HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1988 - Regular MeetingCOUNCIL MEMBERS
i
Dent x x
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
.0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
MINUTES
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
PLACE: Council. Chambers
TIME: 7:30 P.M.
DATE: March 14, 1988
Certificate honoring Hugh Barker for his
outstanding work with the disabled veterans
as an Employment Representative for the State
of California regarding the OutReach Program
for 1987, was presented by Mr. Charles Gray.
I A. ROLL CALL.
B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of
February 22, 1988, was waived, approved
as written, and ordered filed.
C. Reading in full of all ordinances and
resolutions under consideration was
waived, and City Clerk was directed to
read by titles only.
D. HEARINGS:
1. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing
regarding:
PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 658
Request of STROCK ARCHITECTS, INC.,
Newport Beach, to amend the Newport
Place Planned Community Development
Standards so as to establish provisions
which would allow structures located
within a portion of INDUSTRIAL SITE 3A
to be constructed in excess of the 35
foot height limit up to a maximum of 50
feet, subject to the approval of a use
permit. This proposal also includes the
acceptance of an Environmental Document.
Property located at 3600, 3610 Birch
Street;
AND
Public hearing and City Council review
of USE PERMIT NO. 3308, a request of
STROCK ARCHITECTS, INC., Newport Beach,
to permit the construction of three
office buildings on property located in
INDUSTRIAL SITE 3A of NEWPORT PLACE
PLANNED COMMUNITY which exceeds the 35
foot basic height limit. The proposal
also includes a modification to the
Zoning Code so as to allow the use of
compact parking spaces for a portion of
the required off — street parking.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The City Manager commented that Mr.
Strock was in the audience to introduce
the subject project and illustrate with
colored maps. The City Manager stated
that the present PC text on the
Birch /Bristol intersection permits a
maximum height of 35 feet, and there are
two things that the Council will act on
Volume 42 — Page 74
RCA 658
(94)
J/P 3308
(88)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
INZIFid
March 14, 1988
tonight; one is a zone change PCA 658/
(amendment) to permit a structure of U/P 3308
between 35 and 50 feet, subject to
approval of a use permit; and two is the
actual use permit to exceed the 35 feet
on the three structures, varying from
approximately 38 feet to 40 feet in
height, which does not increase the
density or square footage permitted,
under the current PC text and the City's
General Plan. He added that the subject
development was unanimously approved at
the February 4, 1988 Planning Commission
meeting.
Arthur V. Strock, Strock Architects,
3300 Irvine Avenue, addressed the
Council and stated that he wanted to
inform the Council the plans that were
approved by the Planning Commission have
since been changed slightly, which does
not increase the allowable square
footage on the site, but asks that they
be permitted to build structures higher
than are permitted by the PC text on
Industrial Site #3. The reason for the
increase in height, is to allow a
portion of parking on the site to be
placed under the buildings, and to allow
a disproportinate amount of landscaping
to be created on site.
In answer to Council inquiry, Mr. Strock
stated that the plan is different from
the plan submitted to the Planning
Commission in that the specific
architecture of the buildings has
changed and has caused a slightly
different relationship of two of the
buildings with regard to the front yard
setbacks, adding that they do not
encroach, but they are in a different
location. With the use of illustrations,
he pointed out the differences between
the two plans stating that Building #1
and Building #3, at their closest
points, are 35 feet from the property
line, and the legal required setback is
30 feet. The plan being presented to
the Council tonight shows the same
number of buildings, size., and location
on site, the difference being that the
buildings are now 30 feet from the
property line, rather than 35 feet,
which setback was specifically mentioned
in the plan to the Planning Commission,
but the overall net effect is the same,
as well as the environmental quality
that was presented to the Planning
Commission.
Volume 42 - Page 75
COUNCIL MEMBERS
is
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
In answer to questions from the Planning PCA 658/
Director as to the construction material U/P 3308
to be used on the buildings, Mr. Strock
stated high performance glass, that
reflects heat but is not mirrored, and
stone would be used, but the shape of
the buildings (triangular and square)
have been simplified for economic
reasons.
Council Member Sansone inquired as to
why a significant change such as that
which is being presented now, has not
gone before the Planning Commission.
The Planning Director explained that he
was informed of the proposed changes on
Friday, March 11, 1988, and advised Mr.
Strock that the City Council could still
go ahead and approve the amendment to
the Development Standards, which would
allow proposed buildings to go higher on
the basis of use permit approval. He
was further advised that he could make
his presentation to the Council, wherein
the Council could either approve the
revised site plan, or refer the use
permit back to the Planning Commission.
With regard to the inquiry of the
increased height from 40 to 50 feet, the
Planning Director stated that in the
existing Zoning Code, the City is
divided into Height Limitation
Districts. In order to go to the higher
height limit, the developer or architect
is required to demonstrate to the City
the findings that are required, and must
apply for, and have an approved use
permit. He added that the developer, in
any case, is limited to the height of
the building as shown on the plans
approved by the Planning Commission, and
the City Council, and they are further
limited by the amount of square footage
that the PC allows. Specifically, the
subject development has buildings which
vary from 38.45 feet up to 45 feet. In
order to go to 50 feet, they would have
to go back to the Planning Commission,
or the Council.
Hearing no one else wishing to address
the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
Volume 42 - Page 76
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ti
Motion
Ayes
Noes
Abstained
/1
u
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 88 -17
88 -17, amending the Newport Place
Planned Community Development Standards
to allow structures located within a
portion of Industrial Site 3A to be
constructed in excess of the 35 ft. height
limit up to a maximum of 50 ft., subject to
the approval of a use permit; accept the
Environmental Document; and sustain the
action of the Planning Commission and
approve Use Permit No. 3308.
