|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE PAC Minutes Oct. 3rd, 2006 6:30-8:30PM John & Donna Crean Mariners Library In attendance: Barbara Venezia, Mary Slouka, Greg Carroll, Jayne Jones , Ted Nichols Rick Dayton, Richard Moriarty, Tim Stoaks, Gary Hall 1. Approval of minutes from August PAC Meeting Richard Moriarty approves minutes and Gary 2nds. Minutes are approved 2. Public Comments: (3 minutes or less) 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. We suggest you prepare your comments in advance and in writing to keep you focused and within the allotted time. If you have a comment on anything on the agenda, please wait until that agenda item is being discussed. 1/ May Ranck asked about the new street over head signs on Mesa and Santa Ana Ave that are blue : BV told her that all the signs in Costa Mesa were being changed over according to the City Mgr. there. May also asked when and construction on Irvine Ave. would take place.: Rick Dayton said that he believes it will be happening 2007 . May then asked what the status was of the apartments on Orchard /Waterpoint Ted Bosley says they evicted everyone and they don’t seem to have the financial resouces so there are short term rentals at the moment until they can start full construction Ted Bosley says someone bought home next to sober living on Redlands and he is getting a lot of stuff thrown over his back yard fence. Ted Nichols said he would look into it. It really is a code endforcement issue. 3. Chairman's Report - Annexation of the West Side & Mesa Birch Park, Airport, and overview of projects. Mesa-Birch Park -- In August our Mesa Birch Park land was on the Board of Supervisors Agenda to be turned over to the City of Newport Beach so that the park construction could commence. PAC and the park subcommittee have followed the direction given by Supervisor Silva, county staff and city staff to the letter. Since 2004 there have been literally hundreds of meetings regarding this project. It has truly been a collaborative effort by the community, the city and the county. All the plans are complete and ready to go. The city even had bids on the project. The formality of turning the property over to the city for $1.00 was pulled off the agenda at the last minute as Supervisor Silva did not feel he had the votes for approval. Here is our position: 1/ This land is the entrance to our community and has been literally a dump site for trash and weeds. 2/ This green belt/park has been an approved and recognized Redevelopment Agency Project since 2004. 3/ This project exists today because of the out cry from the residents of this community when it was discovered that the County was going to sell this half acre to a developer below market value and make the entrance to our community his annex parking lot! 4/ But the MOST IMPORTANT reason this should be turned over to the residents, is the fact that for the past 10 years the County of Orange has taken approximately $500,000.00 a year right off the top of the Redevelopment Agency for so called "administration" of the Agency. That adds up to $5 million dollars. We've more than paid for that land. 5/ The RDA already owns this land. Why pay for it twice? 6/ The County of Orange has NOT MOVED Forward with one project that this community has asked for or tried to work to push forward in that time frame. 7/The money in this Redevelopment Agency fund is from tax increment generated by this community and John Wayne Airport. This RDA was created because we are "blighted" by the airport. We are not asking for anything that does not rightfully belong to us. On August 29th PAC Members Tim Stoaks, Jayne Jones and Vice Chairman Greg Carroll and I went to see Supervisor Campbell in person. We brought with us the completed set of plans for the park as well as bids the City had received. We asked the Supervisor why he would not support this project. He explained to us that he could not justify turning over a half acre of prime real estate to a very rich city like Newport Beach. We then explained again, that the RDA owns the land already. He went on to say that in his district of Irvine there is 250 acres of park land that the city would also like for $1.00 and he could not justify that. I told him that the two situations were totally different and should not be compared. He went on to say that he suggested the half acre slated for the Mesa Birch Park should be sold to the developer developing the adjacent site for a parking lot. When we explained that the community had fiercely opposed that project in 2004, he said that had no bearing on the situation. When I told him that in my opinion government serves at the will of the people, he said I was wrong and he serves at the fiscal responsibility of the County of Orange. Needless to say we were dismayed. I asked if he cared about what our residents wanted, he said that had absolutely no bearing on the situation. To get to this point and be faced with this dilemma is unfair and irresponsible government. When I suggested that the County builds us the park from these plans rather than the City, since our RDA continues to be under the jurisdiction of the County, he would not even open the plans or entertain that suggestion. The bottom line is that we on PAC were appointed by the Board of Supervisors to advise them on projects, to be a direct line to the community they supposedly serve, yet no one is listening. From discussions with Dave Kiff at the City of Newport Beach, we would hope that this park project would be rolled into either the upcoming Spheres agreement or the annexation of the West Side. We probably will not see either take place before the end of this year.