|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
PAC Minutes August 2nd, 2005 6:30 PM YMCA 2300 University Dr. Newport Beach. In Attendance: Barbara Venezia, Mary Slouka, Greg Carroll, Harold Klassen, Davis Stieve, Ted Nichols Excused absences: Rick Dayton, Richard Moriarty, Peter Macdonald, Gary Hall 1: Approval of June Minutes & July Minutes Greg makes motion to accept minutes Mary 2nds motion passes 2: Introduction of Guests, Dave Kiff, Jeff Dickman, Paige Cutkomp and Bill Woodson 3: Chairman’s Remarks: I want to thank the YMCA and Jon and Kim for hosting our Meet and Greet this evening and we will be back here in Oct. and again have some fun time together before the meeting. I’d like to begin this meeting by reiterating our mission statement because it is Important to keep PAC's purpose in focus... We are an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors and also to the City of Newport Beach. We can't make any binding decisions, or set any policies. We can only submit recommendations to both agencies. We have been in existence since 1982. We are not a policing agency and are not a homeowners association. Our primary responsibility is to make suggestions on projects to the City and Board of Supervisors as to how and where to spend the Redevelopment dollars to improve our community. We monitor those projects as they move forward. We also follow and make sure the Specific Plan is implemented and adhered to. That being said we will open the floor to public comments 4: Public Comments: We ask that the public keep their comments to 3 minutes or less in as courtesy to others as we have many speakers and agenda items to cover in a timely manner. If you have a comment on anything on the agenda, please wait until that item is being addressed. Once it is addressed I will ask for comments and you can raise your hand and I will call on you in an orderly fashion. Remember that Public comments can only address PAC related issues or proposed projects. We ask that you do not comment on issues PAC has no jurisdiction over. A suggestion is to prepare your comments in writing to keep you focused and within the time frame. No Public Comments on off agenda issues. Staff & Committee Reports: 1. Supervisor Study Session Report – Barbara V ( 10 minutes) This report will give an overall progress report on projects and issues discussed with the Supervisor. Including: Passive Park, Dave Kiff Reports: David Pederson is back on contract to do final designs. The design has already been approved by PAC, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission, and City Council. When he is done, we will put the Project out to bid. That typically takes about 45 days. Then bid award and the winning bidder getting his bonding, insurance, etc – takes about 30 days. The wrinkle in this will be the speed by which the City and County transfer the property OR that the County issues and encroachment permit for us to construct the park improvements. Finally, there remains a discussion with the adjacent property owner, David Guity-Mehr. Mr. Guity-Mehr has approached the City and the County in asking for a small portion of the park parcel for access to his development. The City and County believe that we should attempt to develop a plan that allows access to his property and that maximizes available park space. Dave will points out this section on the map. No Call for a motion on this adjustment at this time. The requested section of the Park for the required 2nd access to the property is 2 % to 3% of the Park property. This 2nd access is required by the County and City. Dave will get with the sub committee and report back to PAC in Oct. with the plan of access. Horse Arena, Dave Kiff reports This project is now within the City’s schedule of Capital Improvement Projects (“CIP” Items). It will either be managed by Public Works or General Services at the City. Dave needs to square the project manager away before the project will get going. At the same time, the City needs to know from the County what it will take to get a permit (probably an encroachment permit) from the County Flood Control District to construct the arena on this County property. code enforcement for the West Side of SAH DaveKiff Reports At our last meeting Dave Kiff reported all parties ironed out the last issue a final agreement went to the City Council and now goes to the Board of Supervisors. On July 27th, the City and County staff agreed upon the final text of the WSAH Code Enforcement Agreement. The City Council has already authorized the City staff to sign the agreement, so we did. It next goes to the OC Board of Supervisors for their OK. I believe that Mike Wellborn of the County said that it would be on the August 30th, 2005 agenda. Work will commence as soon as the Board approves it, so possibly September 1, 2005. Water systems on Riverside Drive Project, At our last meeting Paul Lanning reported that it was his understanding is the upgraded lines were just for fire flow. IRWD feels they are doing what they are supposed to be doing and not upgrading the service lines to individual homes. Ted Nichols disagrees with this interpretation of the Specific Plan language and has since talked with Greg Heiertz at IRWD and seemed to get no where. Dave Kiff was also looking into this. Ted and I have talked twice. I