Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1988 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers �'y► 16 4p O¢ 9 9G TIME: 7 :30 P.M. 9G �� DATE: May 9, 1988 • Present x x Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes • IxIxIxIxIx x MINUTES Mayor Cox presented Proclamations in recogni- tion of the following: 1) Red Poppy Week - Third Week of May, 1988; 2) Day of the Teacher - May 11, 1988; and 3) Nursing Home Week - May 8 -14, 1988. A. ROLL CALL. B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of April 25, 1988, was waived, approved as corrected, (voting on page 164 for agenda item G. 6, regarding SIDNEY BICKEL ENCROACHMENT APPEAL) 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 continued public hearing and City Council review of appeal by DR. JAN VANDERSLOOT, Newport Beach, from the approval of the Planning Commission on March 10, 1988, of RESUBDIVISION NO. 862, a request of HAL WOODS, Costa Mesa, to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into four parcels for single - family residential development, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located at 2919 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights; zoned R -1 and R -3. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, two letters were received In opposition to the proposal from E. Clement Shute, Jr., Attorney representing appellant, and from SPON. In addition, a letter was received from Helen Kreutzkamp, 2961 Cliff Drive, supporting the project. The City Manager advised that this hearing was continued from the April 25, 1988 Council meeting to allow staff additional time to further analyze the slope conditions of the subject property and adjacent Cliff Drive Park. The purpose of the slope analysis was to verify the previous aerial topographic survey provided by the City and used by the applicant in the preparation of his Volume 42 - Page 169 Resub 862 (84) • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS May 9, 1988 MINUTES tentative parcel map. As requested by staff, the applicant has obtained the services of a licensed civil engineer, who has prepared an on -site topograhic survey and which confirmed the accuracy of the previous aerial topographic survey information. The two issues raised at the last City Council meeting were whether or not the subject parcel constitutes a coastal bluff, and if the resubdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan. The Public Works Director explained a chart on display depicting 10 cross - sections from the site survey topographic map, and a summary of the slopes as enumerated on the exhibit and in his report to the Planning Director. It was pointed out that the steepest slope plotted = 2.08:1 (25.68 °), the flattest slope plotted = 2.67:1 (20.52 °), and the average of the 10 slopes plotted = 2.33:1 (23.44 °). No slope was found that was steeper than 2:1 for a vertical dimension of 25 feet or more. The City Manager stated that following the aforementioned surveys, it is the staff's belief the subject parcel does not meet the criteria for a coastal bluff. As to consistency with the General Plan, the City Attorney has researched the record since 1975 and traced General Plan Amendment No. 26, which changed the definitions of dwelling units per acre to dwelling units per buildable acre, and created three categories, where before there were two. In essence, the City Council did designate the subject area for 6 dwelling units per acre, which would place it in the medium - density General Plan category. The problem is that the General Plan maps were never changed to reflect the 1975 change, which staff believes was an administrative oversite, and further, an administrative oversite does not negate the action taken by the City Council. The area proposed for resubdivision shows on the General Plan as "yellow," which would designate low - density residential, which is less than that proposed by the resubdivision. If the City Council believes, pursuant to the information provided in the staff report, that the City Council in 1975 did, in fact, designate the subject parcel as medium- density residential, then it can be certified that said Volume 42 - Page 170 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS G one, nw,� • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 property is consistent with the General Plan. If the Council believes that failure to change the map just described from low- density residential to medium- density residential and partially negate the density issue, then it does not comply with the General Plan and the Council should not approve the resubdivision. Jerry A. King, representing the applicant, 550 -C Newport Center Drive, addressed the Council stating that staff has responded to the Council's concerns expressed at the last meeting, and that the applicant has also made a survey, which "bears out" the evidence provided by staff. Hal Woods, applicant, 3505 Cadillac Avenue, Costa Mesa, addressed the Council and stated that a survey was done last week on the property to establish grades along the easterly boundary. When completed, it was given to the City staff to verify with the survey they also completed on the site. Their average lot size is 8,100 sq. ft. With regard to possibly lowering the houses along Cliff Drive, they reviewed the suggestion and their proposal to the Council is that they would keep the ridge line on the homes on Cliff Drive at the same height as the ridge line on the single story houses across the street from the development. They feel they have a great deal of support from the neighbors across the street; that they have a very good project, and would appreciate approval of same. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, President of Newport. Heights Community Association, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She stated her comments were on record from the last Council meeting, and that their position has not changed. She submitted 39 additional signatures of persons against the proposal and requested they be added to the petition presented on April 25. Brion Jeannette, 400 Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Heights, architect and resident, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He submitted and explained a survey done in 1984 depicting what the existing site looked like before the development of the park was completed. He stated lie found that the area along Volume 42 - Page 171 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS r: • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 Riverside Drive has a substantial 2 to 1 slope, but did not exceed 25' in height, and therefore, would not constitute a coastal bluff. However, he found the area along the side of the park exceeded 25' in height, and in his opinion, the parcel meets the criteria for a