2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Ord 88 -6
regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -6, Zoning /Radio
being, Antennas
(94)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING
CHAPTER 20.77 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AMATEUR
RADIO ANTENNAS [PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO. 627), PCA 627
was presented for second reading with
report from the Planning Department.
Letters received after the February 22,
1988 agenda was printed, in opposition
to proposed ordinance from Anita Meister
Boyd and Seaview Community Association,
were presented.
Letter from student Jeremy Sparks,
ham -radio operator, with suggestion
regarding interference on TV's received
from subject antennas, etc., was
presented.
Letter from E. P. Garrison opposing
adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 88 -6,
citing declining property values and
interference with comfortable enjoyment
of his property, was presented.
Letter from Raymond E. Berg in favor of
proposed ordinance, was presented.
Letter from James B. (Jay) Stoddard of
Amateur Radio Station KA6KIL, expressing
his opinion regarding sanctioning the
proposed antenna installation ordinance
in the event of a disaster, was
presented.
The City Clerk advised the Council that
after the agenda was printed, a letter
was received from Warren H. Clark
(W6COK) in support of the subject
ordinance.
Volume 42 - Page 77
x
I x
Ix
Ix I
ly
x
xl
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 88 -17
88 -17, amending the Newport Place
Planned Community Development Standards
to allow structures located within a
portion of Industrial Site 3A to be
constructed in excess of the 35 ft. height
limit up to a maximum of 50 ft., subject to
the approval of a use permit; accept the
Environmental Document; and sustain the
action of the Planning Commission and
approve Use Permit No. 3308.
2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Ord 88 -6
regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -6, Zoning /Radio
being, Antennas
(94)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING
CHAPTER 20.77 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AMATEUR
RADIO ANTENNAS [PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO. 627), PCA 627
was presented for second reading with
report from the Planning Department.
Letters received after the February 22,
1988 agenda was printed, in opposition
to proposed ordinance from Anita Meister
Boyd and Seaview Community Association,
were presented.
Letter from student Jeremy Sparks,
ham -radio operator, with suggestion
regarding interference on TV's received
from subject antennas, etc., was
presented.
Letter from E. P. Garrison opposing
adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 88 -6,
citing declining property values and
interference with comfortable enjoyment
of his property, was presented.
Letter from Raymond E. Berg in favor of
proposed ordinance, was presented.
Letter from James B. (Jay) Stoddard of
Amateur Radio Station KA6KIL, expressing
his opinion regarding sanctioning the
proposed antenna installation ordinance
in the event of a disaster, was
presented.
The City Clerk advised the Council that
after the agenda was printed, a letter
was received from Warren H. Clark
(W6COK) in support of the subject
ordinance.
Volume 42 - Page 77
COUNCIL. MEMBERS
1 A�
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
The City Attorney, at the request of
Council, offered information that the
proposed ordinance was made necessary by
a 1985 Federal Communications Commission
ruling which restricted the right of
cities and counties to regulate ham
radio operators- -that cities and
counties could regulate ham radio
antennas, only if they adopted an
ordinance which meets three criteria,
i.e., based on legitimate health, safety
and aesthetic considerations, that the
ordinance accommodates the needs of the
ham radio operator and that the
ordinance represents the least intrusive
means available to achieve the goals of
the cities or counties.
The City Attorney explained that the
first portion of the subject ordinance
represents the interests of the City of
Newport Beach in regulating the ham
radio operator antennas. The next part
of the ordinance provides that certain
ham radios and facilities are permitted
use so long as the antennas and mast
meet certain requirements. The
important elements are that the height
of the antenna cannot exceed 75 feet
when in operation, and the antenna
cannot be higher than 28 feet when not
in operation and it must be equipped
with a motorized device that will assist
in raising and lowering the antenna to
the appropriate height. The Development
Standards also prohibit the antenna from
being located in the front 40% of the
lot and also prohibits its location and
setbacks. If a particular antenna does
not meet these standards, the operator
must obtain a permit from the Planning
Director, and that permit would be
granted if strict compliance with those
development standards unreasonably
interfered with the applicant's ability
to receive or transmit signals; would
impose unreasonable costs (equipment) on
the operator; or was not necessary to
achieve the goals and objectives of the
City.
The City Attorney cautioned that
overzealous regulation can result in an
invalid ordinance, and that means no
protection at all.
Volume 42 - Page 78
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
•
IT11 >h7
March 14, 1988
IRS
Jeffrey Stern, 2020 Marlin Way,
Zoning/
addressed the Council, stating that he
Radio
is new to the community and a ham radio
Antennas
operator. For the last 18 years, while
living in Los Angeles, he was involved
in emergency preparedness, and the last
seven years as County Fire Commissioner.
He was involved in almost every
emergency and disaster in that area, and
amateur radio played a major role when
communications became a problem. He
complimented the City in the writing of
the proposed ordinance, stating that it
was very well written but a point of
concern is the provision stating that a
lowering device must be motorized. If
all power is lost, this would become a
problem, and the Council should take
into consideration a battery powered
system.
Bob Williamson, 1906 Seadrift Drive,
addressed the Council stating that
obtaining a ham radio operators license
requires proficiency in electronics and
rules and regulations, Morse Code, and
serve as a source of public service
communications in time of natural
disasters, flood and earthquake.
Particularly in this area he has done
considerable work in the Maritime
Project, effecting rescues at sea by way
of amateur radios. He supports the
proposed ordinance and has worked for
the past two years to get this ordinance
before the Council. The motorized
antenna raising and lowering was a
compromise with the City, and he agrees
that the antennas should be lowered to
circumvent wind damage. He asked that
the representative group of amateur
radio operators in attendance tonight to
stand and be recognized. He further
stated that there are approximately 500
amateur radio operators in the City. He
then introduced Dr. Wayne Overbeck, who
is an officer with the American Radio
Relay League, to answer questions of the
Council.
