HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1990 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
np REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
•� 9� y 9� 7L PLACE: Council Chambers
G TIME: 7 :00 P.M.
�jP DATE: October 8, 1990
•
Present x
Absent x
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
•
•
x
x l
x
x
x
x
X
MINUTES
Mayor Plummer presented a proclamation in
recognition of RED RIBBON WEER, OCTOBER 21 - 28,
1990, as a commitment for Newport Beach toward a
drug -free and alcohol abuse -free community.
A proclamation was also presented to Debbie
O'Connor, Representative from FISH - Harbor Area,
in recognition of WORLD FOOD DAY, October 16,
1990, and the week of October 14 - 20, 1990, as
ORANGE COUNTY HUNGER WEER.
A. ROLL CALL.
B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of
September 24, 1990 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 Plummer opened the public hearing LCP /LUP
regarding LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE Amnd 23
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23 establishing a policy Oceanfront
regarding private oceanfront encroachments Encroach
onto public property and providing for the ments
extension of the existing oceanfront (68)
sidewalk and bike path from the Santa Ana
River to 'the West Jetty.
Report from the Planning Department.
Letters from James A. Pistole, Dwane and
Rose Clark, Gary Smith, Charles M. Blair,
and Charles and Betty Banks concerning
encroachments, extension of the sidewalk,
and extension of the bikeway.
The City Clerk advised that after the
agenda was printed, a letter was received
from the California Coastal Commission
dated October 4, 1990, listing five
specific comments regarding oceanfront
encroachments.
Council Member Turner entered the meeting at this
time (7:10p.m.).
The City Clerk further advised that 15
additional letters were received concerning
oceanfront encroachments and the proposed --
extension of the bicycle path from the
following people:
Robert E. Cross, 2038 E. Ocean Front
Jim & Betty Folk (property owner),
5305 Seashore Drive
Walter S. & Joan S. Semeniuk, 6807 W.
Seashore Drive
Volume 44 - Page 333
COUNCIL MEMBERS
6"N
090\0_17" V64%,
L
0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 8, 1990
Donald H. & Winifred Ann Spengler,
Oceanfront
1750 E. Ocean Front
Encroach -
Darwin K. Pearson, 1249 1/2 W. Balboa
ments
Blvd.
Margaret L. Gross, 2038 E. Ocean
Front
Annette Lindsay, 2060 E. Ocean Front
Bill Bennett, 226 Lugonia
Don R. & Betty Adkinson, 1516 E.
Ocean Front
Robert E. Corrigan, 7302 W. Ocean
Front
Judith Miller, 3711 Seashore Drive
Claudia K. Weyer, No. 8 Balboa Coves
JoAnn E. Behrens, 22 Balboa Coves
Simon, Henriette, and M. Nicole van
Dam, 1350 E. Ocean Front
Mr. and Mrs. Michael C. Kirchner, and
Mr. & Mrs. Charles L. Kirchner, 7005
Seashore Drive
The City Manager reported that
approximately two years ago, the State
Coastal Commission contacted the City with
the request they address the issue of
encroachments in the oceanfront area in
West Newport on the Balboa Peninsula. As
a result, a citizen's committee was formed
to examine the different ramifications of
the encroachments. The Ocean Front
Encroachment Committee has completed their
year -long study and submitted their
recommendations to the City Council, at
which time the City Council referred said
recommendations to the Planning Commission
to commence public hearings on an amendment
to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
embodying a policy for the oceanfront
encroachments.
John Wolter, staff liaison to -the Ocean
Front Encroachment Committee, gave a brief
report on the Committee's research, and the
status of encroachments in the following
areas:
Area A - Santa Ana River to 6100 West
Ocean Front: 80 of 81 properties have
encroachments.
Area B - Seashore Drive - 6000 -3600
Blacks: 103 of 144 properties have
encroachments.
Area C - 36th Street to "A Street:
None of approximately 300 properties
have encroachments.
Area D - A" Street to Peninsula
Point: 112 of 132 properties have
encroachments.
