Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1997 - Regular Meeting® CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting October 27, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor Pro Tem Edwards. Invocation by Mayor Debay. Recognition of Senator Johnson, Assemblywoman Brewer and Supervisor Wilson for their- efforts in obtaining funding for dredging the Upper Newport Bay. ® Presentation of $121,225 Clean Air Rebate by Edison. Recognition of Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC). Presentation of proclamation to the Chamber of Commerce for the'Taste of Newport." Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards to waive reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 22, 1997, approve as written and order filed; and waive reading of the ordinances and resolutions under consideration and direct the City Clerk to read by titles only. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON - DISCUSSION ITEM): • Mayor Pro Tem Edwards requested oral updates on the lighting at Fletcher Jones, signage at the Eastbluff Tennis Club, and the Newport Aquatic Center hours of operation. • Council Member Hedges requested that an item be agendized for November 24, 1997 to discuss to what extent the Council should be involved in ® decisions such as the placement of the berm at the beach. Volume 51 - Page 453 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 Council Member Glover thanked the Public Works on the Santiago traffic problems. work Council Member Glover requested that staff bring back a list of the all of the items brought up under this section of the agenda over the past two years that have never been addressed and why they have never been addressed. Council Member Glover requested that an item be placed on the agenda for either the next meeting or the last meeting in November concerning annexation. She addressed issues related to Bay Knolls, Banning and Santa Ana Heights and said she thinks the Council needs to talk about priorities and implications of all of these items, as well as identify how many units are in these areas and monetary obligations. • Council Member Noyes requested that the Council discuss at the next meeting the possibility of holding a joint meeting with all of the citizen commissions and committees, possibly on December 15, 1997. • Council Member Noyes requested that the concept of providing a community newsletter be brought back to Council for reconsideration, including costs for providing such newsletter on a quarterly and/or monthly basis. • Mayor Debay announced that a meeting was held at one of the neighbors adjacent to Fletcher Jones and the consultants have promised to come back with recommendations regarding the lighting within two weeks. • Mayor Debay announced that the Laguna Plein -Air Painters will be painting in the Back Bay on Tuesday, October 28, 1997. They have offered to make their paintings available with 15% of the proceeds to be given to the City to support the dredging project. • Mayor Debay announced that the Groundwater Dedication was held on October 4, 1997 and recognized staff and Don Webb for their work on this event. • Council Member Hedges noted that there is a gap in the procedures for bringing items back to Council (i.e., the newsletter) and asked that this policy be addressed and some type of mechanism provided in order to bring items up again. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION 1. Removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Hedges. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 2. CORONA DEL MAR PLAZA (2400 EAST COAST HIGHWAY, LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF EAST COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN AVOCADO AVENUE AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD), Volume 51 - Page 454 ITIJ D►, Site Plan Review 741 CdM Plaza GPA 95 -2(c) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 ® SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 74. Approve a Site Plan Review Agreement INDEX (45) guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required with Site Plan Review No. 74; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. 3. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF 24 -INCH WATER 24 -inch water TRANSMISSION MAIN REPLACEMENT IN WEST COAST HIGHWAY main/W Coast AT NEWPORT BOULEVARD (C- 3150). Accept the work and authorize Hwy the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; authorize the City Clerk to C -3150 release the Payment Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been (38) recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Performance Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code. 4. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD MacArthur Blvd WIDENING - SEGMENT 1 (C- 2825). Accept the work; authorize the City Widening Seg 1 Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; authorize the City Clerk to release the C -2825 bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in (38) accordance with applicable sections of the Civil Code; and assess liquidated damages in the amount of $25,000. 