coastal bluff. Mr. Jeannette recommended that if a resubdivision is approved, the following additional conditions be considered: 1) The project be reduced to 3 :Lots; 2) The flag lot driveway be increased to 20' width; 3) The public to be noticed for Site Plan Review at the Planning Commission Meeting; 4) The building development envelopes should be in substantial conformance with the revised Preliminary Concept Plans presented to the City Council on April 25, 1988, including Revised Section D, dated April 18, 1988; 5) No Grading on the adjacent park sites; 6) No property line walls shall exceed 6' in height from natural grade, including any Building Code required guardrails; 7) Retaining walls adjacent to the park shall be landscaped to eliminate visibility of them from the parks; and 8) The project shall set back from the bluff face on the North Easterly park site per the recommendations of the LCP pages 24, 25 8 26, because this area meets the criteria for a natural bluff. Mr. Jeannette referred to the Local Coastal Program and further discussed the definition of a coastal bluff, grading, residential development of 4 or more units, bluffside property line, public views, public access, and coastal view, as set forth in said policy. Volume 42 — Page 172. Resub 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS • • C J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 Richard Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, addressed the Council in opposition to the project, and stated he concurred in the remarks of Brion Jeannette. He distributed booklets to Council Members outlining information relative to General Plan Amendment No. 26 in 1975. He stated lie felt the resubdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan pursuant to the data he submitted. He stated that if the project cannot be modified as suggested by Mr. Jeannette, then it should be denied because it is not consistent with the General Plan. Discussion ensued among the Council regarding former Council Member Ryckoff's testimony and intentions as set forth in the information presented by Mr. Demmer, wherein the City Manager pointed out that on October 16, 1975, when General Plan Amendment No. 26 was approved by the Planning Commission, Council Member Ryckoff appeared before the Commission and quoted that "only Items 1 through 2.0 of his memo dated January 2, 1975, were being considered. He concurred with the staff report and recommendations and reviewed the changes under consideration, as outlined in the City Council staff report of the August 25, 1975 meeting. He felt that the definition of 'buildable acreage' was more understandable and would cause less confusion than 'net' and 'gross' definitions." The City Manager stated that at the August 25, 1975 Council meeting, Newport Heights was recommended for medium - density residential. Terry Watt, Urban Planner with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, Attorneys, 396 Hayes Street, San Francisco, representing appellant Dr. Jan Vandersl.00t, Touch of Green Committee, and SPON, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She stated it is their opinion that only 2 units on the subject property (1 on each parcel) would be consistent with the General Plan and LCP /LUP for the reasons as noted in their letter of May 3, 1988. She stated that since the last Council meeting, she and Mr. Shute have reviewed the legislative history relative to General Plan Amendment No. 26, which staff argues would have changed the designation of the site to medium - density residential, allowing this project. She stated it is their position that the legislative history is Volume 42 - Page 173 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS Ll • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 irrelevant, and what is important is what the General Plan says. She discussed some of the legislative history with particular reference to former Council Member Ryckoff's testimony. She cited inconsistencies on various elements of the General Plan and suggested said discrepancies be reconciled prior to taking action on the subject project. She felt the proposed development: sits in the middle of a park, not in the middle of 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. lots, and the impacts of the medium - density designation should be thoroughly reviewed before it replaces vast areas in the City that are currently colored "yellow" (low- density). In conclusion, she stated that for the reasons previously mentioned, and the statement made at the last Council meeting, including their comments in letters dated May 3 and April 5, 1988, she would urge the Council to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission. Coralee Newman, 2809 Broad Street, addressed the Council in support of the project. She stated that the applicant has spent numerous hours with residents of the community for their input, and she felt it was a very good project. She also felt the development would be comparable to the neighboring homes, would not impact views and a benefit to the area. She stated she disagreed with the previous remark that the project sits in the middle of a large park. She was particularly pleased to know of the proposed sidewalk on Riverside Avenue, and hoped that any trees removed from the site would be placed in adjacent park area. Chris Calvin, 1630 Bedford Lane, architect, addressed the Council in favor of the project. He stated he agreed with staff's opinion as to the coastal bluff issue, and that the proposed density was well within the designated plan. He stated that the applicant has gone "out of his way" to obtain input from neighboring property owners, as well as the community association, regarding their concerns. Helen Kreutzkamp, 2961 Cliff Drive, addressed the Council in favor of the project and referenced her letter of May 3, 1988. She stated the houses will be an attractive addition to the area, Volume 42 - Page 174 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS 4G 0 S' �O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 9, 1988 MINUTES Volume 42 - Page 175 862 and there will also be more than one owner to pay the taxes and be responsible for the weeds and trash from "lookie- loos" in the area. She also felt the development was not too dense • as mentioned by some speakers. Kurk Evans, #1 Rue Du Parc, Newport Beach, addressed the Council and stated that he does not reside in Newport Heights; however, he does know the applicant, has been observing the hearings, and is appalled at how the staff is being challenged so frequently. He stated that the staff has answered every question addressed to them and still they are being challenged again by some speakers. He felt the staff reports,have been clearly written and he could not understand the difficulty in approving the project. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed the Council and stated that he was neither for or against the project, but wanted to point out that ultimately something will be constructed on the site, and that it was too expensive a parcel to just sit vacant. He also indicated his support of allowing developers to build within • their property rights. Walter Heim, 504 Westminster Avenue, Second Vice - President of Newport Heights Community Association, and member of Site Plan Review Committee for this project, addressed the Council in support of the development. He stated that a number of issues have been raised in an attempt to stop this project, but he would urge the Council to consider the property owners' rights and vote in favor of the resubdivision. Jerry King, representing the applicant, addressed the Council again, and responded to some of the foregoing comments. He also stated that neither he nor his client have had the benefit of reviewing any of the information presented to the Council at their last meeting or this evening, and that the Council should not base their sole decision on information the Council has not had an opportunity to absorb, or • which they have not had an opportunity to review. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Volume 42 - Page 175 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS s 'A`9,y c: • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 Mayor Pro Tem Hart remarked, in part, that the area in question has a very "colorful" history and that Mr. Woods has submitted a good plan. However, in her opinion, the proposed project is in the middle of a park. She is satisfied with staff's information relative to this parcel not being a coastal bluff, and she does feel there will be some public benefit if the resubdivision is approved, due to the R -3 lot and the density that is allowed as opposed to two R -1 lots. She indicated she felt since there could be some public benefit connected with the development, she could support some type of resubdivision on the parcel. Council Member Strauss stated that he agreed the design and project itself has a lot of merit; however, he does have considerable reservations about the land use map and what it means. He cited from the City Attorney's memorandum, which stated: "The Council should find the proposed subdivision consistent with the General Plan if it concludes the site was effectively designed medium density residential by CPA 26 and the land use map does not accurately reflect this designation. The Council must deny the resubdivision if it determines the land use map, as presently colored, accurately reflects the appropriate residential density classification or that the proposed subdivision is not compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses specified in the plan." Council Member Strauss stated that, inasmuch as there was a memo in 1975 which said the site was low- density and the land use map both in 1975 and 1983 designated the parcel as low- density, it would be his feeling that the project should be ,approved with a maximum of 3 dwelling units at the most and with certain other conditions as well. Council Member Turner indicated he felt the difference between constructing 3 or 4 homes on the site was not that significant, and agreed that the coastal slope issue was no longer a concern, pursuant to the engineering data Volume 42 - Page 176 862 • Motion Motion .• COUNCIL MEMBERS y � x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH X MINUTES May 9, 1988 received from staff. He also felt that the parcel is medium- density residential, and noted there will be a site plan review process, whereby many of the residents' concerns will be addressed at that time. Council Member Sansone commented that he is against the project; however, if he votes "no" he cannot call the project back, and therefore he will support it if someone makes a motion to approve the resubdivision. He stated the LCP states that any construction done in the Coastal Zone will maximize views, and he does not see that occurring in this instance. He is concerned with blocking views from across the street as high as the first floor. He stated he reserves the right to bring this project back to the Council at the time of conceptual review. He would also like to have something "pinned" down as to side yard setbacks so that the homes are not pushed up against the park. Council Member Maurer spoke in support of the resubdivision, and following his comments, motion was made to sustain the action of the Planning Commission. Council Member Plummer complimented the residents of Newport Heights who worked many long hours in preparing their position relative to this project. She stated she was sorry the City does not have the resources to acquire the subject parcel in order to have a continuation of open space; however, she felt the City was fortunate to have a developer such as Mr. Woods who has offered a project that will be compatible with the neighborhood. She would like to think of this issue as a "win -win" situation, and therefore will support the motion to approve the resubdivision. Mayor Pro Tem Hart made a substitute motion to approve the project, but with a change to 3 dwelling units, rather than 4, including the construction of a sidewalk joining the two parks and along Riverside Avenue, and a height limit no higher than 16' above top of curb along Cliff Drive. Volume 42 - Page 177 862 COUNCIL MEMBERS J,G -off y Oo G • Ayes Noes All Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x x Ix Ix Ix Ix Ix MINUTES May 9, 1988 Council Member Strauss indicated he would support the substitute motion, stating that in the spirit of compromise., 3 dwelling units "makes sense." Hugh Coffin, legal counsel, recommended that (pursuant to the City Attorney's report of this date) whichever motion carries, an additional finding be made regarding the General Plan designation and the consistency between the map and the plan as set forth in said report. The makers of each motion indicated no objections to including the additional finding. Discussion ensued as to whether or not the findings and conditions of approval for the 4 parcel resubdivision would apply to the 3 parcel resubdivision if the substitute motion carried, but no action was taken in this regard, and following consideration, the substitute motion was voted on and FAILED. The motion on the floor to sustain the action of the Planning Commission was voted on, with the additional findings as set forth in the City Attorney's memorandum of May 9, 1988, and with the proviso that when this project comes back for site plan review it be substantially in conformance with the plans and specifications presented this date; including sidewalk along Riverside and Cliff Drives in accordance with the concept plan presented