Volume 44 - Page 334
ROLL
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
A G�% October 8, 1990
Mr. Wolter also presented a video recording oceanfront
depicting the character of the various Encroach-
encroachments on the oceanfront. ments
Mr. Wolter advised that the Committee,
consistent with its chartered objective of
developing a solution which is fair and
acceptable to the City, the beach -going
public, oceanfront property owners, area
homeowner's associations and the Coastal
commission, recommends the following
policy:
1) The City issue Encroachment
Permits which would be renewed
annually:
Parks, Beaches and Recreation
to approve landscaping plans.
Public Works to issue permits
for encroachments which meet
specifications published by
Public Works (patio deck not
to exceed 6 in. above grade,
fence not to exceed 36 in.,
neighbor's /public views not be
obstructed, encroachment not
to exceed 15 ft. from property
line or distance to existing
City installed improvements,
such as sidewalks, etc.,
whichever is less).
Property owners must certify
compliance with specifications
and landscape plane and
document distance of
encroachment for annual
renewal.
Property owners must indemnify
City from liability.
2) Annual fee will be $50 for
encroachments of less than 5
ft; $100 for up to 10 ft. and
$200 for up to 15 ft.
3) All property owners must
comply within 5 years of
adoption of this policy or at
sale of their property.
It was noted by the Planning Director that
on August: 9, 1990, following public hearing
on this issue, the Planning Commission
voted (4 ayes, 3 noes) to recommend to the
City Council the adoption of the following
Local Coastal Program policy:
Volume 44 - Page 335
[CIL MEMBERS
\� M'M�- 00(lipp
\
ROLL
C
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October S, 1990
in order to address the problem of
Oceanfront
beach encroachments, the City shall
Encroach -
establish a program whereby revocable
ments
encroachment permits may be issued to
oceanfront property owners for
limited improvements seaward of the
property line. Such encroachments
shall not extend more than 10 feet
beyond the property line, and shall
not be permitted to limit public
access to the ocean, eliminate views,
nor restrict future use or
improvement of the beach for public
purposes.
Within three years of the final
adoption of this policy, all
bea.chfront encroachments shall be
removed except for those
encroachments specifically permitted
under an encroachment permit issued
by the City.
The Planning Director made reference to the
July 3, 1990 letter from the California
State Coastal Commission, indicating the
Coastal commission would be supportive of
only modest seaward encroachments, such as
a five -foot -wide encroachment. They
indicated that Coastal commission approval
of encroachments without any enhancement of
public access, such as extension of the
beachfront sidewalk, is unlikely. The
Coastal Commission would support use of
fees generated from encroachment permits
for enhancement of public access along the
beach. He advised that City staff met with
the Coastal Commission staff on September
20, 1990, at which time Commission staff
stated that improved public access would be
required as mitigation for private use of
the public easement and sandy beach.
Commission staff indicated that a hard
surface walkway extending from the Santa
Ana River to the West Jetty of the Harbor
entrance would be required. The precise
location of the sidewalk on the beach could
be determined at a later date. However,
Commission staff was adamant that the City
must commit to installation of the walkway,
and the encroachment issue could not be
separated from provision of increased
access. coastal commission staff indicated
that if the encroachments were removed, no
policy would be necessary, and therefore,
no mitigating increase in public access
would be required.
Volume 44 - Page 336
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Z� \\\%%P
L CALL October 8, 1990
MINUTES
The Planning Director also commented that
Oceanfront
in response to concerns raised by the City
Encroach -
Council, members of the public, and by the
ments
Coastal Commission staff, the City Council
may wish to consider adoption of the
following alternative policy:
In order to address the problem of
beach encroachments, the City shall
establish a program whereby revocable
encroachment permits may be issued to
oceanfront property owners for
limited improvements seaward of the
property line. Such encroachments
shall not extend more than 7.5 feet
beyond the property line or to the
City installed improvements such as
sidewalks, whichever is less, and
shall not exceed three feet in
height. Encroachments shall not be
permitted to limit public access to
the ocean, eliminate views, nor
restrict future use or improvement of
the beach for public purposes.
It was :pointed out that the 7.5 foot
maximum encroachment has been suggested for
Council consideration because the existing
sidewalk physically prevents any
encroachment wider than 7.5 feet in a four
•
block area easterly of Balboa Pier. Thus,
the 7.5 foot maximum would result in equal
treatment for all beachfront property
owners with the exception of those having
a property line contiguous with the
existing sidewalk.