5. CITYWIDE ADA CURB ACCESS RAMPS AND BUS IMPROVEMENTS BA -020 (C -3129) AND BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -020) TO TRANSFER Citywide ADA $42,670 FROM OTHER CAPITAL PROJECT SURPLUS TO THE Curb/Bus Impr COUNCIL CHAMBER ADA PROJECT. Accept the work; authorize the C -3129 City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and to release the bonds 35 days (38140) after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and authorize a budget amendment to: a) increase revenue to the SB 821 fund in the amount of $17,072 and appropriate the same amount in Account No. 7283005100349; and b) transfer $25,598 from Account No. 7161- C5100349 to new Account No. 7161 - 05100416, Council Chambers ADA Project. 6. MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WIDENING - SEGMENT 2, BIG MacArthur Blvd CANYON COUNTRY CLUB SLOPE AND STORM DRAINAGE Widening Seg 2 CONSTRUCTION (C- 2825). Removed from consideration by City Manager C -2825 Murphy. (38) MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 7. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 23, 1997. Planning (68) 8. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -018) IN THE AMOUNT OF BA -018 $3,825 RECEIVED AS A GRANT FROM[ CALIFORNIA STATE Salaries LIBRARY - FAMILIES FOR LITERACY PCA 91938 TO PART -TBVIE (40) SALARIES. ® 9. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -019) TO APPROPRIATE $1,000 DONATION FROM THE ROTARY CLUB TO SUPPLEMENT BA -019 Special Events THE HALLOWEEN CELEBRATION SPECIAL EVENT. (40) Volume 51 - Page 455 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 10. APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF AN ADDITIONAL SEDAN IN THE FY 1997 -98 BUDGET AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA- 021) IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,000 TO FUND, THE PURCHASE. 11. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -022) TO APPROPRIATE $100,000 TO BE PAID BY PACIFIC BAY HOMES PARTIALLY SATISFYING THEIR OBLIGATION TO PAY PARK -IN-LIEU FEES WITH THE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR THE CASTAWAYS PROJECT ($50,000) AND FOR PARK PROJECT PLANNING ($50,000). 12. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -023) IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,420.05 FOR SALARY OVERTIME AND RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT FOR A SPECIAL EVENT, THE 2ND ANNUAL 'TASTE OF, BALBOW ON NOVEMBER 2, 1997 SPONSORED BY THE BALBOA PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE FOUNDATION. 13. Removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Glover. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM EDWARDS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS REMOVED Q & 13 - Item 6 removed from consideration). Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 97 -_ AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 12.56 OF THE NBMC PERTAINING TO BICYCLE LICENSING (RETAINS THE CURRENT MANDATORY BICYCLE LICENSING PROVISIONS FOR RESIDENTS, ELIMINATES THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING DEALER BICYCLE SALES REPORTS; AND ABOLISHES PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING IMPOUNDMENT OF UNLICENSED BICYCLES). Motion by Council Member Hedees to continue this item to November 24, 1997. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. 13. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -3 - REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, LAND USE PLAN FOR- A) 3300 -3336 VIA LIDO; B) OFFICE SITE "B "/KOLL CENTER NEWPORT; C) NEWPORT VILI.AGE/NEWPORT CENTER; D) FOUR SEASONS HOTEL/NEWPORT CENTER; E) THE PACIFIC CLUB/KOLL CENTER NEWPORT; AND F) NEWPORT DUNES. City Manager Murphy reported that this item is a request to initiate amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan related to several different items as listed on the agenda. The Planning Commission took action to initiate these amendments and it is now before Council for approval of that action. If the Council affirmatively acts on the item staff will then be directed to proceed with preparation of the environmental documents and Volume 51 - Page 456 INDEX BA -021 GS/Vehicles (40/44) BA -022 PW/Parks (40/74) BA -023 Special Events (40/44) Bicycle Licensing (70) GPA 97 -3 Newport Ctrl Koll/Newport Dune/Newport Village (45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX ® set the individual items for future public hearings before the Commission provided the applicant for each case proceeds forward. Council Member Glover stated that she will not be supporting the proposed amendments for Newport Village/Newport Center. She explained that the Irvine Company has submitted a request to amend the Land Use Element of the General plan to re- designate the site at the southeast corner of San Miguel Road and Avocado (north of the Central Library) from "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" to "Multi- Family Residential," and establish a development allocation of 310 dwelling units. This request is made to establish a site appropriate for the construction of an affordable senior housing project which would satisfy the affordable housing requirements of The Irvine Company (CIOSA obligation) and the Ford Motor Land Development Company. She asked how The Irvine Company can determine how the City will use funds from the Ford Motor Land Development Company. City Manager Murphy explained that the affordable money from the Ford Motor Land project was available and proposals were taken from interested parties. The City Council committee made a recommendation to Council