patterns within the City.
The proposed parking study would satisfy the Coastal Commission requirement as •
outlined in their letter (attached). Staff has prepared the necessary budget amendment and
has attached a draft amendment as well. A draft work schedule to be performed is
attached as well.
•
.Agenda Item C3
In addition to responding to the Coastal Commission letter, this analysis will need to be
provided as part of the City's Local Coastal Program submittal to the Coastal
Commission later this year. The Coastal Commission staff have already questioned the
effects of time restricted parking on public streets within the coastal zone, and the overall
effect upon persons trying to reach the beach and coastline. This analysis will aid in
providing answers for the City's Local Coastal Program submittal to the Coastal '
Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated net revenue after one year of parking meter revenue is $491,800. Estimated
net revenue for the first year of parking meter revenue is $337,880. This net fiscal impact
assumes that 320 parking meters are purchased in the first year and installed, and further
assumes that the meters operate at approximately 50% occupancy over the course of the
year, which is a relatively conservative estimate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Amend the budget to provide $24,000 from the General Fund to fund a parking study for
the California Coastal Commission application regarding the installation of parking
meters along Main St. and the restriction of parking to 1 hour maximum between 5 St.
and 12 Sts. The study would analyze the impacts associated with parking behavior and
existing supply & demand if the new program were to be initiated. Authorize the City
Manager to enter into an agreement with W.G. Zimmerman engineering to provide the
study for an amount not to exceed $24,000.
Mac Cummins
Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager
NOTED AND APPROVED:
Ar /
John ' Bahorski, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. CCC letter to City of Seal Beach, re: Parking Meter Application
3. Proposed scope of work from Zimmerman Engineering
Agenda Item
. . ,
Attachment 1
. .
. .
. .
. ,:-
•
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT, NO. 03-24 FOR THE INCREASE IN CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR THE PARKING METER STUDY TO AUGMENT
THE COATSTAL COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR PARKING
METERS ON MAIN STREET.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE
WHEREAS, the fiscal year budget requires budgetary amendments as outlined below:
AMENDED PROPOSED BUDGET (cliff)
DEPT ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET AMENDMENT
Contract
Professional Svcs 001- 019 -44000 $340,000 $364,000 $24,000
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach on
day of , 2003 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Mayor
ATTEST:
Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
- CITY OF SEAL BEACH )
I, Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City
Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular
meeting thereof held on the day of , 2003.
City Clerk
Attachment 2
STATF OF C.AI IFORNIA - THE RFSOI JRCFS AGENCY GRAY DAVIS_ Gnvpmnr
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 " �
Long Beach, CA 90802 -4302 CITY OF SEAL BEACH January 16, 2003
(562) 590-5071
Mr. Mac Cummins JON 1 7 2003
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street DEPAR i `"' =NT OF
Seal Beach, CA 90740 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SUBJECT: FILING DETERMINATION: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
Coastal Development Permit Application # 5- 02-422
City of Seal Beach, Orange County, CA
Dear Mr. Cummins:
On December 20, 2002, our office received your application for the subject coastal development
permit. The proposed development is the installation of parking meters along Main Street and the
immediately flanking portions of Ocean Avenue, Central Avenue, and Electric Avenue; as well as
the implementation of 1 hour restricted parking on 5 Street through 12 Street from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. Additional information is necessary to adequately analyze the project for consistency with the
California Coastal Act. Accordingly, the application has been deemed incomplete pending receipt
of the following items:
1. Project Description
The application submitted contains inconsistent and unclear information regarding the quantity of
parking spaces affected by the proposal and the way in which parking within those spaces will
change under the proposal. For instance, the response to question number 9 in the application
indicates there are 301 spaces affected by the proposal. However, elsewhere the application
indicates there are 2,362 parking spaces within the project area. Please clarify the total quantity of
parking spaces in the project area and their location, the total quantity of spaces affected by the
City's proposal and the location of the affected spaces, existing and proposed time restrictions
including the quantity of spaces affected by these restrictions, existing and proposed metering
including quantity of spaces, etc. Please also clarify the duration of time that could be purchased
on each meter. We recognize that some of this information has been provided,in your submittal,
however, it is presented in an unclear manner. Tables accompanied by maps would likely be the
best tools to help clarify this matter. For instance, a map should be submitted that shows each -
parking space in the project area along with existing and proposed metering and time limits for
those spaces. The map should be accompanied by a summary table of the information on the
map. For any maps or other exhibits prepared, please use symbols that are reproducible in black
and white (i.e. please avoid relying on color to differentiate various symbols as they become
meaningless when reproduced in black and white). Full size and 8.5" x 11" reduced size exhibits
should be submitted.
