Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2001 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 9, 2001- 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: Heffernan (excused), O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Glover stated that at the regular meeting, she would be asking for direction on a policy that deals with how to address legislative issues. Mayor Adams stated his understanding that Item #15, Sale of Ackerman Property, would be pulled from the agenda and directed staff to include additional information in the subsequent staff report. Specifically, he requested that the staff report address the change in who the recipients of the scholarship fund would be and how they would be selected. Mayor Adams stated that he would be pulling Item #3, Summary of City's Legislative Efforts, for discussion at the regular meeting. Council Member Proctor stated his understanding that Item #4, Award of Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise, would be pulled from the agenda. He stated his concern for the City being in compliance with the State - mandated recycling rate of 50% and asked if the franchisees could be held responsible. Mayor Adams suggested that the City Council might want to revisit how the recycling issue is being addressed. He mentioned that Council Member Glover had recommended that it be discussed at a future Study Session. 2. ORAL REPORT FROM CITY'S SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE KEN EMANUELS. Deputy City Manager Kiff introduced Ken Emanuels and stated that he would be discussing some of the items listed in Item #3 of the regular meeting agenda. Deputy City Manager Kiff added that Mr. Emanuels has been working with the City since 1997 to lobby issues along the lines of the Legislative Platform, particularly in Newport Bay. Mr. Emanuels stated that the proposed 2001 Legislative Platform is quite comprehensive and extremely helpful, as it allows staff to immediately prepare a letter from the Mayor when bills affect the City. He stated that the quick response can be very important with some issues. Volume 54 - Page 1 INDEX Oral Report Only City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 U Mr. Emanuels stated that, currently, the general topic of conversation in Sacramento is electricity. He stated that he has worked in Sacramento for three decades and has never seen such panic, and added that the issue will consume a lot of political energy, anxiety and grief in the coming year. Mr. Emanuels stated that the coming year is also the time for reapportionment to take place, with district boundaries being affected. He stated that this will also take a lot of time and divert a lot of attention. He stated that the third priority continues to be education funding. Mr. Emanuels stated that these priorities mean that the cities in the State are an afterthought. He stated that this isn't new, but any attention on the property tax shift has been reduced to about zero. He added that the interest of the administration in State and local fiscal reform is also about zero. INDEX Mr. Emanuels announced that the State budget would be unveiled the following day and he did expect some good news. He explained that the Governor has indicated that money will be spent on urban storm runoff issues. Mr. Emanuels stated that he and the Deputy City Manager would be reviewing the proposal to make sure that the criteria for funding fits the City's needs. He stated that he expects the budget to include a proposal from the Coastal Conservancy for the restoration of Upper Newport Bay. Mr. Emanuels also expected the budget to include significant monies for cities for law enforcement equipment. Mr. Emanuels stated that in the previous budget year, legislation was passed that would provide for compulsory and binding arbitration for police and fire in local government. He added that the measure became effective January 1, 2001, and the California League of Cities immediately filed a lawsuit, based on the unconstitutional delegation of authority and infringement upon charter city personnel authority. He stated that the lawsuit has been moved to the California Supreme Court and their response is expected soon. Mr. Emanuels stated that he expects a great deal of attention for Newport Beach to be directed at Back Bay funding, as well as bills that prohibit cities from levying business license taxes on home -based businesses. He further expected the City to be deeply involved with the urban runoff issue and some coastal legislation. Mr. Emanuels concluded by stating that he communicates with City staff at least once per week and is always available to respond to issues as they arise. Mayor Adams asked if Mr. Emanuels was comfortable with the proposed Legislative Platform. Mr. Emanuels stated that he has reviewed the items and feels they are specific enough to fit most issues that can be anticipated. He additionally confirmed for Mayor Adams that they provide adequate guidance. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked when the last day would be for the introduction of bills in the current session. Mr. Emanuels stated that it is February 24, 2001, but that any bill would have to be drafted by the Volume 54 - Page 2 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 legislative council thirty days prior, which would set the deadline as January 24, 2001. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway referred to the violation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Los Angeles County and the problems with wastewater operations in Huntington Beach, and asked if Mr. Emanuels expected State money to be spent on rehabilitation of wastewater operations in Newport Beach. Mr. Emanuels stated that he would know in three days, once the budget is provided. City Manager Bludau asked Mr. Emanuels to speak briefly about the California League of Cities' proposal to become a grassroots lobbying effort. Mr. Emanuels stated that the League is being honest and candid in regards to its political situation. He stated that in the 1960s and 1970s, the League was one of the most influential groups in Sacramento. He added, however, that with the growing importance of campaign funding, the League has found that their interests have been marginalized. He stated that cities aren't able to raise the private funds needed, but the League does have a network of political influence that money can't buy. He stated that the League is proposing a significant increase in dues that will be used to hire grassroot organizers for the different divisions throughout the State. Mr. Emanuels stated that it is a dramatic effort, but could begin to balance the interests of public agencies with private interests. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he felt that raising the dues wouldn't help. He cited the ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) shift as an example of something that cities attempted to stop, and couldn't. Mr. Emanuels agreed with Mayor Pro Tom Ridgeway that the cities had the support of the legislature but not the Governor, and the ERAF shift will probably continue to always cause problems. He added, however, that other issues could benefit from the League being more politically organized. INDEX Council Member Glover asked what would be accomplished by the raising of the dues, since it wouldn't give money to the legislators. Mr. Emanuels admitted that nothing would be accomplished for Newport Beach because the City already knows its legislators and probably has as great an influence on them as possible. He explained that the problem is that of the 485 cities in the State, only a dozen or two are as active. Further, most cities don't have contact with their legislators or track their votes. He stated that the proposal by the League will attempt to raise the level of effort and sophistication in other parts of the State. Council Member Glover stated that the City has to be careful with regards to ERAF. She stated that a further shift could be more punitive than it currently is. Mr. Emanuels expressed his opinion that the ERAF issue is over and that the money that was shifted has already been spent. Council Member Glover stated that she saw a plan to take all of the sales tax from the cities and send it to the Board of Equalization to be distributed per capita through the counties. Mr. Emanuels stated that this would ruin the economy in California and that the plan was widely opposed. Per Council Member Bromberg's request, Mr. Emanuels explained that in Volume 54 - Page 3 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 1991, the legislature shifted approximately 25% of the property tax from cities and counties to the State's general fund via a special County account called ERAF. He stated that, in effect, the money was shifted to the schools. He stated that it could be shifted back by an act of the legislature. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway confirmed with Administrative Services Director Danner that the City loses approximately $4 million per year due to the ERAF shift. 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MEASURE S GUIDELINES AND REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. City Attorney Burnham stated that the purpose of the discussion is to review possible Measure S guidelines. He stated that the measure encourages the City Council to adopt guidelines to implement the measure, and requires that the guidelines be consistent with the measure's purpose and intent. Using a PowerPoint presentation, City Attorney Burnham stated that Measure S only applies to General Plan Amendments (CPAs) and requires majority voter approval if the proposed GPA substantially increases traffic, density or intensity. He added that "substantial increases" means more than 100 peak hour trips, more than 100 dwelling units or more than 40,000 square feet of floor area. City Attorney Burnham stated that there are several ways to define "peak hour trips" and they include using the peak hour of the adjacent street, using the peak hour of the proposed land use or selecting the higher of the morning and evening peak hour. He stated that the measure also requires that the "maximum" amount of traffic be evaluated, but stated that this is difficult. City Attorney Burnham displayed a page from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. He added that Measure S requires that the ITE Manual be used to determine trip generation rates. He stated that the page illustrates how the average trip rate and the best -fit curve were determined for an office building. City Attorney Burnham then displayed a table showing sample peak hour trip rates, as prepared by Transportation/Development Services Manager Edmonston. The table showed that medical offices are fairly high in the amount of traffic they generate during peak hours, while hotels are fairly low generators of peak hour trips. City Attorney Burnham stated that a determination also needs to be made in regards to the definition of "floor area ". He stated that the options include using the definition in the ITE Manual, which lists four options depending on the type of non - residential use, using the definition of "gross floor area" from the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) or using the definition of "net floor area" from the NBMC. He added that both of the definitions from the