Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2009 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes City Council Study Session January 27, 2009 — 3:30 p.nL I. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Daigle, Council Member Gardner, Council Member Webb, Mayor Selich, Mayor Pro Tem Curry, Council Member Rosansky, Council Member Henn II. CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 5 (Dogs at 38th Street Park), Council Member Gardner received confirmation that the ordinance reflects the landscape modifications discussed at the January 13 meeting. Regarding Item 6 (Newport Beach Country Club), Council Member Webb expressed concern about the large facility for entertainment when the number of tennis courts is being reduced. In response to Council Member Henn's questions regarding Item 9 (Community Youth Center), City Manager Bludau stated that the bid amount was larger than the estimate; however, the award amount is covered by the budget. He reported that rehabilitation programs are a lot harder to estimate and noted that all the bid amounts were comparable. Public Works Director Badum stated that the project was hard to estimate, bid amounts were close, and they are pleased with the bid results. 2. NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU STATUS REPORT. Debbie Snavely, Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (CVB), thanked Council for their partnership and support. She provided an overview of the CVB and asked Council for a renewal of the contract for five years with the same terms that currently exist. She reported that their industry would like to create a new tourism business improvement district to supplement their contract in which six major hotels in the City have agreed to assess themselves 2% of their revenue for marketing programs in order to generate more room nights and more Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). She indicated that they are one of seventy CVB's in the world to be nationally accredited. Gary Sherwin, Conference and Visitors Bureau, provided a PowerPoint presentation which included the Newport Beach Tourism Economic Impact, National Industry Outlook, Newport Beach Hotel Business Overview, Current Conditions, NBCVB Organizational Overview, Budget, Mission Statement, Newport Beach Brand, 2006 -2008 Achievement Highlights, Functional Overview, Conference Sales History, 2009 Organization Initiatives, CVB Contract, Newport Beach TBID (Tourism Business Improvement District), Why Create a TBID, and a 2009 Six Month Plan of Action. In response to Council questions, Mr. Sherwin stated that they are currently working on a social media program which allows communication instantaneously with groups of people and demands daily care to maintain its relevance. He reported that room rates are declining and the 2% from the TBID contributions are based on those rates. He also stated that residents Volume 59 - Page 59 City of Newport Beach City Council Study Session January 27, 2009 from Southern California do visit the community but the CVB is currently working on getting the visitors to stay overnight. He indicated that there are no rules about how much money should be spent from the hotel's gross revenue funds because there are many variables connected and the competitive cities have a different market. He stated that he understands the concerns relative to a five -year contract, but it is important for them to do their job effectively and the work that they do requires a long term approach. Mayor Pro Tem Curry commended the CVB for doing a great job and stated that the community is a product of what the convention bureau does. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, Revenue Manager Everroad stated that the revenue projection for the City runs two years but the contracts with the CVB have historically been for five years. 8. BANNING RANCH APPRAISAL REPORT. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that a pricing study, instead of an appraisal, was done by Buss - Shelger Associates. Ron Buss, Buss - Shelger Associates, reported that their services were obtained to appraise Banning Ranch; however, in which they later recommended that the project be divided into phases. He stated that they visited the location, divided the land into four categories, and provided a concise report that included market information, parcel information, maps, and price trends. He noted that the recommended price is approximately $185 million and suggested that a 25% discount be applied. He noted that the amount does not include a deduction for the cost of cleaning the fields. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, Mr. Buss stated that there is no development cost estimate available at this time, so a residual study can't be done. He indicated that he would further discount another 10% for the area because of the work involved. He noted that the market evaluation included all of the sites except for the degraded wetlands. Dave Myerson, Resource Opportunity Group, stated that raising the money to acquire Banning Ranch will be challenging in this fiscal environment. In response to Council questions, Mr. Myerson stated that he will look at all public and private sources for funding and that he is open to funding suggestions. He indicated that the appraisals, reviews, and board approvals will take about one to two years. Allan Beek suggested that Council amend the General Plan to make the area open space and allow petroleum production to continue. Kevin Nelson stated that the area is well positioned as an open space resource, critical to the area, the last place of its kind, and is valuable. He suggested that Council look ahead 30 to 40 years. He believed that the Coastal Commission will make most of the area unbuildable because the biology report states that the area has the highest concentration of cactus wren in Southern California. Jan Vandersloot expressed appreciation to the City for attempting to acquire the open space and indicated that the pricing study did not include the purchase of Bolsa Chica Mesa. He stated that the area is sensitive because of endangered species and the cactus wren, and suggested that Council consider land swaps. Patricia Bondsmen expressed concern about the Santa Ana River, contamination, and Volume 59 - Page 60 pollution within Orange County, and thanked Council for attempting to acquire the area. In response to Council Member Webb's question, she stated that active areas and passive areas can coexist. James Quake thanked Council and expressed concern for the amount of capital needed to acquire the land. Debbie Kochan stated that the price is exaggerated and some of the areas were not included. Terry Welsh, Banning Ranch Conservancy, thanked Council and stated that the Conservancy is pleased that the General Plan reflected some of their wishes. He noted that there were ten large coastal land purchases in Northern and Central California which totaled about 11,000 acres and sold for approximately $34 million. He indicated that he knows it's going to be a lot of work and asked to work with David Myerson to coordinate efforts. He confirmed that they would pay for his service. In response to Council Member Webb's question, he stated that he agrees that there is room for a sports field on the property. Jean Watt stated that the purchase will require a further look at the appraisals. She indicated that two things will have to happen: Council needs to agree to do this and everyone will have to work together to get support from the State. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, she stated that she would like more information about the residual value. Mayor Pro Tem Curry noted that Council will be discussing Measure M eligible projects for potential funding sources tonight. In response to Council Member Gardner's question, City Attorney Hunt stated that an issue that could be raised regarding shared use is inverse condemnation. Council Member Rosansky reminded everyone that the property is located in the County limits and noted that the County allows more development than the City. In response to Council questions, Mr. Buss stated that they worked on the Bolas Chica project in which he is under agreement not to speak publicly about, the Coastal Commission can cut back on density, and the assessed value does not mean anything in today's market place. He also stated that the 11,000 acres purchased in Northern California is non - comparable to this area because it is a non -urban area. He indicated that if the Coastal Commission restricts residential development on the property, it will decrease the property value. In response to Council Member Gardner's question, Mr. Myerson stated that the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports are more interested in using their money for restoration than acquisition. He stated that they can do a different type of analysis on the appraisals if the development costs were available or do a non - appraisal on a consultant basis, and noted that the plan can always be revisited. Council Member Webb expressed concern about getting the funds for this project and stated that he can't justify taking public money to acquire property. He urged Council to make a decision and get final numbers on the development of the project. He noted that almost every area that is a concern might be preserved. Council Member Rosansky stated that Mr. Myerson will come back to Council in 30 to 60 days with funding information. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None IV. ADJOURNMENT - 5:48 p.m The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 21, 2009, at 11:20 a.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. r City Clerk Mayor