Dr. Wayne Overbeck, Professor of
Communications, California State
University, Fullerton, introduced
himself and addressed the Council. He
stated that there are a number of things
that can be done regarding interference
picked up from amateur radios by
installing filters on television sets
and telephones, but there must be
cooperation between the amateur radio
operator and the neighbor. Ile added that
Volume 42 - Page 79
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
is
•
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
the interference picked up is almost
always caused by a design deficiency in
the receiving equipment, or the
telephone that causes it to pick up the
signal, and it can be shown that an
antenna that is 24 feet high, which is
the current limit, produces a much
stronger and severe signal rather than
would a higher antenna.
Eugene C. Kaliher, 1218 Essex Lane,
addressed the Council stating that he
moved to Westcliff 20 years ago so that
he could enjoy the aesthetic value of
the area with no interference from
overhead utilities, and objects strongly
to the amateur radio antennas. He
suggested that the antennas stay at 24
feet, and raised higher only in case of
an emergency.
Glen Nelson, 1300 Cambridge Lane,
addressed the Council, and stated that
he is opposed to the ordinance which
would allow an antenna height of 75
feet in a residential neighborhood. He
added that, like his neighbor, he too
favored the particular location of his
residence because of the undergrounding
of utilities. He further added that the
long term effect on the aesthetics will
not be known unless there is more time
devoted to study the issue.
Council inquired as to what would happen
if the City did nothing regarding the
subject issue of amateur radio antennas,
and the City Attorney advised that the
ham radio operator could erect the
antenna to whatever height he felt he
needed and the City would have no power
to control or regulate the result. He
further offered the example of a lawsuit
filed against Newport Reach four years
ago that sought to invalidated the
City's ordinance, and which was settled
within the perimeters of the proposed
ordinance. He would hope that the input
from those who are knowledgeable in the
field of amateur radio communications
would focuse on justifying the 75 foot
height limit contained in the proposed
ordinance, indicating the need to get
above certain geographical features so
that the operator can communicate and
receive signals, and the accommodation
how the mast material is purchased (24
foot sections, four sections) to afford
maximum efficiency.
Volume 42 - Page 80
Zoning /Radio
Antennas
COUNCIL. MEMBERS
0
•
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
John Kubas, 4511 Camden Drive,
representing Villageway Management,
Inc., addressed the Council stating that
as a home owner, he would be very
unhappy with the negative aesthetic
effect resulting from amateur radio
antennas. He commented that for the
past two months they have been working
on a resolution requesting that the City
require all plans submitted by a
resident of a homeowners association for
exterior modification or structural
changes, be stamped approved by that
association's architectual committee
prior to obtaining approval from the
City.
The City Attorney, in answer to Council
inquiry regarding CCBR's imposed on a
homeowners association, stated that the
Federal Communications Commission is not
interested in entering into private
contractual agreements. He commented
that the City could not consider Mr.
Kubas' resolution as there are some
residents who are not required to belong
to a homeowners association, and that
the City is not physically equipped to
notify all homeowners associations. He
offered that the proposed ordinance, if
approved, would not affect the right of
the homeowners associations to enforce
their CC8R's, and that the associations
have more power than the City to
regulate amateur radio antennas.
The City Manager suggested it may be
possible within three or six months,
through the City's computer process,
that a notification process could be
effected, but there would be a cost
involved, which would require the help
of the homeowners associations for
funds.
Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa
Mesa, owner of property in Newport
Beach, addressed the Council, stating
that he did not agree with the letter
listed on the agenda claiming loss of
property value as a result of the
amateur radio antennas. He cited the
need for the amateur radio operators in
time of emergency. In addition, he
suggested that the City make available, .
at a nominal cost, daily computer
printouts of the building permits
issued.
Volume 42 - Page 81
Zoning/
Radio
Antennas
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
n
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
Tom Orlando, #15 Balboa Coves, addressed
the Council, stating that he was at home
viewing the Council meeting on cable,
and as an amateur radio operator, was
prompted to appear and offer the fact
that his homeowners association does not
have an antenna requirement, but they
have a satelite dish ordinance and
setback ordinance. He felt that
passing the proposed ordinance should
not be delayed, and that the homeowners
associations should redo their CCBR's if
need be, and not ask the City to notify
them of building permits.
Dr. Wayne Overbeck addressed the Council
again upon invitation with regard to
antenna height, stating that the angle
from the earth and the antenna producing
the main lobe of a radio signal above
the horizon determines the distance;
i.e., the higher the antenna is the
lower the earth's angle will be, and
this produces a longer distance an
operator can communicate. He stated
there is a dramatic difference as to how
a radio antenna will perform at 75 feet
vs. 50 feet, or compared to a height
like 25 feet, which makes long- distance
communication virtually impossible. He
added that 75 feet is a trade -off based
on the size of towers that are
commercially available to support
antennas, stating that when the amateur
operator is away, the antenna would be
down, and the idea of motorization would
be for the convenience of lowering and
raising the antenna. He stated that
many amateur radio operators have
portable generators in case of power
failure, and that,the motorized tower
equipment is shipped with a hand winch
to use in case the motor failed. He
reiterated the fact that if an antenna
is raised to a higher limit, the less
interference you have with television
and other communication devices, and the
amateur radio operators try very hard to
minimize this problem through their
transmitters.
Mayor Pro Tem Hart asked the Antenna
Committee if there was any discussion by
them with regard to a moratorium
limiting the number per year of future
antennas throughout the City, and the
response was in the negative.
Volume 42 - Page 82
COUNCIL MEMBERS
G\IN\A
•
Motion
•
x
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
The City Attorney stated that the
ordinance proposes a 28 foot height
limit when the antenna is not in
operation, as it was staff's
understanding that most amateur radio
use occurred during late evening and
early morning hours.
After it was determined that no one else
wished to address the Council, the
public hearing was closed.