+ What is even more disturbing is that the Board of Supervisors asked the County staff to prepare a report on the ramifications of closing the Redevelopment Agency and taking the funds to pay off the outstanding loans and bankruptcy debt. The County staff has 60 days to prepare that report. If that were to occur, we would never see any of the slated projects come to fruition. Confirming what many have believed all along, the County had no intention of ever spending this money in this project area at all. Dve Kiff reported that Mesa-Birch Park -- the County initially balked at selling the property to the City for $1. Supervisor Campbell and others instead suggested that the Park property be retained by OCDA while the City uses OCDA funds to design and build the park. The City is OK with this concept.The City's general funds would maintain the park once built. The park's design is complete and the project went out to bid once. But the uncertainty over ownership (and the fact that the bids came in higher than expected) made us reject the bids with the intent to re-bid soon, as soon as we know about park title. The Cooperative Agreement ("spheres agreement") envisioned between the County and the City now has only one part about redevelopment -- the concept of the OCDA owning the park while the City designs, builds, and maintains it. Annexation of the West Side update As reported in our last newsletter, LAFCO had hired a facilitator to mediate the annexation issues of Banning Ranch with the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Though the West Side annexation has no association or connection to the Banning Ranch issue, we were thrown into the mix as the County’s last ditch effort to get the two cities back to the bargaining table on Banning Ranch. The facilitator met with all parties involved and at the meeting on Aug. 18th she reported that after meeting with all involved, she could see no resolution in sight between the parties and there fore her recommendation was not to continue with these negotiations. Joyce Croswaith from LAFCO concurred with the facilitator’s finds and thus no further meetings would be held. The facilitator stated that ultimately LAFCO needs to make these sphere of influence calls and that the cities would never come to any sort of agreement. So where does that leave the West Side of Santa Ana Hts annexation? In November this issue will go back to LAFCO. Remember that the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa have agreed that the West Side should be annexed to Newport Beach due to the Redevelopment Agency issues and projects. But with the RDA now in jeopardy of closing this could affect us in a very negative way. The Newport Beach City Council has made it clear that they will not negotiate any part of Banning Ranch to Costa Mesa even if that means losing the West Side of Santa Ana Hts. PAC continues to voice strong objections to being attached to the Banning Ranch issue at LAFCO. PAC remains optimistic that LAFCO will approve our annexation regardless of the Banning Ranch issue come November. PAC Applications: Thank you to everyone who filled out applications. Those were all forwarded to the office of Supervisor Silva for review. The closing date for those applications was Sept. 1st. We were hoping to have two new PAC members by the October PAC meeting, but that does not look likely now we understand from Mark Esslinger that Supervisor Silva will not be making those appointments. He wants to wait for John Moorlach to do that. John takes office in January. The Kline Drive The project is currently being implemented through County RDMD/Road Division. The County Board of Supervisors has approved a contract agreement with an engineering firm on 9-12-06 and has retained a Project Manager to oversee the project. We anticipate this project to be a two-phase project that includes a Project Report as Phase I and Plans, Specifications, and Estimates as Phase II. Our Project Manager is expecting to complete a draft scope of work for a Project Report within the next few weeks, so that he can negotiate a contract with the engineering firm. The Project Manger for this project is Mr. Dave Marshall. Mr. Marshall is currently with us on a part-time basis and can be reached at 714-834-3803. All questions related to project implementation should be directed to Mr. Marshall. In the event that he can not be reached, you can contact me at 714-834-4367 should you have any questions. Steven Soo 714-834-4367 CITIZEN’S AVIATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Monday, September 25, 2006 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Next meeting: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Central Library Conference Room Richard A. Cox, introduced as a consultant, was recently retained by the city of Newport Beach to assist the City Manager in matters pertaining to JWA departure patterns, departure procedures, advice on technical matters, and related topics. The community of Emerald Bay also retains