Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/17/2002 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session December 17, 2002 - 4:30 p.m. Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 10 (Corona del Mar State Beach Improvements), Council Member Webb noted that this is a 25% increase in the scope of work. He asked what is the original scope, how is it being expanded, what additional work is being paid for by the contract, and what is the cost estimate for the entire project. Mayor Bromberg suggested that Council Member Webb pull the item tonight and ask these questions. Regarding Item 9 (Traffic Flow Optimization Project), Council Member Adams stated that he would like to see the contract augmented regarding key personnel. He believed that the individual who will be doing the signal timing work was a key reason the firm was selected. He indicated that he will be pulling the item tonight to have that person identified in the contract, similar to how the project manager is identified. He stated that, if the firm cannot deliver him or he leaves the job, the City should have the option to terminate the contract if they cannot find a suitable replacement. Mayor Bromberg asked if the money the City will be paying is strictly for synchronization and traffic flow optimization, or will the firm be providing an entirely new system. Public Works Director Badum clarified that the City will not be getting a new system, but will receive some improvements. He indicated that this will not just be a study since there will also be recommendations made regarding timing changes. City Manager Bludau added that training will also be provided. Council Member Heffernan asked how the impending Caltrans transfer of Coast Highway and the Visioning 2004 project in Corona del Mar impacts this project. Council Member Nichols noted that the City had traffic data with regard to the General Plan and asked if this information will be used. Mr. Badum stated that they want to use the most up -to -date traffic count data, noting that the model that will be used for the General Plan Update (GPU) should be completed soon. He pointed out that this project will look at all of the City's traffic signals, the timing, and the software that runs the signals. He stated that they will use the recent data as the base and look at the timing Volume 55 - Page 518 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX 2. to see what changes can be made. He indicated that the GPU study is more for land use issues and this study is for operational issues. In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Mr. Bludau reported that some of the City's signals vary by the time of day, based on traffic flow. He noted that this does not look at using cameras in order to take pictures of people who run red lights. Mr. Badum indicated that one of the products of this report will be a list of potential products to use. Regarding Item 12 (Required Reimbursement of Legal Cost for Orange County LAFCO Associated with A Simple Vote v. LAFCO of Orange County), Council Member Heffernan asked who the plaintiff was that brought this lawsuit against LAFCO and the total funds expended. City Attorney Burnham noted that Council Member Webb identified a typographical error in the Professional Services Agreement with William Avery & Associates (Item 4). He stated that the term in the contract states one year, but the report mentions 24 months. He clarified that the contract is a one year contract. ANNEXATION ISSUES — WEST SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, SANTA ANA COUNTRY CLUB, UNINCORPORATED AREA SOUTH OF MESA DRIVE. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway recused himself because he owns property on Santa Ana Avenue and has a conflict of interest in this area. Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that the City Council, in October 1999, directed the City to annex Newport Coast, East Santa Ana Heights, and Bay Knolls. He noted that Newport Coast was annexed effective January 1, 2002, and East Santa Ana Heights and Bay Knolls will become part of the City on July 1, 2003. He clarified that a sphere of influence is the ultimate boundaries for a city and is developed by the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) which is comprised of County Supervisors, city officials, special district officials, and one public member. He reported that the only area left to annex in the City's sphere is Banning Ranch. Mr. Kiff noted that West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club, and South of Mesa Drive are in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence, but are adjacent to the City. He stated that LAFCO did not allow Costa Mesa to apply to annex West Santa Ana Heights in September because LAFCO and its staff believed that the citizens would oppose Costa Mesa's application to an extent that they did not even want to go through the protest period. He reported that the area South of Mesa Drive, which includes the Santa Ana Country Club, successfully protested out of Costa Mesa's annexation application. Council Member Proctor asked how LAFCO addresses areas like Banning Ranch when there are no citizens to protest the annexation. Mr. Kiff reported that LAFCO law sets up two annexation procedures depending on the type of territory. He explained that a "landowner voter annexation' has less than 12 registered voters in the district, and a "registered voter Volume 55 - Page 519 Annexation (21) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX annexation' has more than 12 registered voters. He stated that, in an area like Banning Ranch in which there are no registered voters but one primary landowner, the landowner has the ability to approve or veto /protest the annexation proposal. However, the landowner can bring forward an annexation proposal and ask LAFCO to communicate with the annexing city who can then approve it, the landowner would not protest it, and LAFCO would provide the final approval. He indicated that, if the City initiated the Banning Ranch annexation, it would still need the approval of LAFCO and the landowner, or have a lack of protest. Mr. Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation to show Area 7. He noted that West Santa Ana Heights gathered enough signatures to effectively kill the annexation at the protest hearing on December 2. He pointed out that the City does not have to annex this area. He explained that the Country Club has the ability to approve or defeat an annexation as a property owner if they were the sole focus of an annexation. Mr. Kiff also showed the airport area in relation to the proposed annexation areas. He noted that LAFCO does not include the golf course near the airport or the runways in anyone's sphere of influence due to Board of Supervisor policy. Council Member Adams asked if the City should lobby to change this policy. Council Member Proctor indicated that he was under the impression that the golf course was owned by the County. In response to Council questions, Mr. Kiff reported that Master Circle is in Costa Mesa. He confirmed that the lower portion of the golf course is in Newport Beach, the upper portion is in the County's jurisdiction, and part is annexable. Council Member Nichols noted that the annexable area appears to be directly under the runway. Mr. Kiff indicated that the City would need to conduct a survey to get a precise map of the spheres of influence. Mr. Kiff provided an area summary of the different communities. He pointed out that some issues facing the City is that Area 7 is still in Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and that the City has not typically tried to annex areas that are in other communities' sphere. He asked if the City should wait until Costa Mesa takes an affirmative action to remove Area 7 from its sphere of influence. Mr. Bludau indicated that, if the City wanted to force the issue, it can apply to LAFCO to change the sphere of influence. Mr. Kiff noted that West Santa Ana Heights is also in redevelopment and diverts growth in property tax over a base year to the Orange County Development Agency, therefore, the City would not benefit from any growth in property taxes. Further, the County would continue to decide where the moneys are spent. He noted, however, that the sales tax may be higher than the property tax for this community. He indicated that Council Policy D -2 requires the City to look at issues like this. Council Member Webb asked if there has been any instance in which the redevelopment agency is transferred to a city once the area is annexed. Mr. Kiff indicated that Lake Forest annexed a community that was in the County's redevelopment agency and that the Lake Forest continues to keep that area in redevelopment. He reported that Lake Forest City Council also becomes the Lake Forest Redevelopment Agency and makes expenditure decisions. He indicated that it is financially feasible for the City to take over the Volume 55 - Page 520 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX redevelopment area because it has a significant amount of resources ($30 million) and not all of it has been allocated for projects, even though they have a list of projects they would like to accomplish. He noted that a lot of the projects are generated from the airport. He reported that, if the airport is separated, the City can potentially have control over the funds generated for East and West Santa Ana Heights. Mr. Bludau stated that this would mean that Council would act as the redevelopment's decision making body. Mr. Kiff pointed out that the redevelopment area does not grant the County powers of eminent domain. He added that the County operates one redevelopment agency with 13 different project areas. Mr. Kiff stated that, if the City does not annex the territory, it can be argued that the area will never become part of Costa Mesa as long as the law stays the way it is. He indicated that the current law only allows areas less than 75 acres to be annexed without a protest. Further, the City would probably continue to respond to some of the police and fire service calls. Regarding the John Wayne Airport (JWA) expansion, Mr. Kiff indicated that the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) law already limits the local agency's ability to change land uses around airports. Further, the runway protection zone is not annexable, in part because it is not in any sphere of influence. He stated that the City can try to annex it, but counties across California have veto power over issues like this. He explained that, prior to hearing an annexation, one of the things LAFCO has to see is a negotiated property tax exchange and, even if the City gives up all of the property taxes, the County can still refuse to adopt a resolution that matches the City's proposal. He indicated that LAFCO will then never hear the issue. Mr. Kiff reported that, specifically with East and West Santa Ana Heights, there is a plan that links them together as one community. Further, as seen during the protest period, there is significant community support for annexation into Newport Beach. He added that there is a project area committee (PAC) that acts as a de facto community association for both those communities. Mr. Kiff reported that the City is still trying to determine a location for the fire station and added that the County has agreed to contribute towards the cost of the fire station. He noted that the City requested 100% support and believed it may receive it. He added that the PAC is looking at a community center site which is currently the YMCA. He stated that the Orange County LAFCO asked Council in September to consider adding West Santa Ana Heights to its sphere of influence, but has not asked about the rest of Area 7. He reported that there are a number of things the City would have to do in order to pursue this. Mr. Kiff indicated that they would like to come back at a regular meeting with an agenda item communicating the City's interest or lack of interest in annexing all or part of Area 7, a