to the City Council, and with a height limit not to exceed 16' above top of curb. 2. Mayor Cox opened the continued public hearing and City Council review of: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 12 - A request of JAMES C. MANNING, Newport Beach, to amend the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, so as to redesignate the subject property from "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" to "Low- Density Residential;" AND (68) 862 12 RESUBDIVISION NO. 861 - A request of Resub 861 JAMES C. MANNING, Newport Beach, to (84) resubdivide property located at 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, zoned R -1 -B, so as to establish a parcel of land for single - family residential purposes. The Volume 42 - Page 178 COUNCIL MEMBERS ti 1,G9��G�4P� G DAI 1 PAI 1 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 proposal also includes a request to approve a proposed grading plan of the site so as to establish grade for the purpose of measuring height; and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Spyglass Ridge Association and Mary and Richard Sorensen, 1621 Harbor Crest Circle, in opposition to the proposed development. The City Manager summarized the staff report, noting that representatives of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association requested that the height of any building to be constructed on the site be limited to 26 feet at the ridge, as measured from the approved grade. The Planning Commission recommended a building pad not to exceed 416 feet above Mean Sea Level - Condition of Approval No. 20 of Resubdivision No. 861. Under the existing R -1 -B District, a structure may reach a height of 24 feet at the midpoint of any roof plane and 29 feet at the ridge. In order that such issues may be resolved in a manner that considers the concerns of the surrounding homeowners and the needs of the applicant, the Planning Commission recommended that a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed residence (Condition of Approval No. 19 of Resubdivision No. 861). In addition, that within 90 days of the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall join the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, however, the Association would like the subdivider to join sooner if possible. It was further noted that no residential development will be permitted on the site until the Coastal Commission approves the amendment to the Local Coastal Program to allow said use. Jim Manning, applicant, 8 Windsor, addressed the Council and gave a slide presentation showing the site in question and adjacent areas. He described the resubdivision and discussed issues of concerns raised by neighboring residents. He stated that the height of the pad would be 416 feet. He also stated that he is willing to join the homeowners association within Volume 42 - Page 179 COUNCIL MEMBERS a s n • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 90 days following issuance of building permits, and to accept the CCBR's of the association. John J. Giovannone, 1647 Reef Circle, President of Spyglass Ridge Community Association, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He stated that the subject parcel is situated at the only entrance to their tract, and is the sole piece of open space in their neighborhood. After San Joaquin Hills Road is extended from its current end point at Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hills Road, the children in their neighborhood will be affectively isolated from utilizing parks in other neighborhoods. Moreover, once the San Joaquin Hills Road extension is completed, the lots at 3841 Ocean Birch will represent their only access to the open space of Buck Gully. If the resubdivision is approved, they would urge the City Council modify the Planning Commission's approval of the development to require the applicant to lower the uppermost point of the roof of his development from 29 feet to at most, 26 feet and to join their association prior to obtaining his building permit, rather than 90 days thereafter for the reasons so stated in his letter of May 6, 1988. Discussion ensued with regard to the site plan review procedure, wherein the Planning Director advised that its purpose is to make sure that the new home will be compatible with the standards of the existing homeowners association and that the concerns of the association can be addressed at that time. H. Ross Miller, member of the Board of Directors of Spyglass Ridge Community Association, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He stated that the home proposed by the applicant is 6,300 sq. ft., which is almost twice as large as all of the other 40 homes in their tract, and would be situated at the very entrance to their tract. He stated that their association has been maintaining approximately one -half of the subject parcel for some 16 years and is designated "open- apace /recreational" in the Local Coastal Program. They feel that utilizing the process. the City Council is.following, this application is being processed illegally. They Volume 42 - Page 180 861 COUNCIL MEMBERS is • E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 would like the property to remain open Resub 861 space and ultimately would like it to be a park for their residents. Council Member Maurer asked Mr. Ross why the homeowners association did not purchase the property in order to maintain the open space, to which Mr. Ross indicated that The Irvine Company had informed the owner of the house adjacent to the subject parcel that the land was "unstable" and therefore, not for sale. Dr. J. Donald Turner, 3839 Ocean Birch Drive, Vice President of Spyglass Ridge Community Association, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. He referred to their petition signed by 37 residents in opposition, stating that two residents were out of town at the time of circulating the petition, and one homeowner was indifferent. He referenced the Negative Declaration regarding geological data and indicated they felt there should have been a full EIR for this resubdivision. He stated that when San Joaquin Hills Road is completed, it has been reported that approximately 22,000 cars per day will travel that road, and therefore, their children will not be able to cross the highway to get to Spyglass Hill Park. He urged the Council to consider the strong sentiment in their neighborhood to keep the subject parcel as open space. The Planning Director commented that this particular piece of property was originally part of a tentative map and showed two lots to be subdivided as a part of the Spyglass Ridge subdivision. When the final map was recorded, the two lots that covered this particular parcel, were left off the subdivision, so in essence, when the map was recorded it had two lots less than originally