him. He has more than 30 years working with the FAA, focusing on air traffic and worked at regional headquarters and Washington D.C. He worked with the Senate, Air Transport Association, and citizen advisory committees, regarding aviation issues. Shirley Conger, the head of a sub committee, which examined flight paths out of John Wayne and proposed alternate flight paths. Their goal is to propose ways to minimize noise and pollution from the airport. The 75 houses in “Bayview Heights” get the full impact of the noise and pollution since they are closest to the flight departure/arrival path. Most flights depart over the area but the path can be reversed to arrival flights during certain weather conditions such as those presented during the Santa Ana Winds. We looked at an overview map of Newport Beach and found that most districts were impacted by airport noise and pollution, except for district 6. The point was made that the FAA will not change flight paths from one community to another. Proposed flight path alternatives were examined for JWA, such as a 90º take off towards Irvine. Jim Dunlap, retired commercial airline pilot said this might not be practical for larger planes. Since El Toro Airport is closed, it’s airspace is now available and the FAA establishes these changes. Other airport flight paths (Long Beach, Burbank, Regan International and Ontario) were discussed. Airport Director. Alan Murphy did not attend. His assistant, Eric Freed arrive about half way through the meeting in his place. Don Webb said that he is communicating almost daily regarding “Spheres” discussion with the County of Orange. As reported by Loren Blackwood. Fire Station -- construction is proceeding on schedule. The walls of the building are going up now. Utility Undergrounding -- Edison and our UUD consultant continue to work on design issues. It is on schedule. Community Center -- in light of the delay in any discussions over the transfer of the RDA, the Community Center concept is on hold for now. However, Homer and Dave met with Art Walund in mid-September to brief each other on the latest discussions. It was a friendly meeting and the City learned that the YMCA intends to stay with the site (and not sell it for another use) in light of community support for the facility. 4. Take over of the RDA - Dave Kiff (5 mins) The Cooperative Agreement -- is slated to go to City Council on 10-10 and to the Board of Supervisors on 10-17. As stated above, it no longer has any transfer of the RDA in the Agreement (just the Mesa-Birch Park language). The City intends to wait a while on any RDA transfer to determine interest after November and after County staff comes back with a detailed report on all RDA activities countywide. 5. Guest Speaker - Rick Taylor, Airport Working Group (10 mins) Rick was ill and could not attend…. 6. Development Committee - Rick Dayton (10 mins) Date: 09/25/06 Javier Garcia, AICP Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA2-4048 (949) 644-3206 fax: (949) 644-3229 RE: CNB UP2006-021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, Unit 3 Dear Mr. Garcia: The PAC Development Subcommittee has reviewed the submittal package proposing a 2,750 SF dentist office use. The submittal summary also indicates that the remaining 7,881 SF of existing office space will remain general office use only. The existing use permit, approved by the County of Orange, authorizes general office use only and makes no provision for medical office use. The approval of this use permit by the Planning Director will allow for medical office use not to exceed 2,750 SF. PAC has the following concerns with this application: 1. If this use permit is approved, it will change the Specific Plan for the PA district to include medical uses. The Specific Plan, as written, and as adopted by the City, makes clear distinction between “professional and administrative office” use and “medical and dental office” use. These two types of uses are listed separately in the permitted uses for the Business Park district. “Medical and dental office” use is not listed as a permitted use for the PA district. Although the CNB Planning Dept. does not typically distinguish between these two types of office uses, for projects in the SAH Specific Plan area this distinction is in the Zoning Code and needs to be enforced. The difference in parking standards and traffic between these two types of uses also justifies the distinction between professional and medical offices. 2. Since the approval of this use permit would be a change in the permitted uses for the PA district, the committee believes that this application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Planning Director (per Section 20.44.055.B.2). Given the information provided in this report, should the Planning Director continue to process this application, PAC requests advice from the planning staff as to the appeal procedures that are available. 