have also called IRWD and talked with Greg Heiertz. Greg says that the only work that IRWD was mandated to do was to provide adequate flows for fire service, and they chose to do so by proposing the installation of a bypass pipe around the pipe that goes to Ted’s place. Ted insists that the “Specific Plan says that the pipe has to be replaced…” I haven’t read the language yet to see which is correct. So far, IRWD says it will only do what it’s required to do, which can be done via a bypass. Paul Writes: IRWD is working with Newport Beach to finalize some design issues. They should start construction toward the end of august. Re the issue raised by Ted Nichols, they are maintaining their stance that it is not part of their waterline project and it is on private property and not in the public right-of-way. I believe they are correct. Park Improvements on Orchard, Since our last meeting, Davis and group met with Marie Knight and Dave Kiff and showed everyone a catalog of play equipment that would be great for this park. The City did a title search for the property and that is now in Paul Lanning’s hands Paul writes: According to our records the County quitclaimed the property to the developer and it is their responsibility. We have sent a letter to the property manager regarding this. We have not heard back from them regarding the property owner's reaction to the proposal. We will follow up with them and find out where this matter stands. Bristol St. sidewalk At the last meeting the County holds fast to the estimate of $67K and once again more money for this would need to be approved by the Board OF Supervisors. The Undergrounding is not part of this approved project on the budget sheet. Has Paul Lanning talked with the project manager on this? Paul writes :Cal-Trans have not transferred the property yet. They did indicate just this week that they will most likely have the money now to transfer the project to the County and this could happen soon. Given the "on again-off again" nature of this project I would suggest we wait until the transfer of jurisdiction is confirmed. Then we can proceed with the project. / Bristol Slope issues, no report on this Old Kline Dr. At our last meeting, Paul reported that he did get some updated numbers $250K for road way improvements, $75K for drainage improvements and $250K for Undergrounding. Paul writes: This item should be placed on the PAC agenda for discussion at the meeting in October. We will have the engineer come to present drawings and explain the issues. Assuming the PAC accepts the proposed concept we will meet again with the community to discuss the project and get their buy-in. If all parties agree to the necessary land dedications we can proceed with the project. ********************** 3/ Annexation of West Side / A Special PAC Meeting is being scheduled for Sept.21 to bring both Cities together. This meeting will take place at the Interpretative Center at 6:30 PM and on our panel will be Dave Kiff, Homer Bludau, Leslie Daigle and from the City of Costa Mesa we have Allan Roeder City Mgr. and Katrina Foley. We are also asking that the City Planner of Costa Mesa be in attendance as well as both Mayors. We will keep working on this. At the meeting we will be asking the pointed questions that need to be asked and we will examine how these cities can settle the differences so we could see annexation come to fruition in 2006. One thing we need to examine here is the take over of the RA. The City has made it quite clear that these two issues are tied together. I’d like Dave Kiff to give us a little more insight into this…… Some fears are : Newport won't listen to us as far as how much money to spend on projects. Answer: In the years we have been working with PAC, we have supported almost every project PAC has put forth. Where we have spent RDA dollars, they have entirely been in support of RDA projects -- we haven't shorted any project or suggested that PAC scale a project back. In the instances where we have allocated more money than PAC has allocated for a project, it typically has been because the original estimates were too low -- either for property purchase costs or construction costs. What happens when we want to add more projects to the list? Answer: Each project added to PAC's project list should be done so as PAC wishes, considering primarily the need for the Project. Because of the strong property tax increment generated in the Project Area, barring an unexpected crash in property values, I see no reason that the life of the Project Area cannot be extended (or maintained) to allow such projects to be constructed. Can (the City) spend (RDA) money on anything (the City) likes? Answer: No. State law says that RDA dollars must be spent within RDA project areas or on projects that directly benefit the project areas. What are the plans to keep the PAC in tact and functioning? Answer: I have always asserted that PAC should continue its advisory role after the City administers the Agency. This decision ultimately will be made by the City Council. As staff members, we will recommend that PAC stay intact and functioning. If a subcommittee is formed to address this issue and other RDA-Annexation issues, the subcommittee should advocate for PAC's retention, as I expect it will. Greg gives a brief over look of the financial