Also, please describe whether any other changes to parking would be occurring under the
proposal. For instance, would any curb painting or re- striping occur that would relocate, increase
or decrease the quantity of parking within the project area? How would existing resident/merchant
parking passes be utilized in the proposed project area? Would any modifications to the
resident/merchant parking passes (or new passes) be implemented to .accommodate the new
parking situation created by the current proposal? Would merchants, residents or any other
5 -02 -422 (City of Seal Beach)
Notice of Incomplete Application
Page 2 of 4
parties be able to pay some type of fee that would exempt them from the proposed meter fees
and /or time restrictions?
2. • Parking Analysis
The application states that the primary purpose of the proposed metering and time restrictions is to
re- direct beach visitors away from parking in the commercial area of Main Street and toward the
presently 'underutilized' beach parking lots that flank the pier. The stated logic is that if parking
along Main Street is no longer free, and parking is unavailable in the residential areas near the
pier, that beach visitors will utilize the beach parking lots and /or be redirected to 'free, unrestricted
parking' located on 1 Street through 5th Street and 12 Street through Seal Beach Blvd'.
While there is some logic to this plan, no study has been submitted which demonstrates that the
proposal will have the intended result. In addition, there has been no analysis submitted that
demonstrates whether the proposal will have any positive or adverse impact on the public's ability
to access the beach.
Commission staff acknowledge that the City has submitted a copy of a 1996 parking study that
describes parking in the Main Street Specific Plan area. However, this study is at least 6 years old
and may not accurately reflect current parking supply and demand. In addition, this old study does
not analyze the effect of either metering or new parking time restrictions. Please submit a parking
analysis prepared by an appropriately qualified professional that analyzes the proposed parking
management plan for its effectiveness at directing beach visitors to appropriate parking areas and
whether the plan would have any positive or adverse impact upon the reservoir of parking available
to beach visitors. The analysis must also include an analysis of the alternatives available that
would accomplish the City's goal of increasing usage of the beach parking lot by beach visitors
along with a discussion of the reasons that the City chose the proposed project.
At minimum, the analysis should answer the following questions: How many parking spaces are
currently available to beach visitors, where are they located, and what are the current restrictions
on use of those spaces? Where do beach visitors actually park? What are the current parking
restrictions on those parking spaces? How many parking spaces will be available to beach visitors
under the current proposal? Is the proposed quantity of parking spaces sufficient to provide .
parking for existing and anticipated populations of beach visitors? Given the existing 2 -hour time
restrictions along Main Street, do beach visitors actually park on Main Street? If not, what purpose
would the meters have? How will the proposed fee structure for meters and the existing fee
structure of the beach parking lots cause a re- direction of beach visitors from Main Street to the
beach parking lots and other beach parking reservoirs? How do existing and proposed time
restrictions affect the availability of beach parking? How do other parking factors, such as
preferential parking passes (e.g. resident/merchant parking programs), affect the availability of
beach parking under the existing and proposed condition? How many parking passes are sold
each year and where will those passes allow the pass holder to park? What mitigation is available
to offset impacts that the proposed project may have upon beach access? For instance, could
'This statement in your application needs clarification. Information submitted with the application suggests
that parking between 1 and 5 and 12 to Seal Beach Blvd. has parking restrictions. Therefore, parking in
this area is not unrestricted as is suggested in the submittal. Is the City proposing to remove the existing •
parking restrictions in this area to expand the availability of free, unrestricted parking? If so, quantify the
amount of existing and proposed spaces that would be available to the public for beach parking. In addition,
describe whether any resident or merchant preferred parking passes would be effective for this area. .