Council Member Sansone stated that
during his review of the 500 amateur
radio operators names given to him, it
was determined that the 250 -275 that
have licenses (novices or technicians)
cannot transmit on the higher
frequencies. He stated that it costs
approximately $5,000 to $6,000 to put up
a 75 foot antenna, and the majority of
antennas, for example, in the area of
Dover Shores, the height is about 40
feet and the proposed ordinance does
specify that only antennas above 40 feet
have to be motorized. He further added
that for the past two years the Antenna
Committee has been working with the
Planning staff, and he did not feel
there was a need for any more study. He
stated that in view of the fact that
court cases brought against a city. and
county have resulted in favor of the
amateur radio operator, he proposed the
motion to adopt Ordinance 88 -6, as
written, stating that with the ordinance
there is control, and without it, the 24
foot regulation that the City now has
could be challenged in court.
Council Member Strauss stated that if
for some reason the City was not
satisfied with the height limit, could
the ordinance be changed after it was
approved, by amending the height limit
of the antenna from 75 feet to 40 or 50
feet. The City Attorney stated that
they could, as long as the height
regulation reasonably accommodated the
needs of the amateur radio operator.
Council Member Turner asked for
clarification regarding conflicting
testimony for motorized equipment,
stating that he would like to amend Page
4, Section A, line three of the proposed
ordinance to include "...shall be
equipped with both a mechanical and a
motorized device..." and also to include
a provision to Section 20.77.035, (7)
"At least 10 days prior to the issuance
of a permit, the Planning Director shall
Volume 42 - Page 83
/Radio
COUNCIL MEMBERS
1�
u
Motion
All Ayes
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
notify all owners of property as shown
on the latest equalized assessment roll
within 100 feet of the property on which
the proposed antenna is to be located,
as well as any applicable homeowners
association."
The City Attorney advised that the
proposed revisions would require a
reintroduction of the ordinance;
therefore Council Member Sansone
withdrew his motion for adoption.
Motion was made to reintroduce proposed
Ordinance 88 -6 as amended, and pass to
second reading on March 28, 1988.
3. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and
City Council review of an appeal by
LYNNE VALENTINE, Balboa Island, from the
denial of the Planning Commission on
January 21, 1988, of MODIFICATION NO.
3352, a request to permit the retention
of an "as built" wall and gate which
vary in height from 45± inches to 53±
inches and which encroach ten feet into
the required ten foot front yard
setback, where the Municipal Code limits
the height of fences and gates in the
front yard setback to no more than three
feet. Property located at 106 Garnet
Avenue, on Balboa Island.
Appeal application from Lynne Valentine,
was presented.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The City Clerk advised that after the
agenda was printed, communication was
received from Victoria L. Miller of 108
Garnet, with a set of colored photos;
and Hannah E. Flynn of 110 Garnet,
regarding the subject appeal
application.
The City Manager briefly summarized for
Council that the applicant is asking for
a modification to the zoning code, as
the "as built" wall exceeds the 36 -inch
permitted height in the front yard
setback.
Lynne Valentine, 106 Garnet Avenue,
Balboa Island, applicant, addressed the
Council stating that she did check with
the City and her neighbor before she
made the improvements. She stated there
are many instances on Balboa Island
where the limits are exceeded, and as
long as there were no complaints from
Volume 42 - Page 84
3352/Valen-
tine
(94)
•
Motion
•
Ayes
Noes
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
xlxlxlxlxIX
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
the neighbors, she was told that there Modi
is no enforcement. Further, she 3352
felt that the decorative addition has
enhanced the area and she has gone to
great expense, but that this was done
for safety reasons also.
John Miller, 108 Garnet, addressed the
Council.objecting to Modification 3352,
stating that it is not an "as built"
fence, but a recent addition on top of
another fence. He also stated that
along with his view being impaired, two
of his neighbors are also affected. He
stated that any obstruction of views
changes the value of property. He asked
for enforcement of the City's zoning
code ordinance.
Hannah Flynn, owner of 110 Garnet,
addressed the Council stating that the
house is rented and her family occupies
it, and that she has been a resident of
Balboa Island for 30 years. She stated
that the applicant had full knowledge
that the fence she put up was not in
compliance with the code, but went ahead
anyway. Ms. Flynn added that she is
most adversely affected by the addition,
and asks that staff's and the Planning
Commission's decision be sustained.
Hearing no one else wishing to address
the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
Discussion ensued, wherein it was
determined that there is a tremendous
responsibility on the part of Council to
make a decision regarding a conflict
with the City's existing code. It was
suggested that the code be reviewed and
changed, as practically all of Balboa
Island is affected by the floodplain.
x Council Member Maurer stated in view of
the fact that there are many homes on
Balboa Island, citing Apolena and S.
Bay, that have been approved with
modifications much higher than 36
inches, he would make the motion to
overrule the decision of the Planning
Commission, and approve the subject
appeal for modification 3352.
Council Member Strauss commented that he
felt the Council should enforce the
existing code requirement that is within
their right to do regarding the subject
appeal, and then review the code and
make necessary changes. 4
x The motion was voted on and carried.
Volume 42 - Page 85
ication
COUNCIL MEMBERS
\IN\X �
•
.•
•
• �'
March 14, 1988
MINUTES
Public hearing and City Council review of
USE PERMIT NO. 3086(A), a request of
SENATOR D. G. ANDERSON, Honolulu,
Hawaii, to amend a previously approved
use permit which permitted the
construction of a multiple use
development on property located at 2901
West Coast Highway, in the "Recreational
and Marine Commercial" area of the
Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Said
approval permitted the construction of a
building that exceeded the 26 foot basic
height limit and exceeded the gross
structural area limit of .5 times the
buildable area of the site. Said
approval also permitted the
establishment of a full service
restaurant with on -sale alcoholic
beverages and live entertainment, and
the approval of an off -site parking
agreement I -or a portion of the required
off - street parking spaces. The proposed
amendment includes a request to permit
dancing in conjunction with the
existing restaurant operation and to
amend a previously established condition
which limited the number of musicians
associated with live entertainment
within the restaurant, so as to increase
the number of permitted musicians.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The City Manager stated that basically,
there are two requests, (1) The
applicant wishes to exceed the number of
musicians from three to maximum of
eight; and (2) they wish to have dancing
within the facility. He stated the
Planning Commission approved the
project, subject to imposing the
Condition of 18 additional parking
spaces because of the dancing.