status We have $25 million to use on projects. $2 million a year comes into the agency. We need to get more up to date information from the County. ************ 2. Community Center (15 minutes) Progress on the Development of the community center is pressing forward quickly. With the strong support of Supervisor Silva, the City of Newport Breach and from the SAH PAC great strides have been made. Dave Kiff reported on the project and the partnership between the YMCA and the City. He went on to talk about the plan to construct the Center and keep it open during construction. Plans for a facility with both a 25-meter pool with a family aquatic element and a 50-meter “meet” pool were shown. Architects Paige Cutkomp and Bill Woodson answer questions regarding the drawings and the pool area. When discussion was raised about a 50 meter pool vs. the 25 meter pool, Dave Kiff and the architects noted some concerns that the larger pool significantly reduces the outside patio area and we lose the area for tables, chairs, and the children’s area also decreases. Dave went on to say that in looking at the larger pools in Irvine for example, those swim team meets and such do not bring in the dollars as does the smaller pools and recreational areas that families and especially children utilize. He also feels that the parking would be an issue with the Coastal Commission and the City’s own parking requirements if the larger pool was selected. He noted that Council Member Daigle and others have advocated for the larger pool, believing that the community has a strong need for competitive aquatics programs. The PAC subcommittee & the YMCA does not agree with this and wants the 25 meter pool. Conceptual Design Following issues being addressed: • Developing the design to meet desired program spaces yet meeting the budget criteria. • Establishing the desired program scope for the type, size and location of the pools to meeting the needs of this community and regional market area. • Development of the exterior elevations of the building Engineering Sub Contractors are submitting proposals and beginning their work on the following: • Traffic and Parking Study • Geo Tech Studies / Surveys • Preparation for Coastal Commission Submittal YMCA Setting meetings with each member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors to update them on the project. Preparing for the Board of Supervisors meeting in August for increased allocation approval. Currently going through the approval process from the finance committee and the Board of Directors of the YMCA of Orange County for the approval of the “Benefit Rate Structure” for the residents in the Project Redevelopment Zone: The recommended structure as follows: • All Residents will not be charged any registration / sign up fees if they sign up with in a 6 month widow of the first phase opening date. After that window of time, current rates will be charged. • All Residents will given a 25% discount on private room rentals • All Residents will be given a 50% discount on posted membership monthly dues rates. * All residents must provide proof of residency upon request. **************** 3. Horse trail extension on Mesa Dr (10 minutes) 3 minutes will be given to each side of this issue. We will also hear the City’s position on this item. County’s Position: This proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach's position is that they would like to move forward with this project as it has merit and is called for in the Specific Plan. Jeff Dickman Harbors beaches and Parks. Jeff talks about the County trails and bring trail users down to Newport Bay. He talked about the Specific Plan and the trail system in that plan. There was overwhelming support from the audience on this issue to continue the trail. Jeff also brought up the fact that there is already an easement in front of all the homes to make way for the trail. This easement is land now belonging to the City. Buck Johns went on to report on behalf of a number of the residents on Mesa Drive, we are please to provide the following: Wednesday June 29, 2005, 26 residents of Santa Ana Heights met at our home for approximately two hours. 21 of the attendees were residents of Mesa Drive. The primary purpose was to hear from the officers of the SAH Project Advisory Committee relative to extension of a horse trail down Mesa Drive. The reception was co-hosted by Harry and Diane Rinker, 2342 Mesa Drive. The Following are minutes of the meeting as compiled by PAC Chair Barbara Venezia and distributed via email to attendees the following day: ”nice meeting with the neighbors that live on Mesa Drive. Buck Johns organized an informal get together and I was in attendance as well as PAC members Greg Carroll and Richard Moriarity, The neighbors wanted to hear more about the PAC and the projects we are working on. I gave them a brief over view of where we are now, and where we are headed. The most important issue they wanted to discuss was the extension of the horse trail along Mesa Drive. These are the folks who are impacted the most. I explained that the two options to extending the trail were either taking some of the property that had been built on over the years in front on their homes, or going around those areas into the street making the street very narrow in parts. That option would