HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Upper Bay View ParkCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 13
September 12, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Public,Works Department
Lloyd Dalton, PE
949- 644 -3328 or Idalton @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: SANTA ANA HEIGHTS PASSIVE PARK (UPPER BAY VIEW PARK)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Reject bids for Contract No. 3787.
2. Direct staff to rebid the project after the City acquires the site from the County.
DISCUSSION:
At 11:00 a.m. on August 9, 2006, the City Clerk opened and read the following bids for this
project:
BIDDER TOTAL BID.AMOUNT
Low . Belaire -West Landscape, Inc.. $378,800
2 L H Engineering Co., Inc. $425,000
3 CS Legacy Construction, Inc. $508,423
4 Griffith Company $660,000
In July 2004, the City Council, on a 6-0 vote, authorized then Mayor Tod Ridgeway to write
to Supervisor Jim Silva and offer the City's willingness to maintain the Mesa -Birch Park if it
were constructed with redevelopment funds (letter attached as Attachment C). Since that
time, the City has included the .Mesa -Birch Park's construction and design funds in its
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) under the assumption that OCDA will pass these
funds through to the City to construct the park.
The Mesa -Birch Park's budget has always been included in the Spheres Agreement between
the City and the County (not executed as of this date). While we initially envisioned that the
park would cost about $250,000 to design and construct, the Spheres Agreement envisions
adequate funding to fully compensate the City from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds.
Santa Ana Heights Passive Park (Upper Bay View Park) — Reject All Bids for Contract No. 3787
September 12, 2006
Page: 2
In order to construct the park, the City must own the parcel. In February 2006, City and
County staff developed a Property Conveyance Agreement including the following Terms
and Conditions:
• A deed restriction requiring the parcels to be used as parkland.
• The City to develop the park within two years.
• The City must maintain the monument sign at the corner of Mesa and Birch.
• The City must protect existing utility easements.
• The City must vacate the former Birch Street alignment.
• The City must make findings associated with the use of RDA funds for the project
(pursuant to CA Health and Safety Code Section 33445).
• Manage and maintain the park in perpetuity.
+ The property will be transferred in "as is" condition.
• The City will work with SAH PAC and to "be sensitive" to the needs of area
residents during the construction of the park.
Council approved those Terms and Conditions at its February 14, 2006, meeting, including
authorization for the Mayor to sign the Property Conveyance Agreement (he later did so).
Later, on July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution which met the City's
obligation under the Agreement relating to Health and Safety Code Section 33445
(findings relating to blight and the redevelopment plan).
We anticipated that the Orange County Board of Supervisors, acting as the Orange County
Development Agency, would approve the Property Conveyance Agreement at its August
22, 2006 meeting. Instead, the item was pulled off of the agenda and it was delayed
indefinitely, at least until such time as County staff comes back with an analysis of
redevelopment activities in county unincorporated areas. As such, We will have to reject
the bids for this project and re -bid at the hoped -for time when we hold title to the park.
Submitted by:
and
Davd,K*
Assistant City Manager
Prepared .
Lloy,d)Dalton, PE
►i�_ ' ".mil j/
Deftn Engineer
%n G. Badum, PE
Works Director
Attachments: Bid Summary
Site Plan
Letter of July 14, 2004 and Related Staff Report
2
V
a
W
m
a
O
a
3
W
Z
LL
O
q
20
Z
W
R'
a
a
W
0
U)
Y
R'
O
J
m
7
a
Q W
F-
o Q
o❑
W
Z
u
`o W
� 4 tYi
U � U
0
U
Z W
Oa
U
O
J
Co
r
m
w
F-
a
FO
°o Q
o ❑
`a °o O
� N J
h N J
W
Q K
� W
N (�
Q
W Q
m �
W U
W W
0a
wi
Attachment A
0
m
m
a
S
N
$4
b
c
0
Y
m.
In
[|e ' \ n
"` ' `
^
�
�y
|
Do 0
TFF
^
Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor Pro Tem
Garold B. Adams
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
,ounciI Members July 14, 2004
Steven Bromberg
John Heffernan
Richard A. Nichols
Steven Rosansky
Don Webb
The Honorable Jim Silva
Vice - Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center Plaza, 5 °i Floor
Santa Ana, California 92701
RE: Parcels at Mesa x Birch in Santa Ana Heights
Dear Supe va:
J
At last even rgs N ewport Beach City Council meeting (July 13, 2004), the Council
authorized me (on a 6-0 vote) to inform you that the City of Newport Beach:
• Respectfully requests that the Orange County Development Agency nor sell the
OCDA -owned parcels at roughly 2801 Mesa Drive (and adjacent to 2801 Mesa) for
development. Instead, the City urges the OCDA to use the parcels for a passive park,
which would be designed and constructed using OCDA funds.
• Hereby states the City's willingness to maintain the passive park once it has been
constructed. The City welcomes the opportunity to participate with the OCDA and the
Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee (PAC) in planning the park — such
participation will assist us in budgeting for the park's maintenance.
Thank you for your attention to this request. As always, we appreciate your leadership
on this issue and the assistance of your staff. Please do not hesitate to contact us at 949-
644 -3000 if you have any questions about this letter or the Council's action.