NBMC would exclude parking structures. City Attorney Burnham displayed another table prepared by Manager Edmonston that illustrated projects that would generate 100 peak hour Volume 54 - Page 4 INDEX Measure S Guidelines (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 trips. He stated that the table shows that medical office projects of a smaller size generate more peak hour trips than general office and hotel projects of a larger size. City Attorney Burnham stated that the "look back provision" of Measure S has produced the most interest and is possibly the most difficult to define. He explained that Measure S requires that 80% of the increases resulting from other GPAs affecting the same statistical area and adopted within the preceding ten years, be added to the traffic, density or intensity of the proposed GPA. City Attorney Burnham displayed two options that might be available to the City Council for determining the guidelines of the look back provision. He stated that one option would be to begin the look back period on December 15, 2000. He stated that this is staffs recommended guideline because it supports the measure's intention to prevent piecemealing of GPAs and future growth in the City. He pointed out that the City Council approved GPAs in the 1990s that actually reduced peak hour trips. City Attorney Burnham stated that a second option would be to go back ten years from the date on which the GPA was adopted. He stated that this also prevents piecemealing and would be the most conservative approach. He stated that this option would mean that several statistical areas in the City are already maxed out and would require voter approval for nearly any GPA. He listed these areas as including Old Newport Boulevard, the airport area, Bonita Canyon, Pacific View, Newport Center and North Ford. INDEX City Attorney Burnham then discussed the procedure for processing a GPA that might require voter approval. He stated that the process would begin after the GPA had been approved by the City Council and should not be a part of the planning process. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the AM and PM peak hours should be combined to determine if 100 peak hour trips would be generated by a project. City Attorney Burnham disagreed with the approach and stated that it would cause the trip threshold to be out of proportion from the floor area threshold. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that his calculations show that if the AM and PM peak hours are not combined, an office building of approximately 67,000 square feet would require voter approval, but if they were combined, the office building would only need to be approximately 33,000 square feet before it generated 100 peak hour trips. City Attorney Burnham stated that it depends upon the type of office use. Mayor Adams stated that the traffic trigger and the density trigger are going to supercede each other in different cases. Mayor Adams referred to the slide presented earlier which showed the graph from the ITE Manual. He stated that the measure requires the use of the ITE Manual for determining the trips generated from a project, but added that determining trip generation involves a lot of engineering discretion. He explained that traffic studies and traffic counts involve various independent variables. He stated that these independent variables might include square Volume 54 - Page 5 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX footage or number of employees, and it is important to select the right variable when determining trip generation for a particular land use. Mayor Adams stated that Measure S does not specify which variable should be used. Using the graph, Mayor Adams explained how an average rate is calculated. He stated that because the average rate can be relatively meaningless, the traffic engineering industry developed the best -fit curve. He pointed out that sometimes the best -fit curves are a better estimate of what the trip rates will be for a project. Mayor Adams summarized his comments by stating that a lot of decisions need to be made when determining the ITE trip rate for any given land use. He agreed that guidelines are needed and suggested that the process that is decided on be as non - subjective as possible. He stated that a property owner should be able to understand how the trip generation rate will be evaluated for their project. Mayor Adams suggested that the 300 land uses in the ITE Manual be looked at, and an appropriate trip rate for each be determined and adopted as part of the City's guidelines. Mayor Adams stated that another issue that is significant is the determination of what peak hour to use. He stated that some land uses generate the most traffic during peak hours and others generate their peak traffic during non -peak hours. He stated that the measure indicates that the maximum amount of traffic should be looked at, which would mean that the project's peak traffic hour should be used. Mayor Adams explained that he didn't think that the voters wanted CPAs that added excessive traffic to the fringe of the peak hour. He stated that congestion in Newport Beach doesn't last much past the fringe of the peak hour, but that as regional traffic continues to build, the peak hour condition will tend to become longer than an hour. He pointed out that this is why projects that generate their peak traffic during the fringes of the peak hour need to have the project's peak traffic hour used. In regards to the look back options mentioned earlier, City Attorney Burnham clarified that although staff is recommending the first option, either option is consistent with the intent of Measure S. He stated that the