and the proposal submitted by The Irvine Company utilizing the Ford Motor Land funds was selected. More recently the City Council selected this site as a site for affordable housing projects. This action would undertake the General Plan amendment process to facilitate that to occur. City Attorney Burnham stated that the Council action to accept the Ford Land money was not tied to the use of that money for any specific affordable housing project. Based on that, the Council may want to modify the proposed amendment so that the initiation is for a 310 dwelling unit senior affordable project, to satisfy the affordable housing obligation of The Irvine Company and delete reference to the Ford Motor Land Company. City Attorney Burnham clarified that "and, the Ford Motor Land Development Company" would be deleted from the final sentence of the descriptive statement regarding this proposal. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the proposed change would be consistent with a letter received from The Irvine Company on this subject. Council Member Glover stated that she feels this is premature and the appropriate time to change the zoning is when the City Council committee reports back to Council on whether an agreement has been reached. Motion by Council Member Glover to sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate the amendments for: A) 3300 -3336 Via Lido; B) Office Site 'B " /Koll Center Newport; D) Four Seasons Hotel/Newport Center; E) The Pacific Club/Koll Center Newport; and F) Newport Dunes; and direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental ® documents and set the matters for public hearing before the Planning Commission. Volume 51 - Page 457 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 1101- ' ® James Warren, 1201 Surfline Way, Corona del Mar, reported that on Noes: September 22, 1997, he spoke against the proposal for the development of Absent: the senior citizen and low income housing development adjacent to Abstain: MacArthur Boulevard. He noted that he had asked to be kept informed of any further development that would be contrary to the general master plan that calls for this to be an open space area. He spoke in opposition to this project since it is not in the best interest of Corona del Mar to eliminate this last area of open space. He said when meeting with City Manager Murphy they were informed of five open space areas with four being acceptable. He said that in the spirit of the law the developer is to provide low income housing for the right to build new housing. He suggested that the low income housing be placed on the same land parcel as the expensive housing on Ford Road next to the new construction. A second alternative would be on the vacant land adjacent to the Newport Beach Country Club fronted by Pacific Coast Highway. A third site would be at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway on both upper and lower parcels of land. The fourth area would be an San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, the Big Canyon corner. The fifth area would be on the two parcels of land just off Bonita Canyon Road with one parcel to be open space for parks, ball fields, etc. and the other for apartments. This housing could be placed among the apartments. In all of these alternative sites no views would be blocked and the residents of the neighborhoods would be able to save their views and property values. He asked that the Council vote against this zone change ® and asked that a moratorium be put against this project for one year. Assistant City Manager Wood explained that the action tonight does not actually change the zoning or the general plan designation, but is merely direction to the applicant, staff and the Planning; Commission to go through the analysis of the application and do the environmental studies required and then hold public hearings on the merits of the application after the analysis is done. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to sustain the action of the Planning Commission to initiate the amendments for: Cl Newport Village/Newport Center; and direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documents and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: Glover Absent: None Abstain: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ® Evelyn Hart, 49 Balboa Coves, speaking on behalf of the Newport Beach Residents Task Force, stated that she represents approximately 40 Volume 51 - Page 458 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX ® representatives from various community associations throughout Newport Beach that met last Wednesday to discuss city -wide issues that affect residents. She said they support the resolution proposed for the annexation of Bonita Canyon. She read their groups defining principles: 1) Newport Beach is a high quality of life residential and environmentally sound beach city with a balanced business community; 2) topography and environmental amenities including views give Newport Beach its prized character while at the same time limiting its ability to provide unlimited facilities, such as roads and high rise/high density buildings to accommodate unreasonable growth; 3) Newport Beach has developed into a multi - village style city in which each neighborhood has developed its own long -term commitment to certain quality of life