proposed with the tentative map. The staff has researched the files on the tentative and the final subdivision map, and could find no record or any reason why the two lots were deleted. At the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Merrill, who works for the Lusk Company, subdividers for this subdivision, advised that the reason the two lots were left out of the subdivision was due to some geological conditions that apparently had been discovered between the time the tentative map was approved Volume 42 - Page 181 COUNCIL MEMBERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 and the final map was recorded. It is true that in the environmental check- list, the staff did not acknowledge the unstable soils condition because they were going on the best information available at the time. Given the information they have now, other than changing the check -list to "yes," adding a mitigation measure, there would not be any change. Council Member Plummer asked if the City Council denies this project, would the City be obligated to purchase the property as open space, to which legal counsel replied, that if all use is denied of the property, the City could be liable for inverse condemnation and damages. With respect to the above comment, the Planning Director reported that when the City Council approved the senior housing project on the northerly side of Fifth Avenue, it involved an increase in density on that particular parcel, and therefore, there was a trade -off whereby The Irvine Company agreed to no development rights in the adjoining area of Buck Gully. There was also an exchange of development rights with respect to the downcoast development. Emily Hackler, 1616 Sea Bell Circle, addressed the Council in opposition to the project. She stated that the residents of Spyglass Ridge Community Association did not know the subject land was available for purchase or they would have looked into the possibility of buying it. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed the Council neither for nor against the project. He stated it was unfortunate the neighbors were not aware of the property for sale, but he felt the property owner has rights as well. Mr. Manning addressed the Council again, and stated that to date, he has invested approximately $20,000 in the project. As to the soil being unstable, he stated it is purely rumor, as they have dug down 65 feet and the property is solid as a rock. The plans will not only be reviewed by the Planning Commission, but also by The Irvine Company. Volume 42 - Page 182 Resub 861 COUNCIL MEMBERS • Motion • x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 Ayes x x x x x Noes x x • 3 Regarding access to Buck Gully once the house is constructed on the site, Mr. Manning replied that his property was not the common route to Buck Gully. Dr. Turner addressed the Council again, and indicated that the only access to Buck Gully is through the subject property which would be eliminated if the resubdivision is approved. Reference was made to the parcel map by the Planning Director, noting that the building on the pad is setback approximately 55 feet from the easterly property line so as to create a new corridor into Buck Gully from the end of Spyglass.Hill Road. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 88 -36, amending the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program to redesignate subject property; and sustain the decision of the Planning Commission with respect to Resubdivision No. 861 and the acceptance of the Environmental Document. Question was raised regarding use and access to Buck Gully, wherein the City Manager advised that Buck Gully is under private ownership designated for open space. The City has not regulated it in terms of use in the area, and it is his understanding that in other portions of Buck Gully, particularly near Fifth Avenue, there will be public access. If this resubdivision is approved, it would block any access off Spyglass Hill Road. Council Member Strauss stated he would not support the motion, inasmuch as there is so little open space in the area and he does not feel amending the Local Coastal Program is appropriate. He also felt the City should plan ahead with regard to the importance of more open space throughout the City. The motion was voted on and carried. Public hearing regarding WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM. Recycled report dated April 25, 1988, from the Fire Chief, was presented. Volume 42 - Page 183 Resub 861 88 -36 Fire /Weed Abatement (41) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ion I I I x Motion Ayes Noes I x Ix I I Ix I x Ix Motion All Ayes • • MINUTES May 9, 1988 Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 88 -37, ordering the Fire Chief to abate weeds and other public nuisances existing upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, parkways and private property within the City. Due to the lateness of the hour, motion was made to adjourn this meeting to 4:00 p.m., May 10, 1988, which motion FAILED. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed the Council regarding some of the comments he made at the last City Council meeting. He stated he did not wish to reiterate those remarks or the subject, but was glad to know the issue was being investigated by staff. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following actions were taken as indicated, except for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to 2nd reading on May 23, 1988: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -13, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 1.12.020(5) OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO AUTHORITY OF LICENSE SUPERVISOR AND INSPECTORS TO ISSUE CITATIONS. (Report from Business License Supervisor) (b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -14, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. (Report from the Assistant City Attorney) Volume 42 - Page 184 88 -37 Ord 88 -13 Business License/ Enfrcm (27) Ord 88 -14 Business Lic /Massage (27) COUNCIL MEMBERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 (c) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -15, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 12.66.075 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE STREETS IN THE BELCOURT DEVELOPMENT. (Report from Public Works- Traffic Engineering) (d)" Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -16, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 12.66.085 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICATION OF VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE STREETS IN THE HARBOR POINTE DEVELOPMENT. (Report from Public Works- Traffic Engineering) 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Resolution No. 88 -38 amending Resolution No. 87 -107 establishing Business License Fees for racing event=s. (Report from Business License Supervisor) (b) Resolution No. 88 -39 requesting CalTrans removal of the third eastbound "merge" lane on Pacific Coast Highway near Marguerite. (Report from City Attorney) 3. CONTRACTS /AGREEMENTS: None. 