If the City Council were to commit to the
provision of additional public access, the
following additional policy was suggested:
Additional physical public access
shall be provided along the
oceanfront from the Santa Ana River
to the West Jetty of the entrance to
Newport Harbor. Such access may
include, without limitation, the
extension and expansion of the
oceanfront walkway.
The City Council shall direct staff
to investigate the various means of
increasing lateral and vertical
access and shall select a preferred
alternative within twenty -four months
of the final adoption of this policy.
•
Implementation and construction shall
commence within twenty -four months
thereafter.
Volume 44 - Page 337
0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OUNCIL MEMBERS
October 8, 1990
MINUTES
Reference was made to the October 4, 1990 Oceanfront
letter from the California Coastal Encroach -
Commission which stated the following: ments
"As noted in our July 3rd letter, generally
the Coastal Commission is not supportive of
any seaward encroachment onto beach areas
regardless of who holds a legal interest in
the property. This position is based on
Coastal Act policies regarding potential
adverse impacts of such encroachments on:
public access and recreational
opportunities, visual quality and ocean
related hazards. The Commission has long
had the goal of preserving the maximum
amount of sandy beach since it is a finite
resource. To elaborate on our position for
your City Council, we have the following
specific comments:
"1. As an alternative that would be
consistent with Coastal Act policies,
the Council could adopt an ordinance
which would allow no private
encroachments within the City's
easement area and which would include
an abatement procedure for existing
encroachments. Under this alternative
no mitigation in the form of public
access improvements (i.e., a hard
surface public sidewalk on the
oceanfront) would be necessary since
the encroachments would be
eliminated.
"2. Recognizing that the no
encroachment alternative may be
unacceptable due to the number of
existing encroachments, and a desire
amongst the homeowners to retain some
encroachments, we would reiterate
what we stated in our July 3rd
letter. Basically, if the Council is
to adopt an ordinance permitting
encroach-
ments, we would urge that the
encroachments be limited to ground
level patio type development (this
could include small walls, planter
boxes, etc.) which extends no more
than five feet seaward of the
homeowner's property line. As
mitigation for the encroachments, we
feel strongly that public access must
be enhanced by providing a hard
surface oceanfront sidewalk. Such a
sidewalk would accommodate public
access along the beach, particularly
for the handicapped, elderly and
others who may find it difficult to
Volume 44 - Page 338
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
\\ \0A CZ October 8, 1990
traverse the sand. We believe the
Oceanfront
Coastal Commission might find this an
Encroach -
acceptable alternative, provided
ments
there is a firm commitment by the
City to build the hard surface public
sidewalk within a specific timeframe
(e.g., 3 years). To simply defer the
matter of a hard surface sidewalk for
study would not, in our opinion,
constitute adequate mitigation.
113. we would be open to alternative
alignments and possible use
limitations of the hard surface
oceanfront public sidewalk described
above based on environmental review.
For instance, it may be appropriate
to align the sidewalk further seaward
if there is no evidence that it would
be damaged by wave run -up. The City
might also determine that there is a
preferable route for bicyclists and
limit the new sidewalk to pedestrian
use. These issues, we believe, could
be addressed in further studies.
However, we would state again the
need for the City to make a firm
commitment to building the sidewalk
if the encroachments are to be
permitted.
"4. Commission staff is supportive Of
the City's proposal for issuance of
encroachment permits with annual
renewal provision. This will
certainly result in proper regulation
of the type and location of
encroachments.
"5. Lastly, we sincerely appreciate
the tremendous effort the City is
making to come -up with a solution to
the oceanfront encroachment issue.
By doing this as a Local Coastal
Program Amendment, a comprehensive
approach is being taken which will,
in our opinion, result in a
preferable and more equitable
solution."
Council Member Turner stated he was
concerned as to what the Coastal Commission
will ultimately require, and indicated he
would like to know their "final" position
prior to taking action on this issue.
In response to the above comment, The
Planning Director stated that the Coastal
Commission will not consider an Amendment
to the Local Coastal Program until that
Amendment has been approved by the City
Volume 44 - Page 339
COUNCIL MEMBERS
PV
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October B, 1990
MINUTES
Volume 44 - Page 340
Council. The Coastal Commission is looking
Oceanfront
to the City Council to make some type of
Encroach -
decision as to the encroachment issue
ments
and /or policy, and then they will react to
that decision. The Coastal Commission may
concur with the City or they may disagree
with the Council and come up with an
alternative proposal.