Sincerely,
TOD W. RIDGEWAY
Mayor of Newport Beach
cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
Members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors
Roger Summers, Chairman, Santa Ana Heights PAC
Dave Niederhaus, Director of General Services Attachment C
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.citynewport- beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3004
'F'
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 22
July 13, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Managers Office
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
9491644 -3002 or dkiff @city.newport- beach.ca.uS
SUBJECT: Mesa -Birch Parcels in Santa Ana Heights
ISSUE:
Should the City Council take a position on whether two parcels at 'the comer of Mesa.
Drive and Birch Street are sold by the Orange County Development Agency (OCDA) for
parking uses or whether they should remain open space, with the future possibility of the
parcels becoming a small park?
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Supervisor Silva advocating that the Orange
County Development Agency (OCDA) use two parcels in Santa Ana Heights for passive
parkland and stating the City's willingness to maintain the park if the OCDA plans and
constructs it.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The Santa Ana Heights region is within a redevelopment area, which means that
property taxes generated above a certain "base year" are allocated according to a
.redevelopment plan" to both remove blight within the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood
and to provide low- and moderate- income housing in the region. The County of Orange
administers the redevelopment area via its Orange County Development Agency
(OCDA).
Like any redevelopment area, Santa Ana Heights has a Specific Plan (which shows
zoning and land uses) and a Redevelopment Plan (which is a broader document that
governs future development in the area). The City adopted the Santa Ana Heights
Specific flan when the City annexed the eastern Santa Ana Heights area effective July
Mesa -Birch Parcel in Santa Ana Heights
July 13, 2004
Page 3
The OCDA staff has been negotiating with Newport Executive Corporation, LLC, to sell
these parcels to NEC so that NEC can develop a planned office structure at 20412,
20412, and 20392 Birch Street. The two OCDA -owned parcels would be used for
street -level parking (about 30 spaces) for the NEC office building. According to OCDA
staff, the proposed sale price for the two OCDA -owned parcels is $550,000.
If the parcels are sold to NEC, the $550,000 would go into the OCDA's accounts for
capital improvement projects in and around Santa Ana Heights. The two OCDA parcels
cannot be built upon, but they can have street -level parking.
The Board of Supervisors of.the County of Orange (acting as directors of the OCDA) will
consider entering into an Owner Participation, Property Disposition, and Development
Agreement with Newport Executive Corporation at the Directors' meeting on Tuesday,
July 20, 2004. Following the Directors' adoption of the Agreement, the parcels will enter
escrow.
The Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee (PAC) has corresponded both with
the County and with the City to ask that the parcel NOT be used for parking associated
with the NEC development. Instead, the PAC has asked that the parcels be used for
"passive park." The City has received several a -mails to this effect.
County staff tell us that the parking for the development, if not used on the two OCDA-
owned parcels, could be replaced by parking underneath the proposed structure at
20412 -20392 Birch. Adding underground parking, however, would increase the cost of
the office building.
If. the roughly 1 -acre of land were to be used as a park, OCDA could fully fund the park's
planning and development. Maintenance would have to be the City's obligation.
According to Mr. Niederhaus, park maintenance costs for a passive park are roughly
$6,000 per year per acre.
A park would be consistent with both the Specific Plan and the Redevelopment Plan,
since the plans read as follows:
Specific Plan - Business Park Zoning allows for:
• Civic and Governmental Uses; and
• Any other similar use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and
intent of this district. The purpose and intent of the Specific Plan includes giving attention to
the protection of adjacent residential uses via landscape buffers among other things.
Redevelopment Plan - Section VI B.2 (604) provides that
The Agency may establish park and recreational facilities in any part of the Project Area
Mesa -Birch Parcel in Santa Ana Heights
July 13, 2004
Page 4
The City's Role. Because we do not administer the redevelopment agency, we can
merely be an advocate for or against certain land uses in the Project Area. If OCDA
chooses to go forward with the NEC Agreement, the City's Planning Department would
process the developer's application just as it would any other application.
PAC members argue that the parking proposed for NEC's overall development concept
(including 2041.2 - 20392 Birch) is not necessary given the underground parking option.
They also argue that the OCDA has enough revenue in its accounts both to fund the
park construction and. to not receive $550,000 for the parcels' purchase. As such, there
is little harm in suggesting to the County that it save these parcels for the passive park
uses suggested by PAC.
Committee Action: The Santa Ana Heights Project Advisory Committee (PAC) supports
the same position recommended by this staff report.
Environmental Review: The City Council's approval of this Agenda Item does not
require environmental review.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Ralph M. Brown Act
(72 hours in advance of the public meeting at which the City Council considers the item).
Funding Availability /Potential Future General Fund Impact:
Funding for capital projects like park development in Santa Ana Heights is available
within the OCDA's annual allocations of tax increment.
Should OCDA honor the City's request to hold the site for the future development of a
passive .park, and if a park was developed on the lots, the City would be responsible for
funding the park maintenance and enforcement costs. Redevelopment funds are not
allowed to be used for these purposes. General Services today estimates this amount
to be roughly $6,000 per year.
Submitted by:
Dave Kiff
Assistant City Manager