5- 02-422 (City of Seal Beach)
Notice of Incomplete Application
Page 3 of 4
time restrictions be relaxed elsewhere in the City to offset the new time restricted areas? What
other alternatives are available that would accomplish the City's goal of increasing usage of the
beach parking lots by beach visitors? For instance, would a fee reduction or restructuring of the
fee system at the beach parking lots improve usage? Why was the proposed project chosen as
the superior alternative?
3. History of Parking Restrictions and Resident/Merchant Parking Programs
, The application submitted describes existing parking restrictions and existing resident and •
merchant preferential parking programs. The application asserts that these restrictions and
parking programs existed prior to the time that coastal permits were required or is otherwise silent
about whether a coastal permit has been obtained for the restriction or program. Commission staff
have not been able to identify any coastal development permits granted for the implementation of
any parking restrictions or resident/merchant parking programs in the project area. In addition, no
documentation was submitted that demonstrates the establishment and continued and unchanged
existence of these restrictions and programs. Please thoroughly document the origin and all
changes to all existing parking restrictions and all resident/merchant parking programs that are in
the project area and /or that are referenced in the application. Please provide a summary time line,
accompanied by copies of the City's resolutions and ordinances that implemented the restrictions
and programs and any changes made to those programs thereafter. In addition, please provide
records documenting the dates when the installation of signs implementing the parking restrictions
and programs occurred.
Also, the application submitted indicates that 76 parking spaces within 2 lots on Main Street were .
metered in 1998. Please identify the coastal development permit that authorized metering of these
spaces. In addition, the application indicates that the beach parking lots have 'pay and display'
metering system. Please identify the coastal development permit that authorized changing the
attendant parking to a 'pay and display' format. This information is necessary to determine the
• effect and relationship between the current proposal and parking within these areas.
4. Local Approvals
The application was submitted with a copy of the minutes of the City Council action that approved
the parking meters and new time restrictions, however, the actual approval was not submitted. _
Please submit a copy of the ordinance and /or resolution that approved the parking meters and
new time restrictions. In addition, the minutes indicate that the Council would consider how to
allocate the proceeds from the meters at a future hearing. If the Council has had such hearings
and /or taken any action with respect to the allocation of the funds, please submit copies of the
minutes and any formal actions taken by the Council.
5. Public Hearing Notice
The application submitted states that a public hearing notice was provided in the Sun Newspaper
that fulfills the required public notification. While this notice, in addition to the on -site postings, is _
helpful with satisfying the requirements of Section 13054(d) of the California Code of Regulations
which pertains to public notification that an application has been submitted to the Commission, it
does not fulfill the requirements of Section 13054(a) through 13054(c) of the California Code of
Regulations. Section 13054(a) through (c) require direct mailed notice about the actual hearing
time and date to all owners and occupants of property within 100 feet of the property within which
5- 02-422 (City of Seal Beach)
Notice of Incomplete Application
Page 4of4
the development is occurring and to all persons known to be interested in the application. Please
provide the lists and mailing materials required by Section 13054 (a) through (c).
Alternatively, Section 13063 of the regulations allows for a newspaper notice to substitute for the
mailed notice required by Section 13054 when (1) It is reasonable to expect adequate or better
notice to interested parties through publication; and (2) Written notice to individuals would be
unreasonably burdensome to the applicant in view of the overall cost and type of project involved.
If you wish to pursue the newspaper notice, you would need to demonstrate that the City's
situation is consistent with the above standards. Nevertheless, you are still required to prepare
and submit the lists described in Section 13054 of the regulations, as well as stamped and
addressed envelopes for the 'known interested parties' described in Section 13054(a)(3) of the
regulations.
Please do not limit your submittal to the above mentioned items. You may submit any information
which you feel may help Commission staff gain a clear understanding of the scope of your project.
Upon receipt of the requested materials, we will proceed with determining the completeness of
your application. Please be aware that additional questions may be raised after review of the
information requested.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (562) 590 -5071.