Discussion ensued with respect to whether
or not the City could abandon a portion of
the public right -of -way; whether or not
there is a need for a wall to protect
against potential flooding on the ocean
front; should the City estimate the
property value of each encroachment; the
legality of charging an annual fee for an
encroachment permit; and the feasibility of
conducting annual physical inspections of
all oceanfront encroachments, etc.
Referencing the October 4, 1990 letter from
the Coastal Commission, the City Manager
commented that in his opinion, if the
encroachments are not allowed, and the
Amendment to the Local Coastal Program is
adopted, then the Coastal Commission cannot
require the boardwalk. The only way the
Commission can require a boardwalk is if
the LCP recommended an encroachment of a
•
certain amount of feet, they could then
approve of those encroachments, but at the
same time condition that approval subject
to the construction of a boardwalk.
In response to question raised regarding
the legal status of encroachments prior to
the formation of the Coastal Commission,
the City Attorney stated that in his
opinion, the Coastal Commission does not
have any jurisdiction over any development
within the Coastal Zone that occurred prior
to the formation of the Coastal Commission.
However, that does not answer the question
as to whether the encroachments should be
allowed to remain in terms of the
relationship between those encroachments
and City policy. In addition, he is not
conceding that the Coastal Commission has
the authority to impose a bike path
extension as a condition to any type of
encroachment policy.
The City Manager also pointed out that
•
where the disputed encroachments are
located, the encroachments lie, for the
most part, upon an easement granted to the
City of Newport Beach when the area was
subdivided shortly after 1906.when the City
Volume 44 - Page 340
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
October 8, 1990
MINUTES
incorporated. Those easements for street Oceanfront
and access purposes, were granted to the Encroach -
City with the adjoining property owner ments
owning the fee title underlying the
easement.
At this time the Mayor announced that
public testimony would be taken on this
issue:
Frank Spratt, 5903 Seashore Drive, stated
he felt that the existing access to the
ocean was adequate, and that the oceanfront
encroachments should be allowed to remain.
He also stated he was in support of
imposing an annual fee for the
encroachments.
Richard Marconi, 1572 E. Ocean Front,
stated he was opposed to any extension of
the boardwalk as he would like to see the
"natural beauty" of the oceanfront
preserved.. He also felt there was no
shortage of access to the beach.
Lila Morgan, 3004 W. Ocean Front, submitted
a petition with over 1000 signatures in
support of a walking /biking trail from the
Santa Ana. River Jetty to Peninsula Point.
Denise Julian, 2855 Pinecreek Drive, Costa
Mesa, stated she spends a great deal of
time at the beach at Peninsula Point
because it is peaceful and safe, and would
therefore! not like to see the boardwalk
extended.
Donald Hart, 120 46th Street, stated he
felt the oceanfront encroachments should
not be allowed, and that the boardwalk
should be extended for everyone's
enjoyment.
Gene Kraus, 6502 W. Ocean Front, stated
that his property has a. 10 ft.
encroachment, and that he is in support of
the recommendation of the Ocean Front
Encroachment Committee.
Marcia Mordlund, 5710 Seashore Drive,
stated that her home is located adjacent to
a bicycle trail, handball courts, City
public restrooms, and public telephone, and
therefore she would support some type of
buffer zone on the oceanfront for safety
purposes.
Robin Wade, 109 30th Street, submitted a
petition with over 1000 signatures in favor
of extending the boardwalk.
Volume 44 - Page 341
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS
4 C
G,A q�
2
� G
�� October 8, 1990
ROLL CALL
•
•
•
MINUTES
Wally Semeniuk, 6807 W. Seashore Drive, Oceanfront
stated he was opposed to any extension of Encroach-
the boardwalk, inasmuch as there are ments
already three bicycle lanes in the area for
public use. He also felt the environmental
impact of a boardwalk would be
"devastating" to the beach area.
Diane Palm, 4707 Seashore Drive, spoke in
opposition to extending the boardwalk due
to the number of bicycle accidents and the
type of people it would attract.