proposed option could also use the date of publication of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition, which was July 30, 1999. Mayor Adams suggested that all of the issues be listed and a general consensus from the City Council be determined. He stated that this would give more time to concentrate on the issues that are more controversial. Council Member Glover asked how a project's peak hour is determined. Mayor Adams responded by stating that the ITE Manual provides the data that has been assembled over time for the AM and PM peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. He stated that a separate graph is also provided for the peak hour of the generator, and that this is done for every type of land use. Council Member Glover stated her concern that the listed issues would Volume 54 - Page 6 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX become too specific and too numerous. Mayor Adams stated his belief that most of the issues will be simple to address. He added, however, that a fundamental question might be to decide if the City Council should even adopt guidelines. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the City Council is obligated to adopt guidelines. Philip Arst, Greenlight spokesperson, stated that there are eight points that the Greenlight group would like considered. He stated that traffic was one of them, and was already discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Arst thanked Mayor Adams for working with the group in developing guidelines, which the Greenlight group believes will ease implementation problems in the future. He stated that the title of Measure S is Protection from Traffic and Density, and targeting major development projects that significantly increase traffic levels or impact the character of the City was the goal of the measure. Mr. Arst stated that the group's eight points include the look back period, which they feel should be a current date, as it would allow for a consistent and fair application of the law. He stated that either the July, 1999 date or the December, 2000 date can be used, as there is not a significant difference between the two. Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group recommends that the ITE Manual definition of floor area not be used, because it is a net floor area and intended for traffic calculation purposes. He stated that the Greenlight group also wants to consider the character of the City. Mayor Adams and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway received clarification from Mr. Arst that the Greenlight group is recommending that gross floor area, not net floor area, be used for the purpose of calculating the intensity trigger. Mr. Arst added that above -grade parking structures of meaningful mass detract from the character of the City and should, therefore, be included in the gross floor area. Mayor Adams asked if any other aboveground structures should be included, or if the guidelines should just indicate that all aboveground structures will be included. City Attorney Burnham stated that the measure uses the term "floor area ", and that the zoning code doesn't include parking structures in that definition. He added that the measure deals primarily with traffic and that parking structures don't have trip generation characteristics. Mayor Adams wanted to make sure that other structures wouldn't be an issue in the future. Planning Director Temple confirmed that the City does not count parking structures against the gross floor area calculations, but that they are taken into consideration when discussing building bulk issues. She added that the zoning code has more than one definition for "gross floor area ", depending upon the purpose for the calculation. She stated that the zoning code also allows the City to exempt certain types of mechanical Volume 54 - Page 7 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 spaces from the calculation of gross floor area. INDEX Continuing through his list, Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group recommends that immediately upon application for a GPA, an applicant be given a draft analysis of whether Measure S would apply to their project. Mr. Arst additionally stated that the Greenlight group recommends that the GPA include the traffic loads generated by the project's permitted maximum uses. In regards to linking to the current general plan, Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group requests that wording be added to indicate that the proper and fair application of Charter Section 423 depends upon the retention of the current general plan methodology. Mayor Adams stated that he wasn't sure if the voters, when they voted for Measure S, meant to retain the specificity of the current general plan. Mr. Arst stated that it's a tool to keep Measure S operative. Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group suggests that the allowable construction periods for projects be extended beyond what is allowed by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when the applicant has to wait two years for a general municipal election before beginning construction. Lastly, Mr. Arst stated that the group suggests that only GPAs that have been approved be included when calculating an applicant's Measure S thresholds, and not those that are pending voter approval. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that parking structures shouldn't be included in the discussion because the measure's intent is to deal with traffic. He additionally stated, however, that the City Council might want to consider determining a factor for parking structures in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) areas for sizing purposes. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he'd like to review Mr. Arst's comments further. He suggested that a lot of issues can be dealt with by using "either/or ... whichever is greater" language. He stated that this might help to keep the guidelines simple. In response to Mr. Arst's points, Mayor Adams stated that he hadn't made a clear decision on the look back period. He stated that he agrees with using the gross floor area for determining intensity and the inclusion of parking structures. Mayor Adams stated that he didn't see a problem with making an immediate analysis upon application or with using traffic calculations for the maximum uses permitted. He did, however, state that retaining current general plan methodology and giving relief from the TPO language both seemed a bit far - reaching. Lastly, he agreed that pending GPAs should not be included when calculating Measure S thresholds. Mayor Adams suggested that a trip generation table also be created that would take the place of the ITE Manual. Council Member Glover stated that she wanted to review Mr. Arst's Volume 54 - Page 8 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX comments further and compare them with staffs recommendations. She added that she would prefer to use the December 15, 2000 date for the look back period. She agreed with Mayor Adams' suggestion to look at uses and the trips they generate rather than peak hour trips. She stated that some of this specific information should be included in the guidelines. Council Member Glover asked what "piecemealing" meant. Mr. Arst explained that it means a single developer evading the intent of the measure by going over the thresholds in multiple GPAs. Council Member Bromberg stated that he is basically in agreement with most of the comments, but would like to review them further. He stated that he is also having difficulty deciding on the look back provision. Council Member Bromberg asked if Mr. Arst felt that the Implementation item in Section 423 was referring to the look back provision. Mr. Arst stated that the primary thought by the Greenlight group was new construction and that piecemealing would not have been applicable prior to the filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition. Council Member Proctor agreed that issue guidelines are needed. He suggested that staff present a matrix listing the issues. He stated that the December 15, 2000 date seems appropriate for the look back provision. He stated that he does have a problem with including parking structures in the floor area calculations, since they do not generate additional traffic. He agreed with the other comments, but didn't understand how changing the look back period while a project waits for an election would be implemented. Mr. Arst stated that the provision would no longer be needed if only approved GPAs are counted toward the Measure S thresholds. Mayor Adams stated that a list of issues has only been started and that input from the public is still needed. He suggested that staff prepare a matrix and be prepared to add issues. He further suggested that the item be continued to the Study Session of January 23, 2001. 4. DISCUSSION OF PAST AND PRESENT NEGOTIATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. City Manager Bludau stated that at the City Council meeting of October 24, 2000, Council Member Glover requested a report on the way that the City has negotiated previous development agreements. He stated that Planning Director Temple prepared the staff report that was provided for the current meeting. Council Member Glover confirmed with City Manager Bludau that there is not a definitive policy on how the agreements are negotiated, and that they are handled on a case -by -case basis. She stated her understanding that projects are of different sizes and involve a myriad of activities. Council Member Glover stated that a policy should possibly be developed on how development agreements are approached. She stated that it could include some flexibility, by allowing for City Council approval to deviate Volume 54 - Page 9 Development Agreements (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX from the policy. Mayor Adams asked if there was general agreement by the City Council that such a policy should be drafted. Council Member Bromberg stated that a policy could certainly be drafted and looked at, but that each development agreement might have unique circumstances and might need to be approached differently. Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the Council Member of the district in which the project exists should be involved in the negotiations or discussions. Mayor Adams concluded the discussion by stating that it might be worthwhile for staff to draft a proposed policy. City Manager Bludau confirmed that the upcoming Study Sessions should be reserved for studying the Greenlight issue. Mayor Adams suggested that the next Study Session begin at 3:00 p.m Council Member Ridgeway added that he would be making a motion at the evening meeting to request that the sale of the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir be agendized for an upcoming Study Session. He stated that it will most likely involve quite a bit of public testimony. Allan Beek suggested that the public be allowed to submit their comments on the Greenlight issue prior to the Study Session so that they can be incorporated into the matrix ahead of time. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - 5:45 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 3, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ,{ \� A JC i^ A�' P� _4, 042' Recording Secre •y _f City Clerk Mayor Volume 54 - Page 10