fiscal impact analysis based on Council Policy D -2, and a formal decision. Mr. Kiff indicated that it would be hard to make an annexation like this effective before July 2004 since the agenda item would need to come back in 2003, a fiscal impact analysis needs to take place, the areas would need to be prezoned, the City needs to apply to LAFCO, a LAFCO hearing must take Volume 55 - Page 521 I City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 place, and a protest period needs to occur. He stated that, because of the way the State Board of Equalization allocates property taxes, it does not make sense to annex on any date except July 1 of the year following the LAFCO hearing. Mr. Kiff reported that the public can find out more at www.oclafco.ca.gov; www.city.newport - beach.ca.us; or www.leginfo.ca.us; or by calling the City at (949) 644 -3002 or LAFCO at (714) 834 -2556. Council Member Heffernan asked how code enforcement will work when the City takes over. Mr. Kiff reported that the municipal code would apply to the annexed community. He indicated that many of the communities look Eke Newport Beach, but there are some areas that do not. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question about the things that are currently not in compliance with the code, Planning Director Temple reported that the City would look at the existing development standards and compare them to the City's development standards as part of the preannexation zoning process. She stated that, for Bay Knolls, the City developed a new overlay zone so some of the development standards were close to what previously existed in order to minimize the creation of legal non - conforming buildings. She indicated that they cannot guarantee this in every case, but they do their best to minimize those types of conflicts. However, if there are new non - conformities created as a result of the new regulations, the property owners can still remodel, maintain, or expand their properties as provided in the City's code relative to non - conforming structures and uses. Ms. Temple also noted that the City has a zoning district that can accommodate animals/livestock. She stated that the City may look at that as a base zoning district for those areas if it wants to maintain the property owners' ability to have those uses. She confirmed that the City did this for East Santa Ana Heights since a lot of people have stables. Paul Watkins, 6408 West Ocean Front, stated that he is speaking on behalf of the entire Area 7 and thanked Mr. Kiff for thoroughly looking at this issue. He introduced David Grant, President of the Santa Ana Country Club; Art Cencil, past president of the Santa Ana Country Club; Dr. Cal McLaughlin, South Mesa Drive area; and Jay Taylor, West Santa Ana Heights area. He expressed hope that this is nearing the end of a ten year odyssey to have all of Area 7 join Newport Beach. He stated that, for years, they have publicly and privately requested the City's favorable consideration to allow Area 7 into the City, but the City has carefully avoided taking a position that is adverse to Costa Mesa. He indicated that the City has respected Costa Mesa's hold on Area 7, but emphasized that, on December 2, Area 7 officially protested Costa Mesa's effort to annex the area. Mr. Watkins noted that the staff report indicates that the protest was over 60 %, but pointed out that the LAFCO website indicates 69 %. He clarified that 76.4% of the area South of Mesa Drive is in favor of coming into the City and added that the Santa Ana Country Club also asked that it not be included in Costa Mesa. Mr. Watkins stated that they are asking that the City continue to respect Costa Mesa, but aggressively follow the mandate of the majority of the residents and property owners in Area 7. Further, they are asking that the City begin the process to prezone all of Area 7 and file an application with LAFCO to annex all of Area 7 into Newport Beach. He stated that it is Volume 55 -Page 522 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX possible that LAFCO will try to split up Area 7 and encourage the City to take only a portion of it; however, the representatives of Area 7 can confirm that their request is for all or none of Area 7 to come into the City. He noted that LAFCO joined Area 7 together because of possible annexation into Costa Mesa, but they are requesting that it remain intact. Mr. Watkins believed that the annexation is a win -win solution for the City and Area 7 because of JWA. He indicated that Area 7 is a vital alliance and buffer against further airport expansion. He stated that, despite the Settlement Agreement and the 10.8 million annual passenger (MAP) cap, they believe the agreement will constantly be under attack in coming years. He indicated that, with Area 7 being directly under the flight path, it will provide a unified voice against those that hope to chip away at the agreement as the population grows and as outcries for additional air traffic capacity increases. Council Member Heffernan asked what the internal vote was for the Santa Ana Country Club. Mr. Grant reported that they have 400 regular equity members, over 200 of them live in Newport Beach, and 23 live in Costa Mesa (12 living on Master Circle). He stated that there is an overwhelming majority and sentiment to have the local representation be from Newport Beach. He indicated that they feel less able to control their own governmental destiny by working with the County. He added that the Country Club Board also voted favorably for this. Mr. Bludau asked if all of the 76% from the South Mesa Drive area also want to become residents of Newport Beach. Mr. Watkins believed that they do, noting that the petition not only stated that they wanted out of the annexation into Costa Mesa but also stated that they wanted to join Newport Beach. Dr. McLaughlin stated that the 76% represents all of the registered voters. He noted that only 5% wanted to be part of Costa Mesa. Robert Hanley, Santa Ana Heights, stated that Council saw him