The City Manager continued that when the
Planning Commission made their findings
and conclusions, the staff had not
analyzed the "as built" plans of the
facility. As with all large projects,
the City requires "as built" plans, and
then they look at the setback, height,
parking, landscaping and whatever the
conditions, to make sure that the plans
comply. In looking at the "as built"
plans, through striping, and with the
use of exterior area, they have only 14
additional parking spaces; the Planning
Commission requires 18. If the Council
desires to sustain the action of the
Volume 42 - Page-86
3086(A)
(88)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
A A
•
•
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
Planning Commission, one parking space
for each 36.2 square feet of area would
require a change in condition, and staff
has made this finding since examining
the "as built" plans and after approval
by the Planning Commission. As far as
the deficiency of 13 spaces for the
daytime operation of the facility, this
can be handled administratively through
restriping, or require that they do not
use some of the exterior balcony areas,
as this was a condition imposed in the
"as built" plans.
The Planning Director, at the request of
Council, explained that on the "as
built" plans the applicant had shown a
certain distance between walls or posts
in the parking structure, and in
actual measurements, the result was that
they were minus one or two feet and this
area could not be counted as a parking
space. Also, the City required some
extra subterranean drainage facilities
which took more vertical parking space
than was originally anticipated. One
thing in the applicant's favor was that
they built the parking lot larger than
was originally approved by the Planning
Commission, but the surplus parking is
for evening use.
Joseph Lancor, architect representing
the John Dominus Group, addressed the
Council, stating that concerns regarding
the acoustical issue will be addressed
by Mr. Greve, the acoustical engineer.
He stated that because the facility is
not fully leased, the parking "crunch"
doesn't exist yet. He concurs with the
feelings of Council regarding the marine
businesses, as they need all the support
and help they can get. He added that
the acoustical engineer will talk about
the number of musicians, and stated that
the type of music will be nostalgic of
the 50's and 60's, and light jazz, and
the fact that because good entertainers
are hard to come by, they want to be
able to accommodate a larger group of
musicians, as well as the usual three or
four man group. In reference to the
Riverside /Avon parcel, the sidewalks,
gutter and curb are not in yet, and the
engineer is drawing the plans and this
should be ready soon.
Fred Greve, principal in the firm of
Mestre, Greve and Associates, addressed
the Council stating that they conducted
noise measurements at John Dominus
Volume 42 - Page 87
3086(A)
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
is on
40 Ayes
x
March 14, 1988
Restaurant a week ago, both inside the U/P 3086(A)
restaurant, and at three residences
located outside the restaurant. One
measurement was conducted on Lido Isle,
near the bridge before going to Lido
Isle and the condominium site west of
the property. Basically, the results
were that the music inside was loud, but
that it couldn't be heard at any of the
residential sites where measurements
were taken. It is their understanding
that bringing in more musicians really
is not the intent to increase the volume
of the music, but for more variety.
Doubling the number of musicians in the
band, they estimate as a worse case,
would increase the noise level by 3
decibels, and they still feel that it
would not be heard in the surrounding
residential areas. They are not
expecting any problems, but there are
some adjustments that could be made,
such as closing some of the doors,
repositioning the band, putting controls
on the volume, etc.
Hearing no one else wishing to address
the Council, the public hearing was
closed.
Motion was made to sustain the decision
of the Planning Commmission with minor
modifications to Condition #4 - "...the
City feels at this time, that the
parking space at 36.2 sq. ft. for the
restaurant would not be detrimental...."
and Condition #8 - "...applicant
completes the public improvements and
private improvements on Avon Street.."
Council Member Strauss questioned staff
regarding how the City could hold the
applicant to reduce the use by 560 sq.
ft. because of the change in parking,
wherein the Planning Director stated
that this would involve roping off a
portion of the third floor restaurant.
The staff would work with the applicant,
and this is based on the City relying
upon the judgment and honesty of the
owner, that he can have only a certain
amount of square feet in operation.
This is not a specific solution, but a
flexible one.
The motion was voted on and carried.
5. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and U/P 3290
City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. Isailovic
3290, a request of MIROSLAVA AND JORDAN (88)
ISAILOVIC, Anaheim Hills, to permit the
establishment of a take -out restaurant
Volume 42 - Page 88
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
•
_
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
facility specializing in muffins and
other baked food items and soft drinks
on property located at 3431 Via Oporto,
in the Lido Marina Village; zoned C -1 -H.
The proposal also includes a request to
waive a portion of the required
off - street parking spaces.
Report from the Planning Department, was
presented.
The City Manager stated that the concern
is that the Planning Commission waived
the 13 Code required off -site parking
spaces, as the use would be for walk -in
trade.
Council Member Strauss stated that just
recently, the Council denied a use
permit for a similar type of
organization because of parking. He
stated that at the Planning Commission
meeting, the Police Department was
concerned that patrons would park
illegally on Via Oporto as they run in
for a muffin and coffee to go.
Council Member Turner commented that the
City is long overdue in changing the
restaurant ordinance as it applies to
the small operation - -the required
parking is unrealistic. He would urge
the Planning Commission to expedite this
process. Furthermore, he does not feel
that the small operation attracts the
kind of business that requires off -site
parking.