Sincerely,
Karl Schwing
Coastal Program Analyst
Attachments: California Code of Regulations, Sections 13054 and 13063
TITLE 14, Division 5.5
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations
Page 12
by these regulations may result in delay in processing the application or may constitute
grounds for revocation of the permit.
§ 13053.6. Amendment of Application Form.
The executive director of the commission may, from time to time, as he or she deems necessary,
amend the format of the application form, provided, however, that any significant change in the type
of information requested must be approved by the commission.
Article 3. Notice
§ 13054. Identification of Interested Persons /Submission of Envelopes/Posting of Site.
(a) For applications filed after the effective date of this subsection, the applicant shall provide names
and addresses of,.and stamped envelopes for adjacent landowners and residents, and other interested
persons as provided in this section. The applicant shall provide the commission with a list of:
(1) the addresses of all residences, including each residence within an apartment or condominium
complex, located within one hundred (100) feet (not including roads) of the perimeter of the parcel of
real property of record on which the development is proposed,
(2) the addresses of all owners of parcels of real property of record located within one hundred (100)
feet (not including roads) of the perimeter of the parcel of real property of record on which the
development is proposed, based upon the most recent equalized assesment roll, and,
(3) the names and addresses of all persons known to the applicant to be interested in the application,
including those persons who testified at or submitted written comments for the local hearing(s).
This list shall be part of the public record maintained by the commission for the application.
(b) The applicant shall also provide the commission with stamped envelopes for all addresses on the
list prepared pursuant to subsection (a) above. Separate stamped envelopes shall be addressed to
"owner," "occupant," or the name of the interested person, as applicable. The applicant shall also
place a legend on the front of each envelope including words to the effect of "Important. Public
Hearing Notice." The executive director shall provide an appropriate stamp for the use of applicants
in the commission office. The legend shall be legible and of sufficient size to be reasonably noted by
the recipient of the envelope. The executive director may waive this requirement for addresses
identified under subsection (a)(1) and (2) above and may require that some other suitable form of
notice be provided by the applicant to those interested persons pursuant to section 13063(b) of these
regulations.
(c) If at the applicant's request, the public hearing on the application is postponed or continued after
notice of the hearing has been mailed, the applicant shall provide an additional set of stamped,
TITLE 14, Division 5.5
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations
Page 13
addressed envelopes that meet the requirements of section 13054(b). The additional set of stamped,
addressed envelopes shall be submitted within ten days of the commission's decision to postpone or
continue the hearing.
•
(d) At the time the application is submitted for filing, the applicant must post, at a conspicuous place,
easily read by the public which is also as close as possible to the site of the proposed development,
notice that an application for a permit for the proposed development has been submitted to the
commission. Such notice shall contain a general description of the nature of the proposed
development. The commission shall furnish the applicant with a standardized form to be used for
such posting. If the applicant fails to sign the declaration of posting, the executive director of the
commission shall refuse to file the application.
(e) Pursuant to Sections 13104 through 13108.5, the commission shall revoke a permit if it determines
that the permit was granted without proper notice having been given.
Article 4. Schedule of Fees for Filing and Processing Permit Applications
§ 13055. Fees. .
(a) Permit filing and processing fees shall be as follows:
(1) Two hundred dollars ($200) for any development qualifying for an administrative permit.
(2) For a single - family residence, the fee shall be based on the square footage of the proposed
residence as shown in the following table:
Square Footage of Proposed Fee
Residence
1500 or less $250
1501-to 5000 $500
5001 or more $1000 -
(3) Six hundred dollars ($600) for lot line adjustments, or for divisions of land where there are
single - family residences already built and only one new lot is created by the division or for
multi - family units up to four (4) units.
(4) Two thousand dollars ($2,000) or one hundred twenty dollars ($120) per unit, whichever is
greater, but not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for multi -unit residential
development greater than four (4) units.
TITLE 14, Division 5.5
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations
Page 20
(d) Written communications shall be available at the commission office for review by any person
during normal working hours. •
§ 13061. Treatment of Similar Communications.
Repealed.
Article 8. Hearing Dates
§ 13062. Scheduling.