Beth Lynn., nonresident of Newport Beach,
stated she did a survey this date of
persons using the beach in West Newport,
which indicated that most people have no
objections to the oceanfront encroachments,
but are opposed to any extension of the
boardwalk.
Sandy Norden, 3208 W. Ocean Front, stated
that "all taxpayers should be treated
equally," and therefore the oceanfront
encroachments should be removed.
Paul Watkins, 6408 W. Ocean Front, stated
his property has a 10 ft. encroachment;
that he supports the Ocean Front
Committee's recommendation; but that he was
opposed to extending the boardwalk.
Fran Newman, 6009 Seashore Drive, stated
she has been a resident for 11 years and
her property encroaches 23 feet into the
public right -of -way. She felt her
encroachment provides beauty to the beach;
it is a deterrent to crime, and should not
be eliminated, and that the Ocean Front
Committee's recommendation should be
approved.
William Schonlau, 4809 Seashore Drive,
stated his property has a 5 foot
encroachment into the public right -of -way;
submitted a petition with 1241 signatures
opposing the extension of the boardwalk;
cited crime statistics noting that crime is
three times higher in the area of the
existing boardwalk; and urged the Council
to endorse the recommendation of the Ocean
Front Committee.
Kristi Barrett, 109 30th Street, submitted
petition with approximately 1000 signatures
in support of extending the boardwalk.
Volume 44 - Page 342
v
C7
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�o�
MINUTES
October S, 1990
Frank Reynolds, 5005 Seashore Drive, stated Oceanfront
his patio encroaches 10 feet into public Encroach -
right -of -way; that he supports the ments
recommendation of the Ocean Front
Encroachment Committee, and is opposed to
extending the boardwalk.
Kelly Sandorf, 430 Redlands Avenue, stated
the beach is for public use, and therefore
encroachments should not be allowed.
Max Morgan, 3004 W. Ocean Front, spoke
against the encroachments; suggested they
be removed within one year, and a sidewalk
installed for public use.
Jan D. Vandersloot, 2221 16th Street,
indicated he felt the existing beach access
was inadequate, and suggested as an
alternative, the City Council endorse the
Ocean Front Encroachment Committee's
recommendation by allowing beachfront
encroachments up to 15 feet in return for
payment of a fee to the City. The funds
generated from these fees could then be
used to improve public access to the beach,
such as reinstating the Newport Trolley to
ferry people from various parking lots to
the beach.
Thomas Camardi, representing David Caruso,
owner of 5109 Seashore Drive, stated Mr.
Caruso felt the 15 foot buffer is
reasonable and should be allowed, and
therefore concurs with the recommendation
of the Ocean Front Encroachment Committee.
Doris Sandore, 246 Orange Street, spoke in
opposition to the encroachments and
recommended they all be "bulldozed" and the
boardwalk extended for everyone to enjoy.
Gordon Van Brock, 1124 E. Balboa Boulevard,
commented he was in favor of extending the
boardwalk and felt the recommended buffer
zone is a very fair exchange for the
oceanfront walk.
Jerry Cobb, 6304 W. Ocean Front, Chairman
of the Ocean Front Encroachment Committee,
stated the Committee took no action with
respect to the extension of the boardwalk,
and therefore did not include anything in
their recommendation to preclude future
consideration of the boardwalk as they felt
it should be kept as a separate issue.
Volume 44 - Page 343
C
•
•
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 8, 1990
Mr. Cobb stated that his home encroaches 13 Oceanfront
feet into the public easement, and that the Encroach -
degree of property owner's rights is very ments
"fuzzy" in this instance, and it could take
years of litigation to determine who has
what right to what area. Therefore, the
Committee felt the 15 foot recommended
buffer zone represents a reasonable
compromise to the problem.
Sterling Wolfs, 6204 W. Ocean Front, stated
he built his home 13 years ago, and that it
encroaches 16 feet into the public right -
of -way. If the encroachments were to be
removed, he felt it would be a very big
change to the area. He also felt that
inasmuch as the City has allowed the
encroachments for so long, they ought to be
allowed to remain.
Earle Bunker, 4201 Seashore Drive, stated
that if the boardwalk were extended, it
would be covered with sand from the wind.