Mayor Cox stated that the franchise type
of convenience operation is on.the
increase whether it be yogurt, muffins,
cookies, etc., and is having an impact
on the village -type shopping areas in
Newport Beach.
Jerry King, J. A. King and Associates,
550 Newport Center Drive, representing
the applicant, addressed the Council
stating that after reviewing the City
records, there has never been 100%
parking use in the Lido Marina Village,
except when there is a boat show. On
February 8, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved this particular
use and felt that it was an attraction
unto itself, and that this particular
food use did not represent an
intensification, but more of a
convenience for those people who are
visiting the area.
Volume 42 - Page 89
3290
COUNCIL MEMBERS
)'k "G 5, o¢ �1
•
11
u
11 11 11
IT, IILtii *1
March 14, 1988
Mr. King also stated that he was aware
of the Police Department's attention to
the fire lanes throughout the Village.
This issue was brought to the attention
of the owners, and the current
management. They have staff on site
permanently and will help in the
enforcement on Via Oporto, where there
would be adequate parking so that people
could quickly come in through the alley
way, park along the 30- minute limited
space and exit through the entrance area
of the parking structure.
Sandy Willford, shop owner adjacent to
the proposed business, addressed the
Council, and stated that the 30- minute
limited parking was originally designed
in such a way as to provide adequate
delivery to the shops, and is now being
used by people shopping in the Village,
or working there. He asks that the
Council defer action on the proposed
business for approximately one month
until the City staff and the shop owners
can resolve the parking problem.
Jerry King, addressed the Council again,
stating that thirty days delay would
mean that Traweek would probably lose
the tenant and would have to look for
someone else to occupy the space.
He added that the vacancy rate in the
Village is an indication of the public's
desire for this type of specialty
service..
Council Member Plummer inquired as to
whether the new businesses coming in
will have parking, wherein the Planning
Director explained that for all the
spaces in the Village, those spaces have
already been allocated whether there is
a tenant there or not, which was done
initially when the Village was
constructed and various use permits were
approved. Also, the use permit before
the Council tonight is going to occupy a
space that formerly had three parking
spaces assigned when it was originally a
commercial- retail use and staff
anticipates that this is adequate for
the proposed business coming in.
Sandy Willford addressed the Council
again, and urged for a postponement of
the proposed use permit approval, as he
felt the entire parking problem in the
Village should be resolved before any
more parking spaces are recognized.
Volume 42 - Page 90
U/P 3290
COUNCIL MEMBERS
S O
G9y�CG�4A� O,F �v
bon
Motion x
Ayes x x
Noes
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
I xi x I x I x I x
x
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
IN® ;
After it was determined that no one else U/P 3290
wished to address the Council, the
public hearing was closed.
Council Member Strauss made a motion to
continue a decision on Use Permit 3290
to April 11, 1988, and if nothing is
decided on the parking structure, then
the Council would plead it on its own
merit.
Mayor Cox stated that he could not
support the motion in anticipation that
the use of the parking structure would
be resolved within 30 days, adding that
the applicant deserves a right to
conduct a business.
Council Member Turner stated that he
could not support the motion for the
same reason, that the parking problem
could be resolved in that short time and
this would place a hardship on the
applicant. He felt the Council should
act now, and therefore, made a
sutstitute motion to sustain the
decision of the Planning Commission, and
approve Use Permit 3290, which carried.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following actions were taken as
indicated, except for those items removed.
1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to
second reading on March 28, 1988:
(a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -7, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH REPEALING SECTION 3.13
OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ANNEXATION
FEES [Report from the City
Attorney].
(b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -8, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.50
OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE PERTAINING TO FLOOD
DAMAGE PREVENTION [Report from
Building Department].
Volume 42 - Page 91
1)
88 -7
88 -8
d Damg
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•
�J
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION:
(a) Resolution No. 88 -18 endorsing and
Legislati
supporting legislation as necessary
SoCstAirQ
and revision of the New Source
Res 88 -18
Review /Emission Reduction Credit
(48)
Regulations of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District for
publicly -owned wastewater treatment
facilities. (Letter from Rourke &
Woodruff of 2/16/88)
(b) Resolution No. 88 -19 authorizing General Sery
the General Services Director to Disaster Rel
make application for financial Res 88 -19
assistance for Disaster Relief. (44)
(Report from General Services
Director)
(c) Resolution No. 88 -20 requiring
vehicles on Alta Vista Drive to
stop at Bison Avenue. (Report from
Traffic Affairs Committee)
3. CONTRACTS /AGREEMENTS:
(a) Award Contract No. 2681 in the
amount of $279,611 to Signal
Maintenance, Inc., Anaheim,
California, for Traffic Signal
Modifications at Various Locations.
(Report from Public Works /Traffic
Engineering)
(b) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute Cooperative Agreement
with the County of Orange for
Irvine Avenue Resurfacing. (Report
from Public Works Department)
4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as
indicated:
(a) To Police Department for reply,
letter from Central Newport Beach
Community Association President
with suggestions to curb Friday and
weekend "cruising" on Balboa
Boulevard.
(b) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation
Department for inclusion in the
records, letter from Mary Everett
Burton regarding proposed building
of sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard,
between 2901 and 2919, Corona del
Mar.
Volume 42 - Page 92
les 88 -20
(85)
38)
(70)
1(62)
Sgnl
Av
B1
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
c
G�'%G�'� March 14, 1988
ROLL CALL (� INDEX—
(c) To Public Works for reply, letter
PW /DeAnza
from Paul H. Morgan, Attorney
MHSpc9219 -
representing Sharon A. Stockley,
(74)
owner of DeAnza Mobile Home Space
•
No. 219 concerning right -of -way
acquisition for widening of Pacific
Coast Highway from Jamboree Road
through Bayside Drive.
(d) To Pending Legislation and
Legislation
Procedural Ethics Committee,
(48)
requested action regarding SB 987
(Dills), and proposed changes in
the current "baseline" law being
pushed by Southern California Gas
Company.