standards and goals. The unique character of these villages needs to be maintained. The character of the city should not be changed by a high growth business and development program or extensive territorial/population growth; and 4) residents need to have a voice in City matters that affect their quality of life and property values. Their mission statement is: 1) to support citywide programs which will maintain the unique character of Newport Beach i.e. high quality of life, Bay, Harbor and Beaches and supporting small businesses; 2) to develop city -wide programs to improve the quality of life of City residents and to provide a united voice to advocate these programs to relevant outside organizations; 3) to promote cooperation among Homeowners Association groups so that all may benefit from the others experiences; 4) to keep member associations informed of happenings that may impact their individual area; and 5) to provide a non- political forum for the residents of Newport Beach. She said they do not anticipate city involvement anywhere near the Economic Development Committee /Chamber of Commerce involvement, however they will be asking for some support from staff, such as meeting places. She said they will bring this back at the next Council meeting and request that the Newport Beach Residents Task Force be put on the agenda to be an official City committee. Steve Stafford, 3250 Broad Street, reported that he has been dealing with the Comcast problem for 3 -1/2 years and City staff has taken the "no comment" attitude towards the situation. He said staff doesn't know how to solve the problem or want to solve the problem. He stated that the contract was signed in 1986, the number of channels was to have been doubled by January 24, 1997 and Comcast just started the upgrade. He submitted a petition with approximately 500 signatures on it that indicates that they don't want Comcast. He said the City has lost $300,000 in franchise fees that can't be collected and the Public Works Department has lost about $200,000 in permits that aren't being pulled. Walt Naidus, 705 -1/2 Narcissuss, Corona del Mar, said that the subject of his remarks concern his periodic rate increases and the poor service provided by Comcast. He said he filed complaints with the City on June 14, 1996 and on January 30, 1997 in accordance with the FCC regulations. The City is supposed to forward them to the FCC within the 90 day period and then the FCC has 90 days to render a decision. Due to the lack of response from the ® City he said he sought the assistance of Congressman Cox's office and to date his office has not found any record that his FCC complaints were ever received, however the time limits have expired. He said he still has not Volume 51 - Page 459 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 received any correction in his poor signal or inflated billing. He referred to sections of the agreement and noted that the City and Comcast are in violation of the agreement. He asked what became of his complaints and also requested that the City Council review the last three rate increases from Comcast. He said the average bill has increased by $10 per subscriber and the quality of service has continued to decline. He said the City Council should request that Comcast rebate $10 per subscriber and clear up the picture. 14. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, A PRE -ZONE AMENDMENT, A PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE 130NITA CANYON AREA (FORMERLY BONITA VILLAGE) TO ESTABLISH PRE - ANNEXATION ENTITLEMENTS IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED DETACHMENT OF THIS AREA FROM THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Volume 51 - Page 460 110 0 Zoning /Annexation/ Bonita Canyon Ord 97 -34 Ord 97 -35 PCA 865 GPA 97 -2 (21/94/45) (Comments made by Superintendent Mac Bernd were made at the beginning of the meeting to accommodate the Newport -Mesa School District study session meeting being held at the same time). ® Superintendent Mac Bernd, Newport -Mesa Unified School District ( NMUSD), reported that the school district governing board members are all unanimously in favor of the annexation and feel strongly that it will be a great benefit to the school district. He stated that tonight the board will be discussing various different housing scenarios. They now have twelve credible alternatives for housing students in the zone. He noted that he has always been interested in the annexation because he felt it could be a great benefit to the Corona del Mar zone in terms of what it could do for the school buildings and facilities in that zone. He said he also felt that the increased enrollment would have a great financial benefit to the school district as well. He explained that since the item came back to the table in July they have been working on it in earnest in cooperation with the City of Newport Beach, the City of Irvine, and the Irvine Unified School District (IUSD). He reported that he attended a meeting last week of the County Reorganization Committee at which time the president of the governing board of the IUSD reported that they are strongly in favor of this territorial annexation. He said they have looked at various enrollment scenarios which involve very optimistic or high projections, medium case projections, and also low projections and feel the