In addition, the City's beach cleaner truck
could not clean the beach near the
boardwalk for fear of damaging the
equipment.
David Granoff, 7308 W. Ocean Front, spoke
in support of the Ocean Front Encroachment
Committee's recommendation and the proposed
annual fee.
Robert Schumann, owner of property at 5901
Seashore Drive with his parents, who also
purchased the adjacent property at 5911
Seashore Drive in 1951, stated he currently
resides in an oceanfront home in Manhattan
Beach with a sidewalk in front of his home.
He stated the property in Newport Beach
encroaches 20 feet into the public right -
of -way, and when the home was built, his
parents were led to believe by the City's
Building Department, that the encroachment
was allowed. He felt the Committee's
recommendation should be approved with
respect to the encroachment issue, and that
the boardwalk should not be extended.
At this time, Mayor Plummer continued the
public hearing to October 22, 1990.
Council Member Hart requested that when
this item comes back to the Council, the
staff report on the following items:
Volume 44 - Page 344
COUNCIL MEMBERS
OLL
•
Motion
All Ayes
•
X
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 8, 1990
1) The status of the building
permit and /or encroachment
permit issued in 1951 for 5901
Seashore Drive;
2) George Holstein's property in
the bluffs regarding possible
abandonment of street right -
of -way;
3) Buena Vista area encroachments
- is this public or private
property.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Rabun, 3130 Corte Hermosa, addressed IBonita
the Council regarding his letter of Creek Prk
September 14, 1990 concerning noise
emanating from Bonita Creek Park as a
result of the Jr. All- American football
program.
The City Manager advised that Mr. Rabun's
letter, as well as his concerns expressed
at the September 24, 1990 Council meeting,
were referred to the Parks, Beaches, and
Recreation Director and a report should be
coming back to the Council on October 22 or
November 13, at which time Mr. Rabun will
be notified.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR;
The following actions were taken as indicated,
except for those items removed.
1. ORDINANCES FOR
Pass to second reading on October 22,
1990 -
(a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90 -39, being, Ord 90 -39
Harbor Reg
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Air Prop
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING Vessels
SECTION 17.16.040 OF THE NEWPORT (51)
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
AIR PROPULSION VESSELS. (Report from
the Fire Department]
Schedule for public hearing on (Tuesday)
November 13, 1990.
(b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90 -40, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ANENDINO
SECTION 20.60.030 OF THE NEWPORT
Volume 44 - Page 345
Ord 90 -40
Zoning
(94)
OLL
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
October 8, 1990
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO PERMIT
SOCIAL CLUBS IN THE SPECIALTY RETAIL
(SR) DISTRICT OF THE CANNERY
VILLAGE /MCFADDEN SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP- -6) DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE
SECURING OF A USE PERMIT IN EACH CASE
(PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO.
714). [Report from the Planning
Department]
(c) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90 -41, being,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING
TITLE 20.33 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE
RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL (RSC),
RECREATIONAL AND MARINE COMMERCIAL
(RUC), AND ADMINISTRATIVE,
PROFESSIONAL, AND FINANCIAL
COMMERCIAL (APF) (PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT NO. 716). [Report from the
Planning Department)
2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION:
None.
3. CONTRACTS /AGREEMENTS:
(a) Award Contract No. 2759 to B & A
Construction, Inc. of Fontana for
$427,427 for WATER MAIN, SEWER MAIN
AND ALLEY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM; and
authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute subject contract.
[Report from Public Works Department]
4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated:
PCA 714
Ord 90 -41
Zoning
(94)
PCA 716
Wtr Mn /Swr
Mn /Alley
Rplcm Prg
(C -2759)
(38)
(a) To General Services for response, IGS
letter from Margaret Howland (44)
concerning RECYCLING AND UNWANTED
MAILINGS BY RESIDENTS.
(b) To Public Works Department for PW
response, letter from Harbor for
(74)
Hills Community Association
concerning staff's current study for
a "WALK -OVER BRIDGE" across MacArthur
at Crown Drive in Corona del Mar.
(c) To Police /General Services GS
Departments for reply, letter from (44)
Laura Winters concerning her Mother's
encounter with a Police Officer while
attempting to RECYCLE ALUMINUM CANS
FROM BIG CORONA BEACH.
