Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) - Major Thoroghfare Agreement(3s) BY TTiE�CFT ; 66N3 CI ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I AUG I Q 1995 August 14, 1995 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. /(v TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS �-)F THE CITY COUNCIL C 25-IIY FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTM► NT SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRAc JSPORTATION CORRIDOR (SJHTC) - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE A&REEMENT RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Major Thoroughfare .Agreement with the Transportation Corridor Agency and authorize the N' ayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. DISCUSSION: Orange County Cities and the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) creating the TCA and providing for the construction of the SJHTC. The JPA provides for the Corridor to be taken over by Caltrans to operate and maintain as soon as it is constructed and open to traffic. The Major Thoroughfare Agreement effectively replaces the typical Caltrans "Freeway Agreement'. While the Major Thorouc,hfare Agreement is initially executed between the TCA and the City, it will be assumed by Caltrans when the Corridor is completed and turned over to Caltrans. Thi, agreement defines the location, configuration and access to the Corridor within the City. Most importantly the agreement provides for the City to approve the final improvements to City streets before the improvements are accepted as complete by TCA and the Corridor improvements are turned over to Caltrans. In order for Caltrans to own and operate the Corridor, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) must take an action accepting the Route into the State Highway System. The TCA has requested the adjoining cities to enter into the Major Thoroughfare Agreement with TCA at this time as a prerequisite to the CTC action. A Freeway Maintenance Agreement and an Electrical Cost Sharing Agreement to clarify division of maintenance responsibility will be required when Caltrans assumes ownership of the Corridor. City staff will be working with the TCA and Caltrans staff on the details of these two agreements for presentation to the City Council just prior to the actual completion and opening of the Corridor anticipated in spring 1997. 4 , C SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (SJHTC) - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AGREEMENT August 14, 1995 Page 2 At the time the City Council considered and approved the SJHTC Joint • Powers Agreement, in July 1994, the City Attorney Issued an opinion that the JPA could be approved by the City Council without submission to the electorate pursuant to Sec. 422 of the Newport Beach City Charters After reviewing the Major Thoroughfare Agreement and draft maintenance agreements, the City Attorney has found that the City Council may approve these agreement for the same reasons stated in his July 15, 1994, memo to the Mayor and City Council regarding the JPA. A copy of the MTA and the City Attorney's memo to the City CoLeicil are attached. Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director • John Wolter Cooperative Projects Engi leer Attachments r 1 LJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY L MEMORANDUM July 6, 1995 x1alll/ TO: John Da—s- FROM: Robert H. Burnham SUBJ: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Related Agreements In my opinion, three agreements referenced in your June 21, 1995 memo may be approved by the City Council without submission to the electorate pursuant to § 422 of the Newport Beach City Charter. The reasons for my opinion are found in the July 15, 1994 memo to the Mayor and the members of the Council. 0 RHB:gjb JDS=C.mem D eif f/. Robert H. Burnham City Attorney Vl_ r� TO: FROM: SUBJ: 1. REOUEST• 0 ' AGENDA NO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDIIM July 15, 1994 No �lON Rk Mayor Clarence Turner Members of City Council Robert H. Burnham San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) You have asked me to reevaluate a previously issued opinion. that the City Council was empowered to approve the SJHTC JPA and related Fee program without submitting the matter to the electorate pursuant to § 422 of the Newport Beach City Charter (copy of October 17, 1985 Opinion is attached). 2. CHARTER PROVISION: Section 422 of the Charter was adopted by the voters at the same time they overwhelmingly rejected construction of the Coast Freeway. The Measure adopted by the voters reads as follows: "Section 422. Freeway and Expressway Agreements; Connection with Freeways; vote of Electors Required for Approval. Unless and until approved by a - majority of the City's electors voting at a general or special election, the City shall not enter into an agreement or contract with the State of California or any other government or department, subdivision, agency or commission thereof (1) allowing construction of a freeway or expressway which would be in whole or in part within. the boundaries of the City, or (2) to close any City street at or near the point of its interception with any freeway or expressway or to make provision for carrying such City street over or under or to a.-connection.. with the freeway or expressway or to do any work on'such City street as iss necessary therefor." 0 11 0 3. PRIOR OPINION: • A. INTENT OF THE VOTERS In 1985, I concluded that § 422 was not intended to affect the Route 73 Freeway. While this statement may be true, the intent of the voters in approving § 422-of the Charter would not be relevant unless there is some ambiguity in the Measure or its application. The obvious connection between voter approval of § 422 and voter rejection of the Coast Freeway does not prevent application of the Charter to other appropriate freeway or expressway projects. . B. MEASURE L I also concluded in my previous opinion that any voter approval necessary for city participation in the SJHTC JPA was granted by the voters in 1980 with the approval of Measure L. Armed with a better understanding of the project, I reviewed all of the material submitted in conjunction with Measure L, including documents prepared by.the City explaining the scope of the Measure to the voters. _;I now believe approval of Measure L did not authorize agreements relative to the SJHTC. The general alignment of the "proposed transportation corridor" is shown on Measure L material but the voters were asked only -to approve the extension of the 73- Freeway from Campus Drive to MacArthur. C. PREEMPTION In 1985, I concluded that "Section 422 of the Charter may be preempted by State law . . .." I referenced a trial court decision that the urgency Measure adopted by the State legislature to facilitate planning and construction of the:thxee major Orange County transportation. corridors invalidated a proposed Irvine initiative that would have required electoral approval of any ordinance or resolution imposing fees to fund construction of the SJHTC. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded the proposed- Irvine initiative was preempted by State law and • - that ruling would, in my opinion, preclude application of § 422 to any decision of the City Council pertaining to the funding of implementation of the SJHTC (Committee of Seven Thousand (COST) 7000 v. Superior Court 45 Cal 3d 491).. 4. 0 DECISION IN COST /PREEMPTION OF 6 422 A. MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERN The Constitution authorizes charter cities to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs. As to matters which are of statewide concern, however, charter cities remain subject to and controlled by applicable general state laws regardless of provisions of their charters or ordinances. The courts have consistently ruled that the provisions of local ordinances or charters are inapplicable if they are inconsistent, or interfere, with matters of statewide concern. B. SJHTC IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN The SJHTC and the JPA are the products of Section 66484.3 of the Government Code (the statute) That statute was adopted in 1984 to facilitate the construction of regional transportation improvements in Orange County. The statute authorizes "the Board of Supervisors" and the "city council of any city" in Orange County to adopt an ordinance requiring the payment of fees necessary to defray the cost. of constructing major thoroughfares such as the SJHTC. The statute does not create a regional agency for planning and construction major highways within the County but, as the Supreme Court noted in COST: "the use of such mechanisms is necessarily implied from the nature of the facilities themselves, since it would be practically impossible for any one or more cities acting independently to plan and build efficient additions to a regional highway system." (COST at 506) Council approval of, and participation in, the SJHTC JPA was ariaction= within the contemplation of.the legislature and essential to achieving the purposes of the statute facilitating construction of major highways. C. IRVINE INITIATIVE The Irvine initiative at issue in COST was similar to § 422 of our Charter. The proposed initiative would have prohibited the City Council from imposing any new fee or tax to finance SJHTC or other corridors except "by passage of a ballot measure approved by a majority of -a the qualified- electors " In my opinion, no -legal significance would attach to the differences between the proposed Irvine initiative (imposition of fees) and § 422 of the Charter (approval of agreements). • D. VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT INVALID AS TO CORRIDOR • The Supreme Court's ruling that the statute dealt with matters of statewide concern did not automatically invalidate the proposed Irvine initiative. However, the Court also ruled that the statute constituted a grant of authority together with procedural restrictions which precluded exercise of the powers of initiative and referendum. The statute delegates specific authority to "city councils" and that designation, when combined with the regional nature of the subject matter, persuaded the court that the legislature intended to prohibit exercise of the initiative by the electorate. Accordingly, the Newport Beach City Council was free to make decisions relative to the SJHTC without compliance with § 422 of the Charter and the Superior Court would have the authority to issue a. writ commanding the City not to place such matter on the ballot. S. IMPACT OF DECISION IN COST ON 9 422 The decision of the Supreme Court in COST does not invalidate • § 422 of the Charter but the concepts embodied in the decision suggest that the requirement for electoral approval of freeway and expressway agreements may have limited applicability. The Attorney General has concluded that: "the electorate of municipality is not empowered to invoke the provisions of the initiative of referendum in order to designate the location of or construction of State highway routes located or to be located within the jurisdictional confines of the municipality" (11 Ops. Attorney General 193) In reaching this conclusion, the Attorney General considered the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code that, with very. :limited .exceptions, require - -the:: Department of Transportation to enter into a agreement with the city council of the affected municipality prior to closing any city street by constructing a freeway (§ 100.2 Streets and Highways) . The Attorney General concluded that a city council or board of supervisors entering into a street closure agreement with Caltrans was acting in an- administrative capacity and "as a • designated agency.of the State." This opinion is relatively old and there have been changes in the law since, but the importance of State highways and the specific reference to city councils in §.100.2 suggest that § 422 of. the -Charter may be inapplicable to other regional transportation projects. While § 422 of the Charter may have limited application, the provisions are drafted in a way that maximizes their effectiveness. The State has granted cities limited power over freeways and § 422 focuses on that specific area of 6. authority. C In summary, § 422 of the Charter is inapplicable to decisions of the City Council relating to the SJHTC. The Charter may be inapplicable to other State highway projects but we cannot envision any amendment that wo}ild make the language more effective. A RHB:gjb SJHTLop.JV Robert H. Bur City Attorney k • • •