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To Planning Department for inclusion in the records, Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association suggestions for MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Village, and Sealane Apartments regarding the General Plan Outreach Program. Volume. 42 - Page 185 Ord 88 -15 Trfc /Veh Belcourt (85) 88 -16 (85) Fees /Bus License Racing Events Res 88 -38 (40) PW /PCH & Marguerite/ CalTrans Res 88 -39 (74) Planning (68) COUNCIL MEMBERS \1\� ROLL C L r_. • is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 (b) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation PB1,R1 for reply, letter from Ben Douglass Volleyball regarding the alleged unruly Cove Street conduct experienced from volleyball (62) players in the vicinity of 2609 Cove Street, in China Cove. (c) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation PB &R for reply, letter from Mrs. John B. CdM Tree Crosby with a complaint regarding ITrmg how the trees in Old Corona del Mar (62) are pruned. (d) To Pending Legislation and Legislation/ Procedural Ethics Committee, letter Prop 70 from City of Brea Mayor requesting (48) support for Proposition 70 - California Parkland Bond Initiative. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: None. 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Philip John Gold and Julia Royall Gold as of March 18, 1988, alleging City negligent in requiring former owner to comply with building ordinance that required new sewer line for second home when parcel' was subdivided at 2601 Way Lane, during December 1959, as a result claiming deprivation of property rights. (b) Jo Anne A. Jensen for property damage, alleging Police car door hit her vehicle while parked at The Village Inn, 127 Marine Avenue, Balboa Island on April 11, 1988, resulting in paint scratched on side of back panel driver's side. (c) Bette M. McAuley alleging personal injuries from trip and fall on March 4, 1988, as a result of raised sidewalk on 400 block of Via Lido Soud. (d) Mary Ann Ogilvie alleging personal injuries as, a result of stubbing her toe on April 18, 1988, on uneven sidewalk on Superior Avenue, just beyond Placentia. Volume 42 - Page 186 (36) COUNCIL MEMBERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 (e) Thompson and Evelyn Parrett for property damage as a result of traffic collision report made by City Trash Operator left on their vehicle windshield which was parked on 15th and Balboa on May 2, 1988. (f) J. Michael Sellards alleging City Dump Truck dropped dirt /sand from back of truck, and as a result rock struck, cracked and nicked windshield of his car on April 22, 1988, while driving north on Pacific Coast Highway at Bayside Drive. (g) Williamson & Schmid for indemnity from City regarding Tyrone Pruett claim for injuries as a result of being struck while crossing Pacific Coast Highway at intersection of Balboa and Superior on July 5, 1984. For rejection: (h) LATE CLAIM of Nancy A. Bruss alleging damage to tire as a result of hitting large piece of metal on November 7, 1987, in road near Bristol Street and Jamboree Road intersection. 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Civil Rights Violation and Assault and Battery from Paul R. Evans, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 551211. Claim was denied September 14, 1987. (b) Benjamin Curtis Harris, Jr., for damages, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 552224. Claim was denied January 11, 1988. (c) Brian Laudenback for personal injuries, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 555589. Claim was denied November 9, 1987. (d) Betty J. Rez and Donald H. Rez, Notice of hearing and petition from relief from claim requirement (Govt. Code 946.6) points and authorities, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 555423. Late claim was rejected on February 8, 1988 Volume 42 - Page 187 (36) Jr. COUNCIL MEMBERS "hG,A "0G • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 and Leave to Present Late Claim was denied on March 14, 1988. 8. REQUEST TO APPROVE /FILL PERSONNEL (66) VACANCIES: (Report from the City Manager) (a) One Executive Secretary, Library Department. (b) One Chief Building Inspector, Building Department. (c) One Equipment Service Worker, Equipment Maintenance. (d) One Equipment Mechanic I, Equipment Maintenance. (e) One Refuse Worker II, Refuse Division. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and filing: (a) Report to the City Manager Planning regarding ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE Commission PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 21, (68) 1988. (Attached) 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For May 23, 1988: (a) Memorandum from Business License Supervisor regarding letter from Harbor Towing requesting review from the City Council for a rate change approval under Section 5.13.140 and 5.15.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. (b) Memorandum from Business License Supervisor regarding letter from G & W Towing requesting review from the City Council for a rate change approval under Section 5.13.140 and 5.15.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 11. LAIDLAW GAS RECOVERY SYSTEMS APPLICATION - Uphold staff's recommendation to approve subject application to construct a private 6 -inch sewer line crossing beneath Ford Road 600 Feet west of Newport Hills Drive West from Laidlaw, Gas Recovery Systems; subject to conditions listed in the staff report (execution of an agreement for Volume 42 - Page 188 Towg (70) G & W Towg (70) (65) t/ COUNCIL MEMBERS A\\ \0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 nonstandard improvements, and an encroachment permit). (Report from Public Works) 12. TRACT NOS. 12212 AND 12362 - Accept the Traffic Signal improvements constructed in conjunction with Tract Nos. 12212 and 12362 (J. M. Peters Company); and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Surety (Passbook Account No. 44- 09000272 and in six months release the Labor and Materials Surety (Passbook Account No. 44- 09000280), provided no claims filed. (Report from Public Works) 13. TRACT NO. 12035 - Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Tract No. 12035 (Wale Development) located at 406 East Bay Avenue; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond (No. SB001008) and in six months release the Labor and Material Bond (No. SB001008) provided no claims filed. (Report from Public Works) 14. Removed from the Consent Calendar. Tracts 12212/12362 15. OLYMPIC POOL /CORONA DEL MAR HIGH SCHOOL PB &R - Delay decision on financial Pool participation by the City to the public (62) hearing on the 1988 -89 Fiscal Year Budget. (Report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation Director) 16. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 17. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 18. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: BA -076, $1.6,540 - Transfer in Budget EQA/ Appropriations for "Litter Free Area" (24) project; General Services- Refuse Fund. (April 25, 1988 Study Session Memorandum from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee) BA -077, $1,320 - Transfer in Budget Appropriations for special refuse collection for Balboa Island; General Services - Refuse Fund. (Memorandum from Deputy.General Services Director dated April 26, 1988 w /Balboa Island Improvement Association request) Volume 42 - Page 189 (44) t 12035 Srv/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS ALL9 May 9, 1988 • Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes 40 • ix x BA -078, $127,662 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and Decrease in Unappropriated Surplus for Inspiration Point Improvements; General Fund. (Refer to report with agenda item J -2) MINUTES G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Letter from Board of Library Trustees Library/ regarding LIBRARY SITE FEASIBILITY Site Fsblty STUDY, was presented. Stdy (50) Motion was made to authorize the City Manager to obtain cost estimates on all lots for report back to the City Council before finalizing. 2. Proposed NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE AND NB Cnfrnc VISITORS BUREAU 1988 -89 BUDGET, was Vstrs Bu presented. '88 -89 Bdgt C -2638 In response to question raised by (38) Council Member Strauss regarding the trolley, the City Manager stated that a report would be coming to the Council in August. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to approve the proposed 1988 -89 Operating Budget of the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau. 3. Report from Public Works regarding PCH Wdng/ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING BETWEEN NptBl /High- NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND STREET, land was presented. 1(74) The Public Works Director stated that the maps attached to the staff report show Pacific Coast Highway paralleling Seashore Drive and opposite Newport Shores. The one remaining issue relative to Pacific Coast. Highway widening project is the sound wall on the southerly side of the highway. A proposed design was submitted, with a permit application, to the Coastal Commission, but it was not approved. On May 12, the Coastal Commission will hear an appeal by CalTrans regarding that decision, and proposing a new sound wall design on the southerly side of Pacific Coast Highway. The design is composed of a 3 ft, high slump stone base, with a 4 ft. high clear plastic panel wall mounted above it. Volume 42 - Page 190 COUNCIL MEMBERS I no is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May.9, 1988 Tom Christensen, 6507 Seashore Drive, 1st Vice President of West Newport Beach Community Association, addressed the Council in support of authorizing Council Member Plummer to attend the Coastal Commission meeting regarding the City's position on this matter. Thomas Kent: Brimer, 6908 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Council and spoke in opposition to the proposed sound wall. He strongly urged the Council to not approve the recommendation of the Public Works Department as currently written, because he felt it does not represent t:he sentiment of the majority of the residents affected by this project. Wally Semeniuk, 6807 Seashore Drive, addressed the Council and stated that he was grateful to the City for the new park in West Newport, and spoke in support of the proposed sound wall. Ninfa O'Brien, 416 62nd Street, President of Newport Shores Community Association, addressed the Council and indicated that she disagreed with certain statements contained in the staff report. She referenced a survey done by their association, whereby 200 out of 600 homeowners have responded, and are not in favor of the sound wall. They also felt the speed limit should be lowered and that the highway should not be widened. It is their intention to present the results of their survey to the Coastal Commission. They also felt there should have been an EIR prepared on the proposed sound wall. Further, they are opposed to the alternative parking at Superior Avenue. In conclusion, she urged the Council to not approve the recommendation of the Public Works Department. Val Skoro, 107 Highland Avenue, West Newport, addressed the Council in favor of the sound wall, stating he felt the plastic panel above the wall will not block views and the wall itself will beautify the area. Bill Schonlau, 3609 Seashore Drive, addressed the Council and stated that this was an "all or nothing project," and that CalTrans will not go along with the project without the sound wall. Ile felt the project was needed to improve Volume 42 — Page 191 H Wdng/ tBl/ COUNCIL MEMBERS • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ayes lxlxxlx x x x Motion Abstain Ix E MINUTES May 9, 1988 the traffic: situation in the future; sound attenuation is necessary on both sides of Pacific Coast Highway; beautification is of great importance to the area; and he therefore, urged the Council to approve the project. James Patty, owner of Cappy's Cafe, 5930 W. Pacific Coast Highway, President of West Newport Merchants Association, addressed the Council and stated that they were against the proposed project if it is approved as presented in the staff report with no other alternatives for consideration. The Public Works Director commented that the Coastal Commission permit application is for the entire project and all of its components, and without an approved Coastal Commission permit there is no project. Jan Debay, 5107 Seashore Drive, addressed the Council in favor of the project. She stated that the traffic at Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway going westerly is often congested due to the need for a third lane. Council Member Plummer stated she felt it was very important for the City to move ahead with this project and the long -range program to clean up Pacific Coast Highway. She felt it was unfortunate that all attempts to work out some type of a compromise have not been successful. There being no further comments, motion was made to support the proposed widening of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Highland Street with the revised park wall; and authorize Council Member Plummer to appear at the May 12th Coastal Commission meeting and state the City Council's position. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION; 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -11, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 14.12.090 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING THE BASIC WATER QUANTITY RATE AT .93 CENTS PER HUNDRED CUBIC FEET EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1988, Volume 42 - Page 192 (89) Wdng/ 88 -11 ities/ c Wtr COUNCIL MEMI 1 � Motion 0 Ayes Motion All Ayes • • x x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 was presented with report from Utilities Director, dated April 25, 1988. Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 88 -11. 2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -12, being, Ord 88 -12 Public AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Nuisance THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING Abtm CHAPTER 10.50 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH (70) MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT, was presented with report from the Assistant City Attorney dated April 25, 1988. Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. 88 -12. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Report from the City Attorney regarding HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 0115 -1014 (BUKEWIGHE) to construct a cantilevered deck over Tidelands, bayward of 1014 Polaris Drive, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from the State Lands Commission relative to the request to place a cantilevered deck over Tidelands. Brion Jeannette, architect for the project, addressed the Council and advised that he was aware of the aforementioned letter from the State Lands Commission. He indicated that a building permit had been issued for the deck and stated he brought with him the plans to substantiate same. He stated that the applicant was just "fulfilling" what he thought he could do until this became a "red -tag" issue. He submitted a petition signed by 13 residents in the immediate area of the applicant, supporting the request for a cantilevered deck over Tidelands. With regard to the letter from the State Lands Commission, Mr. Jeannette stated it was somewhat "awkward" in what the Commission was attempting to state, and therefore, he contacted Nanci Smith of the Commission in order to determine their position. He stated that it was his interpretation from Ms. Smith that although the Commission does not have jurisdiction over this issue, they Volume 42 - Page 193 Harbor Perm Apli#0115- 1014 Polaris Drive (51) COUNCIL MEMBERS \12\\� ti • 1r u • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 9, 1988 believe it would be in violation of the public trust if the City were to issue a permit. He! stated that Ms. Smith also indicated there were other areas within the Bay where cantilevered decks have been permitted. Hugh Coffin, legal counsel, commented that if the City Council were to approve the subject: harbor permit it would be a violation of Tidelands use and the implications at a very minimum would be precedent- setting; secondly, the Commission feels it would not be a consistent use with the grant to the City of the Tidelands; and thirdly, it would be inconsistent with the City's adopted policy regarding the issuance of harbor permits for structures over the bulk of the Bay. The City Manager in an attempt to correct a statement made by Mr. Jeannette regarding an approved building permit for the cantilevered deck, referenced a memorandum from the Building Director, dated March 24, 1988, advising that a permit for the cantilevered deck has never been issued. Dr. Ronald Stanford, 1018 Polaris Drive, addressed the Council in opposition to the request for a cantilevered deck. He stated that he resides adjacent to the applicant and that the proposed deck would deprive him of a good portion of his view of the water. Ben Bukewighe, 1014 Polaris Drive, applicant, addressed the Council and stated that Dr. Stanford had requested some time ago to place a cantilevered deck in front of his home and was informed by the Building Department it was not permitted. He also stated that the deck cannot be seen from Dr. Stanford's, property. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, addressed the Council and stated that the applicant did discuss his request with him, but he informed him that he was not knowledgeable as to waterways. He discussed the amount of money already invested in the deck and pointed out the additional cost to remove it. Volume 42 - Page 194 Harbor Perm 1014 COUNCIL MEMBERS - IN\os L` Motion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0- x x x x x x x Motion x Ayes x x x x x x Noes x Motion is Ayes x MINUTES May 9, 1988 Jack Brennan, contractor for the cantilevered deck, addressed the Council and stated that three building permits were issued for the following work at the subject location: 1) Remodeling addition; 2) 8 ft. front wall; 3) Rebuild 6 ft. wall on side of property and rear wall. Mr. Brennan stated that after the above permits were issued, an inspection was made of the completed work, and engineering was in existence for the cantilevered deck at that time. He stated he proceeded ahead with the deck, and it was then that they were "red- tagged" for not having a permit for the cantilevered deck. Council Member Turner noted that the plans shown him by Mr. Jeannette, architect for the project, did reflect a cantilevered deck, and therefore, motion was made to approve the subject permit. Council Member Maurer spoke against the motion, stating he felt such approval would set a precedent. The motion on the floor, was voted on and FAILED. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to deny the subject permit. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Request from Norbert Bojarski to address the Council concerning alleged lack of enforcement of the City's Ordinance restricting door -to -door solicitation, was presented. Due to the lateness of the hour, Mr. Bojarski was not in attendance to address the Council, and therefore no action was taken. 2. Report from Executive Assistant to the City Manager regarding INSPIRATION POINT IMPROVEMENTS, was presented. Motion was made to accept and approve Negative Declaration and findings; conceptually approve design; and direct staff to obtain necessary permits and return to Council for approval of the final plans, specifications and estimates prior to advertising for bids. Volume 42 - Page 195 Harbor Perm Apli#0115- 1014 Bus Lic/ Door -to- Door Slctn (27) PB &R/ Inspiration Pt Impvms (62) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS May 9, 1988 Meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m., Tuesday, May 10, 1988. ATTEST: City 0 The agenda for this meeting was posted on Thursday, May 5, 1988, at 8:15 a.m., on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. MINUTES Volume 42 — Page 196