district can house the students given the mitigation money that they will be getting from this annexation. Also included in the proposal is a school site in the geographic area known as the "banana." There is the possibility of having a school site there and if it is not needed it will provide extremely valuable improved park land that will be a great benefit to the children of the city. He reviewed a resolution passed by the Anderson ® School PTA. The first issue that surfaced was that the community wanted Anderson School to remain as it is and not to have enrollment from outside the neighborhood and the NMUSD made the commitment that that would Volume 51 - Page 460 110 0 Zoning /Annexation/ Bonita Canyon Ord 97 -34 Ord 97 -35 PCA 865 GPA 97 -2 (21/94/45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 1PIDEX ® not happen as a result of this annexation. The PTA also supported a reduction in housing density for the planning areas involved. The reduction was affected and in fact the density has been dramatically reduced with the provision of park land. The group also supported the allocation and development by The Irvine Company of additional open space within the planning area beyond the minimum required by law. He said the addition of the improved park land in the "banana" is a spectacular addition and certainly meets the requests put forth by the Anderson School PTA. The PTA supports further study and evaluation of other possible uses of the "banana" taking into consideration speed and other traffic conditions on Bonita Canyon Road and Old Ford Road. He said that discussions with the City have begun to address traffic issues. The PTA supports continued demographic studies and long range planning for future housing of all students in the Corona del Mar zone. Mr. Bernd reported that their twelve housing scenarios go out to the year 2003. The scenarios are very credible and will fit within the additional mitigation money that has been negotiated for this project. He asked the Council to carefully consider this issue. Mayor Debay reported that the Planning Commission held a hearing on the planning and zoning issues and noted that there; have been 91 annexations over the years in the City. She said the City started with boundaries that encompassed the peninsula, Lido Island, and West Newport only. In 1917 the City added to its corporate boundaries Balboa Island, Newport Heights ® and Corona del Mar. Throughout the 40's the City regularly annexed areas including Harbor Island, Shorecliff, and Balboa Coves. In the 1960's most of the annexation occurred, with the City annexing 32 properties which included Irvine Terrace, Cliffhaven, Linda Isle, Cameo Highlands and Harbor View. In the 1960's the City extended the Harbor View annexation to Harbor View Hills and other areas in Corona del Mar. In the 1970's the City sought continued expansion with the Harbor View Hills area, as well as Harbor Ridge and Cameo Highland. The last few annexations happened in the 1980's. City Manager Murphy explained that the City of Irvine initiated changes to their planning areas 26B and C, areas which are further to the south and south of the corridor. When that matter was reviewed by the City Council in April and June the City Council expressed a willingness to be open to those areas becoming part of Newport Beach's sphere, however the Council also wanted to consider 26A (Bonita Canyon). The Council asked that staff meet with the City of Irvine to determine their interest in that proposal. In discussing the matter with Irvine's City Manager, Paul Brady, staff was advised that it was Irvine's policy that City and School District boundaries be co- terminus. Mr. Brady contacted the school district in Irvine and learned that they were not interested in pursuing this matter because they felt that fiscally it would not be in their best interest to give this area up. After the second direction from the City Council to explore this further, there was a meeting held in April between the two city managers and the two school superintendents and at that time there was a formal answer from the IUSD ® that they were not interested in proceeding and as a consequence the City of Irvine indicated their unwillingness to look at Planning Area 26A. The City Council understood that and indicated again in June they could not support Volume 51 - Page 461 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 26B & C unless consideration was given to 26A. That position was conveyed to the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) on July 2, 1997 when they considered the change in 26B and C. Despite the City's concerns related to the lack of consideration of 26A as well, LAFCO approved the change in the sphere and City boundaries related to Areas 26B and C. LAFCO also on July 2, 1997 indicated a willingness to review the issues related to 26A and offered to offer their office and agency as a means of facilitating further discussion on those issues. As a result of that, meetings took place later in July wherein elected officials from all four agencies participated. At that time there had been a change in leadership in the IUSD and they changed their position and at that time supported the change in the boundaries. The landowner, The Irvine Company, indicated upon the Council's initial review and interest, that they would be willing