Volume 44 - Page 346
COUNCIL MEMBERS
M A
*N01
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
October 8, 1990
MINUTES
(d) To City Librarian for inclusion in
Library
the records, suggestions from John E.
(50)
Dwan II concerning LITERACY
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA BASED AT THE
•
NEWPORT BEACH CITY LIBRARY, NEWPORT
CENTER.
(e) To Police /General Services
PD
Departments for reply, letter from
(70)
Mr. and Mrs. Carroll requesting
removal of a bench on the walkway at
the junction with Cypress and
Fernando Streets, citing NOISE, AND
PLACE FOR ALCOHOLICS AND DRUG ADDICTS
TO CONGREGATE.
(f) To public Works Department for reply,
PW
request from Clark Graves to WAIVE
(74)
THE FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION
FEES FOR USE PERMIT NO. 1771
(UN:IVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB) required
by Municipal Code in Chapter 15.38.
S. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City
Clerk for inclusion in the records:
(a) Copy of letter from Newton Margulies
to Dover Shores Community
Association, citing numerous problems
with young people who congregate in
•
GALAXY DRIVE PARR.
6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and
(36)
confirmation of the City Clerk's referral
to the claims adjuster:
(a) Alex Dixon alleging personal injuries
Dixon
as a result of fall from his bicycle
when he hit a pile of dirt on Pacific
Coast Highway east of Balboa
Boulevard on March 27, 1990.
(b) Fritz Duda Company seeking indemnity
Fritz Duda
from claim filed by Barbara Cosanella
Co.
as a result of trip and fall on
sidewalk at Via Lido and Via Oporto
on February 29, 1988.
(c) Edward Ethington alleging personal
Ethington
injuries as a result of traffic
accident at Pacific Coast Highway and
Jamboree Road on May 17, 1990.
(d) David and Beth Gatlin alleging large
Gatlin
•
palm tree leaf fell onto their car at
611 1/2 Marguerite Avenue on August
26, 1990, causing damage to front and
roof of vehicle.
Volume 44 - Page 347
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OUNCIL MEMBERS
n�
\�11� �G� October 8, 1990
•
:7
7
S.
•
MINUTES
(e) Lido Doors, Inc., alleging City truck
backed into his vehicle while stopped
at Signal Road north of Cliff Drive
on August 1, 1990.
(f) Joe Maestas alleging personal
injuries as a result of falling
through water meter cover at rear of
419 E. Balboa on June 17, 1990.
(g) William Rivers seeking indemnity from
claim filed by Edward Ethington
regarding accident at Pacific Coast
Highway and Jamboree Road on May 17,
1990.
(h) -Karin St. Dennis seeking
reimbursement for garbage can taken
by City Refuse Department from 633
Vista Bonita on September 20, 1990.
(i) Tony Saldivar alleging his fishing
pole, etc., was accidentally ripped
from the water by moving Life Guard
Boat at Newport Pier on July 29,
1990.
(j) Southern California Edison Company
alleging property damage to pull box
lid by subcontractor Colich and Sons,
while digging to install sewer line
at Main Street, south of Balboa
Boulevard on March 19, 1990.
Doors,
tas
Dennis
SUMMONS AND CONPLAINTS - For denial and 1(36)
confirmation of the City Clerk's referral
to the claims adjuster:
(a) Douglas L. Applegate regarding Breach
of Contract against Defendant in
connection with the Bryant lawsuit,
Orange County Superior Court Case No.
634252.
REQUEST TO APPROVE /FILL PERSONNEL
VACANCIES: (Report from the City Manager)
(a) One Maintenance Worker II, General
Services Department.
(b) One Custody Officer, Police
Department.
(c) One Police Sergeant, Police
Department.
Volume 44 - Page 348
ivar
legate
(66)
ROLL
•
:7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ICIL MEMBERS
October 8, 1990
9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS -
For Council information and approval:
MINUTES
(a) Report from ARTS COMMISSION JArts Cmsn
requesting approval for placement of (24)
temporary art pieces of Artist,
Robert Millar in conjunction with
Newport Harbor Art Museum Exhibition.
For Council information and filing:
(b) Report to the City Manager regarding Planning
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING (68)
COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1990.