(e) To Mayor for support, letter from
CA State
California State Coastal
Cnsrvncy
Conservancy concerning Orange
(28)
County request for a conservancy
grant.
5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the
City Clerk for inclusion in the records:
(a) Michael M. Drucker's letter to
Robert E. Badham questioning the
necessity of covering the reservoir
below Harbor Ridge.
•
(b) Luvena, Hayton (Corona del Mar
Chamber of Commerce) to CalTrans
District Director protesting the
extremely dangerous situation as a
result of the south bound merge
lane at Pacific Coast Highway and
Marguerite Avenue in Corona del
Mar.
6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and
(36)
confirmation of the City Clerk's
referral to the claims adjuster:
(a) Rudy Corral alleging residence was
Corral
not up to code, but signed off by
City Building Inspector on November
13, 1987 for property at 369
Newport Glen Court.
(b) Lewis F. Davis seeking
Davis
reimbursement of towing fee,
storage and two parking citations
sustained on January 22, 23 and 24,
1988 at Jamboree and San Joaquin
•
Hills Road.
Volume 42 - Page 93
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ti �
.AGE `G �A O� q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
March 14, 1988
MINUTES
Brien
(c) Timothy S. Deutsch alleging
property damage to vehicle by
roofing pieces which flew off from
Utilities Department parking lot
roof on February 17, 1988, during
recent wind storm.
(d) George Hall alleging property
damage to his vehicle as a result
of collision with City Utilities
truck at Marian and Warwick Lanes
on September 10, 1987.
(e) A. Grant Howald alleging property
damage as a result of Police
Department employee hitting
claimant's vehicle on the passenger
side at Marguerite and Seaview,
Corona del Mar, on March 2, 1988.
(f) Judy Mertz alleging damage to
parked vehicle as a result of tree
limb falling on car at 702
Narcissus on December 28, 1987.
(g) Brian J. O'Brien alleging vehicle
towed in error on December 23, ,
1987; seeking reimbursement for
citation, towing, surcharge and
damage by towing company.
(h) Charles William Roman alleging
personal injuries as a result of
being rear -ended by Police vehicle
at Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road
on January 24, 1988.
(i) Elaine Schirmer alleging property
damage to vehicle as a result of
City employee backing up into
claimant's vehicle while parked at
870 Santa Barbara Drive on February
1, 1988.
The following are Leaves To Present Late
Claims:
(j) Barbara Aune (Barbara Ann Ward)
seeking indemnity from claim filed
by Flavia Iezza as a result of
accident on May 23, 1986 at
intersection of Balboa Boulevard
and Alvarado Street.
(k) Betty J. Rez and Donald H. Rez
alleging personal injuries as a
•
result of tripping and falling into
planter box cut into sidewalk area
on Marcus Street on July 22, 1987.
Volume 42 .- Page 94
Brien
COUNCIL MENDERS
C% `\
®¢ �G
•
•
•
KkAWSIM19M o
March 14, 1988
7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and
confirmation of the City Clerk's
referral to the claims adjuster:
(a) Joel A. Cooper and Robert E. Brain
(dba Cooper and Brain,
Incorporated), Case No. 49- 68 -93,
Orange County Superior Court
against City of Newport Beach;
Sampson Oil Company. Claim for
indemnity denied by Council on
September 14, 1987.
(b) Kevin William Marx, Case No.
549565, Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, dated
February 28, 1988. (No record of
claim filed prior to receiving the
subject summons on March 1, 1988)
8. REQUEST TO APPROVE /FILL PERSONNEL (66)
VACANCIES: (Report from the City
Manager)
(a) One Parking Control Officer,
Traffic Division.
(b) One Library Clerk I, Library
Department.
(c) Two Groundsworkers I, Parks
Division.
(d) One Parking Meter Serviceworker,
Traffic Division.
(e) One Secretary to the City Manager,
Administration.
9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For
Council information and approval:
/Brain
(a) Report from City Attorney regarding Rutan/
Request of RUTAN & TUCKER (Contract ITucker
No. 2170) for increase in fees and C -2170
housing lawsuits. (38)
10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For March
28, 1988:
(a) Removed from the Consent Calendar.
(b) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE R &B Towing
AND NECESSITY - Request of R & B (70)
Towing pursuant to Municipal Code
Chapter 5.13, relating to tow truck
regulations. (Memo from License
Supervisor)
Volume 42 - Page 95
COUNCIL MEMBERS
A \11\� ti �
•
•
March 14, 1988
11. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - Uphold staff's
recommendation to approve temporary
street closure, Application #88 -028 for
Duncan McIntosh Co. Boat Show at Via
Oporto in the Lido Marina Village on
April 12 thru April 25, 1988. (Report
from License Supervisor)
12. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - (Reports
from the Marine Department)
(a) Application #0115 -1014 -
Removed from the Consent
Calendar.
(b) Uphold staff's recommendation
for approval subject to
conditions listed in the staff
report for Application
#124 -3400 by Duncan MacIntosh
to temporarily revise the
commercial docks bayward of
3400 Via Oporto.
13. WIDENING PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD TO JAMBOREE ROAD
(CONTRACT NO. 2565); FEDERAL AID URBAN
PROJECT - Accept the work; and authorize
the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion and release the bonds 35 days
after the Notice of Completion has been
recorded in accordance with applicable
sections of the Civil Code. (Report
from Public Works)
14. RESUBDIVISION NO. 795 - Accept the
public improvements constructed in
conjunction with Resubdivision No. 795;
and authorize the City Clerk to release
the Faithful Performance Bond (No.