3. Attachment ‘A’ is a parking table the committee has prepared to determine if the parking requirement is being met by this proposed project. From the table, the total required parking is 46 parking spaces. From the submitted site plan, it appears that the applicant is modifying a walk area adjacent to the first row of parking and re-striping several rows of existing parking to provide 45 parking spaces, including (1) van handicapped and (1) standard handicapped parking spaces. The proposed project appears to be short of compliance by (1) parking space. Due to the small scale of the submitted site plan, it is not possible for the committee to determine if the parking stalls indicated comply with CNB parking stall criteria. The committee assumes that this is the case, as there is no indication in the submittal summary that the proposed parking stalls are non-compliant. 4. There is already an existing periodontist office at Suite 2372-A: John B. Crispens, DDS. Apparently this existing medical office use is operating without an approved use permit through the County. Since there already is a non-compliant medical office use at this site, the maximum of 2,750 SF medical office use will be exceeded by the proposed project. Furthermore, the parking deficit will be more than one (1) parking space. The committee strongly recommends that this property provide the required parking for the existing and well as proposed medical use. 5. The additional traffic that medical uses create will be an additional traffic burden to the adjacent residential neighborhood. This property has a drive approach from Spruce Avenue. Because Bristol Street is one-way eastbound, patrons of businesses at this property tend to drive through the residential neighborhood to travel west, rather than driving east on Bristol, north on Jamboree, and west on Bristol north of the 73 freeway. Additional medical use at this property will exacerbate the outside traffic problem through this residential neighborhood. For the reasons listed above, the PAC Development Subcommittee recommends denial of this use permit application as submitted. PAC DevCom Review CNB UP2006-021 Dentist Office at 2372 S. Bristol Street, #3 09/25/06 Please note that the committee received the submittal package by e-mail on 9/18/06. The report request date indicated on the submittal was 9/21/06. The committee needs more time than what was allotted by CNB staff to review the project and write a review report. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please send PAC a copy of the final Administrative decision, findings, and conditions for our records. Sincerely, Richard A. Dayton PAC Development Committee Chairman (949) 645-1717 fax: (949) 645-4243 cc. PAC Development Committee members Barbara Venezia, PAC Chairperson Patricia Temple, Director of Planning, City of Newport Beach Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach Assistant City Manager Mark Esslinger, County of Orange Attachment ‘A’ Parking table Use Area Parking ratio Req’d. Parking Parking to be provided Dentist Office 2707 SF* 5/1000*** 14** 13 General Office 7881 SF* 4/1000*** 32 32 Totals 10588 SF 46 45**** *This total is from the submittal summary. Since there is an existing medical use on the property that is not accounted for in the summary, this total is incorrect. **Required parking is based on this medical use only. It does not account for the existing non-compliant medical use. ***Based on gross building square footage for both medical and general business uses. ****Parking indicated on submitted Site Plan = 45 spaces. It does not appear to be possible to add additional parking to the site. Dave Kiff says that the city will waive the $600.00 fee for appeal Rick Dayton made a motion that should the planning director keep this at staff level and approve the project the PAC would appeal that the project be reviewed by the planning commission. Greg 2nds motion passes 7. Code Enforcement - (5 mins) Shannon Subject: SAH Code Enforcement Activity In July, I had my most recent ride-along with members of the SAH PAC committee. Only four or five items were brought to my attention. Three of those were sound complaints enforceable by me and addressed accordingly. I continue investigations for on-going cases such as yard cleanups, substandard buildings, and multiple dwellings on single-family properties. Currently, I am working in conjunction with our City Attorneys Office to resolve the dwelling issues. Also, it has come to the attention of our Planning Department that portions of our code may need some updating. Members of the Planning Department are working on an amendment. Code Enforcement has begun receiving complaints against certain properties that garages are not clear and accessible for parking of a vehicle. Please note that NBMC 20.66.040 requires garages to be free and clear for parking of one vehicle. The SBC box on Spruce has been reported for repair. After contacting SBC four times to report this box for repair I was finally able to contact the construction department and it is officially on a list for repair. With the commencement of October we begin our rainy season (October 1- April 30). Code & Water Quality Enforcement uses a construction site inventory for all properties with active Building, Grading, and Swimming Pool permits. This inventory is monitored and inspections for Best Management Practices (BMP’s) and potential for construction runoff are performed at each site. As an effort to do your part to keep our coastal waterways beautiful please make changes in your landscaping and car washing activities. All runoff water entering the street and gutter flows into our bays and ocean. Keep sprinklers turned low- your grass needs watering but the street doesn’t. Take your car to a car wash that recycles water. Only rain belongs in the storm drain. Dave Kiff told us that the contract with the county for the west side code enforcement is going to be up and would we like to have the city renew that. Greg Carroll made a motion to continue the contract for code enforcement on the West Side Richard Moriarty 2nds. Motion passes. Derek Gleason says that there are commercial truck on Orchard and Orchid and unlawful garages . Shannon explained that the process in which you make a formal complaint in writing and that can also be by email. That information is on the PAC website. 