Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS4 - Voting City Land in Assessment District BallotingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Study Session Agenda Item No. SS4 (September 22, 2009) TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: David R. Hunt, City Attorney ext. 3131, dhuntaNewportBeachCA.gov SUBJECT: Consideration of Creating a Council Policy Regarding Voting City Land in Assessment District Balloting ISSUE: Should the City Council adopt a Council Policy addressing the issue of whether the City Council will vote City land in Assessment District Balloting, and if so, what should that policy be? RECOMMENDATION: Review the issues; consider the alternatives; and give direction on further action if any DISCUSSION: The City Council has addressed two utilities undergrounding assessment district ballots so far in this calendar year, AD 87 on Balboa Island and AD 103 for Peninsula Point. Both circumstance generated some significant citizen concerns, though one to a vastly greater degree. The City Council chose in each circumstance to not vote City property in the proceedings. Had the City Council chosen to vote City property in favor or the district in one of the matters, the outcome would have been reversed. The question has been raised as to whether the Council should adopt a formal Council Policy addressing if or when the City should vote its property in assessment district ballots. The issue has been discussed in the context of each assessment district and briefly discussed during the meeting on July 28, 2009 when the Council considered adopting formal Assessment District Ballot Procedures and Guidelines. It was decided at that time Consideration of Creating a Council Policy Regarding Voting City Land in Assessment District Balloting Study Session September 22, 2009 Page 2 to bring the issue back to the next available study session in order to give the matter further discussion outside of the context of any speck assessment district balloting.' Staff has reviewed the General Plan for provisions that could give some guidance since the meeting on July 28, 2009. No General Plan policies are fully on point, though the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan discusses related issues. It identifies the "miniz[ation of] visual impacts of signs and utilities" as Goal NR21. Under that goal, the General Plan establishes two policies pertinent to this issue, as follows: NR 21.1 "Signs and Utility Siting and Design[:] Design site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual impacts;" and NR 21.3 "Overhead Utilities[:] Support programs to remove and underground overhead utilities, in new development as well as existing neighborhoods." The policies identify some implementation programs, the most pertinent of which states, Imp. 14.11 California Public Utilities Commission The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates privately owned telecommunications, [and] electric ... companies. Among its responsibilities is the coordination of funding for the undergrounding of overhead utilities. Newport Beach shall work with the PUC in obtaining funding and implementing the undergrounding of remaining overhead utilities. These goals, policies and implementation plan provisions provide some on the general approach to the undergrounding of utilities, but they do not specifically address the issue of voting of City property in an assessment district ballot, much less a particular proposed district. That decision is uniquely the Council's to make. On the other hand, they do provide some general policy framework for addressing the issue. In this context, and taking into account the General Plan provisions discussed above, the Council has several options for adopting a policy regarding the voting of City land. We identify some of the options as follows: • Make no formal policy at this time and vote City property on a case by case basis; or Make it the policy of the Council to always vote City property in favor of an assessment district; or Adopt a policy stating the Council will never vote City land either for or against an assessment district (but a policy such as this one could create complications in the ' Staff was also directed to bring back for consideration adding language to the Guidelines addressing some of the procedural issues that surfaced during the recent assessment district proceedings. That matter is on the Council's regular agenda for consideration. Consideration of Creating a Council Policy Regarding Voting City Land in Assessment District Balloting Study Session September 22, 2009 Page 3 context of the General Plan provisions identified above and as a result, we are of the opinion it is not the best choice as a result); or Make a policy identifying criteria for when the City will vote its property; or Adopt a policy identifying the time frame in which the Council will decide to vote the City's property, such as stating the Council will direct the City Manager how to vote the City's property at the time of preliminary approval of the engineer's report and the noticing of the public hearing for tabulation of assessment ballots. Please give staff direction on your preferences, if any, and we will take action accordingly.' Environmental Review This consideration is not a project as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Implementing Guidelines. However, an environmental review and appropriate documentation will be prepared for each project that may utilize these assessment district balloting guidelines. Public Notice Notice has been given consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act. No other public notice is required by this item. Alternatives You have a full breadth of options available to you. No action is needed. You can choose to take no action; adopt a policy or not; modify the recommendation; or send staff back with direction. Prepared by: David R. Hunt City Attorney