and others address the City regarding the airport situation. He indicated that they also spoke with Costa Mesa about this but the experience was negative. He emphasized that Santa Ana Heights has nice homes and the area is wonderful for raising children. He stated that Costa Mesa promised them on numerous occasions that they would abide by LAFCO's decision. Regarding the redevelopment agency, he indicated that he felt disenfranchised at those meetings. He stated that the membership was appointed by the County and that a number of them are not residents of Santa Ana Heights. He indicated that he would like to see that justified and would be delighted if Council took it over. Charles Griffin believed that it would be appropriate to show the safety zones on the map, noting that it extends to the clubhouse of the Newport Beach Golf Course which is within the City. He indicated that the airport manager told him that it would not be possible to extend the runway south any further because that would extend the safety zone into the City and, therefore, the City would have the right of refusal. He believed that this is a strong reason for bringing West Santa Ana Heights into the City. He added that this also makes the safety zone strictly controlled by the City. Volume 55 - Page 523 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX Mr. Griffin reported that there is a localizer transmitter 1,000 feet from the end of the runway which makes that 1,000 feet unusable. He stated that it was paved a year ago to make it a stopway /overrun that cannot be considered by the pilots for takeoffs or as a load factor. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed all its tests for the global positioning system (GPS) geostationary satellites which means that 40,000 airports will be getting rid of the localizers next year since it is a maintenance item for the FAA. He stated that the 1,000 feet will then be available to become a runway, except in safety zones. He reiterated that, if the City controlled the safety zone, the FAA cannot extend the runway and use the 1,000 feet except for takeoffs to the north. Mayor Bromberg asked if Area 7, as configured on the map, puts the City in any special position relative to future airport issues. City Attorney Burnham stated that, if the City annexed that area, the only thing that would change is that the County would need the City's permission to acquire land, but it is his understanding that the County already owns that property. He stated that he does not see any airport benefits to a City annexation. In response to Council questions, Mr. Kiff stated that the retail center on Irvine Avenue generates about $80,000 to $90,000 a year in sales tax. He indicated that they need to confirm this with the State Board of Equalization and noted that this is the intent of the fiscal impact analysis. Council Member Adams stated that he would like to see staff proceed with the fiscal analysis and bring it back to Council. He indicated that, at that time, Council should discuss pursuing the redevelopment agency. Council Member Proctor agreed, but also requested an understanding of why $30 million of redevelopment money has not been spent. Mayor Bromberg asked if there was discussion in Sacramento about returning all redevelopment money that has not been used. Mr. Kiff stated that the Governor's administration presented a proposal that would take unspent housing funds from redevelopment agencies. He noted that redevelopment law currently states that 20% of all property tax increment should be set aside for low and moderate income housing. He stated that there really is nothing that keeps them from looking at the other 80 %. Council Member Webb believed that the City should move forward with this and added that he would like to see the City pursue transferring the redevelopment agency to the City if possible. He indicated that almost 1/3 of the revenue is generated by the JM Peters development which has been in the City for the last 15 years. Regarding the Council Annexation Guidelines, he referenced Item G and expressed concern that there is an undulation of the boundaries at the south end of Area 7, south of University Drive, and there are little pockets of Costa Mesa that will be hard to distinguish from Newport Beach. He asked if the City should look at creating a logical boundary along University Drive. Council Member Nichols stated that he would like to see the City pursue this. Further, he would also like to have the City pursue the last portion of Volume 55 - Page 524 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes December 17, 2002 INDEX County -owned land that is in the Country Club. He pointed out that the City would not gain anything except continuity of land. Charles Griffin stated that there are people in Area 7 with horses and suggested that the City look at the horse and bicycle pathways so it is an uninterrupted pathway toward the fairground. Noting that there are older areas in Area 7 and that the property owners will have to conform to the City's codes, Mayor Bromberg asked if this will be difficult to do. Planning Director Temple stated that the City works well to minimize creating a lot of non - conformities, plus they can structure code adoptions to grant expanded grand£athering rights, if Council chooses to. She believed that possible conflicts that may arise between what they are used to compared to the City's code deal with operational codes, i.e. noise, water quality, and trash ordinances. She added that the businesses will also be subject to business regulations. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - 5:30 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss the property located at 1221 West Coast Highway, specifically the terms and conditions of a proposed bifurcation of the Balboa Bay Club lease. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on December 12, 2002, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ,,gwr,� Recording Secretary City Clerk �Jr C,aL, FOp'� Volume 55 - Page 525