30. PUBLIC BEARING SCHEDULING - (Tuesday)
November 13, 1990:
(a) Refer to F -1(b & c)
11. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 129 -2616 BY Harbor
BILL MESSINGER - Uphold staff's Permit
recommendation to approve application of Apli#
Bill Messinger, subject to conditions of 129 -2616
approval in the staff report, to repair a (51)
residential bulkhead bayward of 2626
Bayshores, Drive. (Report from Marine
Department)
12. PHASE II .& III, OCEAN FRONT SIDEWALK REPAIR Phase II/
(CONTRACT NO. 2792) - Accept the work; and III Ocean
authorize: the City Clerk to file allotice Frnt Sdwlk
of Completion and release the bonds 35 days Rpr
after the Notice of Completion has been C -2792
recorded in accordance with applicable (38)
portions of the Civil Code. (Report from
Public Works Department)
13. NEWPORT PIER AND BALBOA PIER REPAIR /NEWPORT Npt Pier/
PIER BENCH AND HANDRAIL REPLACEMENT Balboa
(CONTRACT' NO. 2805) - Uphold staff's Pier Rpr
recommendation to postpone the bid C -2805
advertisement until May of 1991. (Report (38)
from Public Works Department)
14. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval:
BA -009, $11,311.50 - Increase in Budget
Appropriations and Revenue Estimates to
appropriate funds received from.Friends of
the Newport Beach Public Library to support
Adult and Children's Services in the 1990-
91 fiscal year; Library Fund.
Volume 44 - Page 349
(25)
COUNCIL MEI
\2�� \F
•
•
Motion
All Ayes
Motion
All Ayes
•
x
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
x
MINUTES
October 8, 1990:
BA -010, $85,000 - Decrease in
Unappropriated Surplus and Increase in
Budget Appropriations for redistribution of
funds for the McFadden Square Street
Improvement and Assessment District No. 59,
inadverta.ntly omitted from Year End Carry-
overs; General Fund. (Memorandum from PW
Public Works Director dated September 18, (74)
1990)
O. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
None.
I. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
None.
J. CURRENT BUSINESS:
1. Report from Traffic Affairs Committee (Park
concerning PARKING AROUND PERIMETER OF "M" (85)
STREET PARK.
Letter from Dayna Pettit, Balboa Peninsula
Point Association, dated September 20,
1990, in support of red - curbing around "M"
Street Park.
Douglas Boyd, President, Balboa Peninsula
Point Association, addressed the Council in
support of their request, stating the red
curbing is needed as a safety measure due
to the increase of small children in the
area.
Motion was made to approve request of
residents around the "M" Street Park to
prohibit parking around perimeter of park.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS /CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VACANCY:
Motion was made to accept with regret,
resignation of John Anderson from the
subject citizens advisory committee, and
confirm (District 6) Mayor Pro Tem
Sansone's appointment of Deborah Lee Lucas,
replacing John Anderson, for term ending
December 31, 1990.
Volume 44 - Page 350
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES
1
G
� � 9V
ROLL CALL�� Grip October 8, 1990 INDi
3. BICYCLE TRAILS /CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE BT /CAC
VACANCIES:
Memorandum from Public Works Department. PW
•
(2'4)
It was recommended that the Council accept
with regret, the resignations of Tom
Newman, David Buchanan, Wayne Helmer, and
Peggy Smith, and confirm appointments for
the following:
(District 2) Mayor Plummer's
appointment of
replacing Tom Newman.
(District 3) Council Member Hart's
appointment of
replacing David Buchanan.
(District 6) Mayor Pro Tem Sansone's
appointment of
replacing Wayne Helmer.
(District 7) council Member Cox's
appointment of
replacing Peggy Smith.
Council Member Turner noted that in recent
months the meetings of the Bicycle Trails
• Committee have been poorly attended, and
suggested it might be well to consider
reducing the membership from 14 to 7.
Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made
All Ayes to defer action on the above appointments
at this Mime, and to direct the Bicycle
Trails Committee to report back on
November 13, their recommendation regarding
membership.
Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting was posted on
October 4, 1990 at 8:30 a.m., on the City
Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the
City of Newport Beach Administration
Building.
Mayor
• ATTEST:
j
City Clerk
®`6
Volume 44 - Page 351 ~
u