SC125746) and in six months, provided no
claims filed, release the Labor and
Material Bond (No. SC125746). (Report
from Public Works)
15. TRACT NO. 12873 WITH PARK PLACE -
Approve an Agreement for nonstandard
improvements in Tract No. 12873 with
Park Place, a California General
Partnership; and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute subject agreement
and record same. (Report from Public
Works)
16. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 14 - Accept the
public improvements constructed in
conjunction with Site Plan Review No.
14; and authorize the City Clerk to
release the Faithful Performance Surety
in the form of a Passbook Account
(Account No. 7- 127087 -0) and in six
Volume 42 - Page 96
/Apli#
(65)
Perm
(51)
124 -3400
?CH Widng/
3acA Bl-
Jamboree Rd
(C -2565)
(38)
1(84)
795
12873
Pln Rv
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
• G�'E�G�.v O� �G�P �2 GD�� March 14, 1988
MINUTES
months, provided no claims filed,
release the Labor and Material Surety in
the form of a Passbook Account (Account
No. 7- 127086 -2). (Report from Public
Works)
17. MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION IN CORONA DEL CdM Misc
MAR (CONTRACT NO. 2646) - Approve the Cnstr
plans and specifications; affirm the C -2646
Negative Declaration of Environmental (38)
Impact and authorize the City Clerk to
advertise for bids to be opened at 11
a,m., on March 31, 1988. (Report from
Public Works)
18. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - Approve an
Permit/
Encroachment Permit for nonstandard
21st P1
improvements regarding APPLICATION OF
Encroac
SID SOFFER (to allow an existing front
(65)
door to encroach 36 inches into the
public right -of -way of 21st Place when
the door is opened; to provide and
maintain a bench in the public
right -of -way adjacent to the door; and
to permit an existing rear stairway to
encroach approximately six (6) feet into
an alley corner cut -off until such time
as a utility pole is removed and
utilities are undergrounded) subject to
the execution of an Encroachment
Agreement for nonstandard improvements;
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute subject Agreement and record
same. (Report from Public Works)
19. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval:
(25)
BA -065, $1,455 - Transfer in Budget
Appropriations for Harbor View Homes
Special Refuse Collection; General
Services- Refuse Fund. (Memorandum from (44)
General Services Director and request
from Harbor View and Newport Beach
Community Associations)
BA -066, $15,000 - Increase in Budget
Appropriations and Revenue Estimates for
replacement of car totaled in rear -end
accident; Finance - Administration and
Accounting Fund.
BA -067, $270,000 - Increase and Transfer
in Budget Appropriations and Increase in
Revenue Estimates for City's portion and
contributions from The Irvine Company
and Orange County, for dredging the
navigation channel in Newport Bay
between Pacific Coast Highway bridge and
the main channel; Upper Newport Bay
Sediment Control- General Fund.
Volume 42 - Page 97
COUNCIL MEMBERS
•`GAS
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
Motion
All Ayes
0
X
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
March 13, 1988
BA -068, $82,161.54 - Increase in Budget
Appropriations for first of six monthly
payments of Certificate of Participation
Loan; Parking Meter - General Fund.
G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. The following items were scheduled for
public hearing on March 28, 1988, after
motion was made to forward attachments
to Council in the Wednesday (March
16) mail delivery, regarding:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -3(C) - Request
initiated by the City of Newport Beach
to amend the LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND
RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF
THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN for the
DOWNCOAST NEWPORT BEACH AREA (IRVINE
COAST) so as to incorporate the changes
to the plan adopted by the County of
Orange and the California Coastal
Commission; and
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 13 -
Request initiated by the City of Newport
Beach to amend the LAND USE PLAN OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM so
as to establish a land use plan for the
DOWNCOAST NEWPORT BEACH AREA. (Report
from the Planning Department)
2. Report from Marine Department
recommending denial of application for
reasons listed in the staff report for
Application #0115 -1014 by Ben Bukewighe
to build a cantilevered deck bayward of
1014 Polaris Drive, was presented.
Brion Jeannette, architect for Mr. and
Mrs. Bukewighe, addressed the Council
and stated that his applicant would like
to have more time to comply with the
legal aspects of this particular
situation, and requested a continuance.
The City Attorney advised that the
Council may not have the discretion to
make a decision, and recommended that
public testimony be reserved for the
continuance.
Motion was made to defer action until
April 11, 1988, at the request of the
applicant.
H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
None.
Volume 42 - Page 98
'IPA 87 -3(C)
(45)
14
13
Perm
115-
COUNCIL MEMBERS
y c+o �
0
on
Ayes
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
MINUTES
March 14, 1988
I. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
1. APPEAL OF BILL BURK from Administrative permit /Burk
denial of application to construct a Encroachm
36- inch -high patio encroaching 3_ feet (65)
4- inches into the public right -of -way,
adjacent to 219 Grand Canal, was
presented.
Report from Public Works Department,
with correspondence dated January 22,
1988 from Bill Burk, was presented.
The City Manager summarized that on page
three of the staff report the drawing
depicts what is proposed, and that is an
encroachment beyond the property line
3.37 feet, and on top of that a fence 36
inches high, which, from the sidewalk,
would give a 6 foot high structure.
The Public Works Director commented that
there is a raised patio of 3 feet in
height, rather than at grade level, and
the 3 foot fence above that elevation,
and staff's concern is that if the sea
wall has to be replaced, a raised patio,
plus a 3 foot wall will make it
difficult for the work to be done.
Motion was made to uphold the
recommendation of staff for denial of
subject appeal.
J. CURRENT BUSINESS:
None.
Meeting adjourned to closed session to
discuss pending litigation pursuant to
Section 54956.9(A) and B(1).
Council reconvened at 11:30 p.m., and
immediately adjourned.
ty
The agenda for this meeting was posted
on March 10, 1988, at 11:00 a.m., on the
City Hall Bulletin rd located outside
of the City Ne o t Beth AQministra-
tion Buildi�i"e. 1 I j AR I
Volume 42 - Page