The executive director of the commission shall set each application filed for public hearing no later
than the 49th day following the date on which the application is filed. All dates for public hearing
shall be set with a view toward allowing adequate public dissemination of the information contained
in the application prior to the time of the hearing, and toward allowing public participation and
attendance at the hearing while affording applicants expeditious consideration of their permit
applications
§ 13063. Distribution of Notice.
(a) At least 10 calendar days prior to the date on which the application will be heard by the
commission, the executive director shall mail written notice to each applicant, to all affected cities
and counties, to all public agencies which have jurisdiction, by law, with respect to a proposed
development, to all persons who have requested it, and to all persons known by the executive director
to have a particular interest in the application, including those specified in section 13054(a). The
notice shall contain the following elements:
(1) The number assigned to the application;
(2) A description of the development and its proposed location;
(3) The date, time and place at which the application will be heard by the commission;
(4) The general procedure of the commission concerning hearings and action on applications;
(5) The direction to persons wishing to participate in the public hearing that testimony should be
related to the regional and statewide issues addressed by the Coastal Act; and
(6) A statement that staff reports will be distributed as set forth in section 13059.
(b) In lieu of providing mailed notice to persons specified in section 13054(a)(1) -(2) as required by
subsection (a) above, the executive director may direct the applicant to substitute notice in one or
TITLE 14, Division 5.5
California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations
Page 21
• more newspapers of general circulation in the area of the project for the written mailed notice if the
executive director determines:
(1) It is reasonable to expect adequate or better notice to interested parties through publication; and
(2) Written notice to individuals would be unreasonably burdensome to the applicant in view of the
overall cost and type of project involved.
A statement of reasons supporting the executive director's determination to direct the applicant to
substitute newspaper notice shall be placed in the file.
(c) Where a public agency or other person identified in this section receives the notice required by
sections 13015- 13017, a separate notice is not required pursuant to this section.
Article 9. Oral Hearing Procedures
. § 13064. Conduct of Hearing.
The commission's public hearing on a permit matter shall be conducted in a manner deemed most
suitable to ensure fundamental fairness to all parties concerned, and with a view toward securing all
relevant information and material necessary to render a decision without unnecessary delay.
§ - 13065. Evidence Rules.
The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses.
Any relevant evidence shall be considered if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons
are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common
law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in
civil actions. Unduly repetitious or irrelevant evidence shall be excluded upon order by the
chairperson of the commission.
§ 13066. Order of Proceedings.
The commission's public hearing on a permit application shall, unless the chairperson directs
otherwise, proceed in the following order:
(a) The executive director shall make a presentation to the commission identifying the application,
describing the project, and summarizing the staff recommendation, including the proposed findings,
proposed conditions, and written correspondence received prior to the public hearing.
(b) The public testimony portion of the public hearing shall proceed in the following order:
. 4 , . ,
Attachment 3
•
W.G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc.
WGZE 801 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 200, Seal Beach, CA 90740
562.594.8589/562.594.8549 fax
March 19, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins
City of Seal Beach
Development Services Department
211 Eighth Street
- Seal Beach, California 90740
Subject: Beach Parking Study Task Order 1
Dear Mac:
WGZE is please to present our scope of services and associated fees to prepare a parking study
for the beach area.
We will perform the following tasks:
•
• Review Existing Records / Maps / Graphics
• Review 1996 Parking Study
• Prepare base mapping / base graphics
• "Prepare "existing condition "" mapping / graphics"
• "Prepare "proposed condition "" mapping / graphics"
• Prepare parking study
We will perform the above task for a fee not to exceed $24,000.00. This fee is based upon our
understanding that City will perform and provide an "existing parking stall count" to WGZE
prior to "preparation of the existing condition mapping / graphics ".
ADDITIONAL SERVICES (Time & Material Basis)
• Process parking study through Coastal Commission
• "Perform "existing" parking stall count"
• Attend one public hearing
• Evaluate public hearing input
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or Ron Butler at your earliest
convenience.
Respectfully,
W. G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc. '
4-4444
•
Bill Zimmerman, P.E. •
President