8. Under Grounding - Greg Carroll , Tim Stoaks, Ted Bosley (5 mins) Greg reported that he will talk about 19 pole drop in Nov. at the projects meeting . The poles in question are on Irvine Ave and Bristol St. Ted Bosley reported that he included information regarding this in his newsletter and asked everyone if if they thought this would be a good project on the west side and about the disruption issue . Most of the poles to be undergrounded are in the back yards of the properties. On Orchard those folks are in favor because their poles go in front of those homes. Ted Nichols said that the folks on Riverside Dr. are in favor of Undergrounding. We’ll hear more in Nov. 9. Trails / Arena Subcommittee - Jayne Jones, Mary Slouka, Dave Kiff (10 mins) Mesa Drive Multi-Use Trail -- The City received a letter last week from Supervisor Silva asking the City to consider an amendment to the Specific Plan to delete the not-yet-constructed section of the Mesa Drive Multi-Use Trail. There has been no action taken on the letter as of the date of this update. Neighbors opposed to the Mesa Dr. trail being completed have sent letters to Supervisor Silva asking the trail be taken off of the Specific Plan. It appears that many of the letters are written by people that have been given false or misleading information. In past meetings PAC has voted to support the completion of the trail as was promised to the trail users in the specific plan. This trail was originally included in the specific plan as part of the redevelopment effort to maintain an equestrian theme of what was left of the neighborhood. This decision came about after many equestrian homes and a stable were torn down to make way for office buildings. This past summer a preliminary report was made by the County of Orange Resources & Development Management Dept. stating they had not completed a comprehensive review of the matter but did indicate that the Mesa Drive trail was not integral to the County’s regional trail network. The report indicated they would complete a more detailed analysis in the near future for Supervisor Silva to review. Jayne Jones contacted Bryan Speegle the Director of RDMD to discuss when a more detailed study would occur. Bryan stated that the purpose of the memo was to say two things. 1) The Mesa Trail is not a regional trail and, 2) the mesa trail is not in the jurisdiction of the county. He also stated that a more detailed study of the trail was not scheduled. He suggested we work with the City of Newport. Supervisor Silva took this information and sent a letter to Newport City Manager Homer Bludau stating the trail is not needed and will not be funded. Supervisor Silva went on to request the trail be taken off of the specific plan. Horse Arena -- So far, the funding for the design is coming from City general funds, because there is no agreement between the County and the City to fund the Arena's design or construction. The City has asked the consultants to continue working regardless of the lack of any City-County agreement in this regard. Arena Update from George Berger, City of Newport Beach: Fuscoe Engineering (along with landscape architect Dave Pederson who will provide landscape services later in the project), are surveying the area to provide the necessary support for grading plans and design. The arena sub-committee members with be meeting with the City and the contractors in a week or two to go over the topo information they have put together and verify the initial conceptual design. The city is working very hard to make sure the equestrian group has what it needs while at the same time making sure this project improves the water quality and natural landscape quality of the upper Newport Bay area...which we think we can actually do! After making necessary changes if needed, the plans will allow environmental consultant Keeton Kreitzer to complete his work to put together the submittal to the Coastal Commission. The initial equestrian concept is pretty solid, particularly along with the preliminary ideas that Fuscoe had about improving the water quality and flow. City Engineer Bob Stein, who has expertise in intermittent flow bio-swale systems, has been brought on board for assistance as well; between all of us we'll have a very good project to take to the Commission. Thanks again for your consistent involvement! 10. New Business……an agenda item for PAC members & the public to put new projects and issues out there And add them to the next agenda. 1/ Suggestion was made to change the name of Indus St. on the West Side do to so much confusion of the name . The process would have to start with Bryan Speegle at the County and Jayne passed that information on to the gal who asked the question and lives on Indus. |
|
||