basically eliminate street parking on a significant stretch of Mesa Dr. After much discussion, the neighbors voted unanimously to OPPOSE any extension of the trail in front of their homes with either option.” On behalf of Harry and Diane Rinker, who co-hosted the evening, Colleen and I feel these minutes are a reasonable account of the evening and would like them submitted to the general membership of the SAH Project Advisory Committee. Public Comments were quite impassioned. A show of hands vote of the people attending the meeting showed about 40 in favor and 8 opposed. The main points of the Opposition were loss of parking, the trails appearance and its effect on property values. The main points of those in favor were safety, the Public’s right to have access to the public right- of-, way. The fact that the trail is on the Specific Plan, and completes access to the Regional Trail System. BV asked the PAC whether they had heard any points that would change their mind of in supporting this project as is. The PAC unanimously stated that they support the project as it stands. Mary reiterated she has stood behind this project since the inception of the Specific Plan. Greg asked who would design the trail. Jeff Dickman says the City of Newport Beach would design the trail. The two main concerns of the residents opposing this trail seemed to be the way the trail would look and they did not want to lose any parking along Mesa Dr. The PAC will work with the City on taking a look at how to make both these issues work for all the residents. ********************** 4. Development Committee Report – Davis (5 minutes) Date: 07/19/05 Mark Esslinger Senior Planner, Project Planning Division Environmental Management Agency 300 N. Flower St. Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 (714) 834-5049 Fax: (714) 834-6132 RE: Single Family Residential Development by Waterpointe Development 1572 Orchard Drive Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 Dear Mr. Esslinger: The PAC Development Committee met on 7/19/05 with Garrett Calacci from Waterpointe Development for a preliminary discussion about the proposed Waterpointe project at 1572 Orchard Drive. Present at the meeting were Development Committee members Mary Slouka, Roger Summers, Davis Stieve, Gary Hall, and Rick Dayton. Also present were PAC member and kennel owner, Ted Nichols, and Ted Bosley, a resident of West Santa Heights. Mr. Calacci indicated that on the property that presently has 34 apartment units, they are proposing to build a planned development that would have 32 single family residential units. There would be (24) 3-story units with 1,904 SF of dwelling space and (8) 2-story units with 1,768 SF of dwelling space. Each unit would have a 2-car attached garage and driveway parking for 2 more cars. In addition there would be 7 common parking spaces for short term visitor parking. There would be a private drive with a “hammerhead” turn-around at the south end of the property. Mr. Calacci indicated that the Fire Department has reviewed the conceptual site plan and has given preliminary approval to the proposed on-site vehicle circulation. The 3-story units would not be immediately adjacent to a single family residential parcel. The third floor area would be under 500 SF. Mr. Calacci indicated that the development would conform to all setback and height limit regulations that the County typically requires of this type of development. Conceptual exterior elevations indicated a Tuscany style of architecture, with exterior plaster finish, window shutters, and barrel tile roofing. Final colors have not been selected, but earth tones were indicated on the elevations. The proximity of this development to the RK kennel zone was noted as a possible problem. Ted Nichols asked that a masonry sound wall be built along the east property line, and that the units be sound attenuated. Mr. Calacci indicated the sound wall would be incorporated into their plans. He also indicated that even though the units were not within the CNEL 65 contour, their intent was to sound attenuate the units. Sales agreements with buyers would indicate proximity to the pre-existing kennels. It was noted that this would be a better project for both the developer and the community if the parcel at 1602 Orchard Drive was incorporated into this project. The Development Committee strongly urges Waterpointe Development to continue to negotiate with this property owner to try to resolve a sales agreement. The committee would not object if the parcels at 1544 and 1554 Orchard Drive were also a part of this project. In conclusion, the Development Committee gives preliminary approval to this project and looks forward to reviewing this project when application for the Planned Development is processed by the developer. We wish to thank Mr. Calacci for taking the time to discuss this project with the community at an early stage. Sincerely yours, ` Rick Dayton PAC Development Subcommittee (949) 645-1717 fax: (949) 645-4243 cc. PAC Development Committee, Barbara Venezia, Garret Calacci, Ted Nichols, Ted Bosley, Dave Kiff 5/ New Business……a new agenda item for PAC members to put new projects and issues out there and add them to the next agenda. 1 PAC needs the 5 year plan from the County. 2 Report on status of the Cities takeover of PAC. |
|
||