to participate in the process, but expressed that they had a timetable in terms of the development of the property and .expressed concern that any change would harm that development timetable. Following the City Council's initiation of a General Plan amendment earlier this year, there has been a lot of press coverage on this issue. The neighbors in the Harbor View area, in particular in the Anderson School area, became very concerned about the possible impacts on the school. Subsequent to that meetings were held on October 6, 9, 15, and 20 with large and small groups in the neighborhood to discuss their concerns and look at possible solutions to those concerns. Volume 51 - Page 462 Planning Director Temple reported that at the Planning Commission ® meeting held on Thursday, October 23, 1997, a public hearing was conducted on the planning applications related to the pre- annexation zoning of the Bonita Canyon area. They voted by a vote of 6 ayes with one absent to recommend the actions to the City Council. In taking the action the Planning Commission made three adjustments to the proposed land use documents. This development has been approved by the City of Irvine and will occur with or without annexation and is in fact under construction. Tonight the City Council is considering what the land use entitlement should be if the area is incorporated into the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan and zoning provisions under consideration will entitle the property for the purposes of pre - annexation. Four sub -areas will be allocated a total of 1,521 residential dwelling units. She said a commercial area of 55,000 square feet has been allocated and there are 18.3 acres of public/semi- public use where the Mormon church is being constructed. When compared to the entitlement granted by the City of Irvine the primary difference is the residential density of that City's General Plan and underlying zoning district which currently allows up to 2,095 units in Planning Area 26A. In making its recommendation the Planning Commission made three changes to the Land Use documents, two of which were basically clarifying language. There was one relatively significant change which affected residential areas 2, 3 and 4, which are the areas of residential except for the apartment site where the height limit was lowered from 50 feet to 40 feet. The Development Agreement is the document which sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the parties should annexation move forward and it contains several key ® features. Specifically the agreement commits the owner to additional development reductions and open space areas including the area between Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road, which has been referred to as the Volume 51 - Page 462 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX is"banana" parcel. The residential has been eliminated from that area and the freeway reservation site has had its additional entitlement removed. These changes will further reduce the residential entitlement by 131 units to a total of 1,390 units. The total acreage for parks and open space will be increased to approximately 35 acres or a ratio of 12.5 acres per 1000 residents. This is compared to Newport Beach's park dedication which is 5 acres per 1000 residents. She said the two most important items considered by the Planning Commission relates to the projects traffic studies and the environmental review process. The City of Irvine prepared two traffic studies for the Bonita Canyon development, one as :part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the zone change for the area and a subsequent report prepared at the time of approval of the Tentative Tract Map. As a result of those analyses the plan includes a circulation system improvement plan that includes the widening of Bonita Canyon Road, Bison Road and MacArthur Boulevard and identifies an intersection improvement at MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue. Those traffic studies concluded that with these improvements the project will result in a satisfactory circulation level of service. These traffic studies are similar to the type of traffic analysis which would have been conducted under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The proposed annexation and development agreement recognizes the consistency and contains provisions to ensure that the improvements are constructed in conjunction with the development. In addition to the traffic studies conducted by the City of Irvine, the updated Newport Beach traffic analysis model predicts that the ICU's at potentially ® impacted intersections of MacArthur and Bison, and MacArthur and Bonita Canyon, with the completion of the Bonita Canyon project, will function at level of service C with ICU's of .73 and .79 respectively. If a new traffic study would have been prepared for the project no improvements would have been required at those intersections. As part of the Environmental Review process of the original zone change, the City and The Irvine Company have agreed that they will make a financial contribution to the City of Newport Beach to help fund improvements to mitigate long range traffic impacts at Jamboree Road and Bison and Jamboree Road and Ford. The City has received and used these funds to implement an improvement at Jamboree Road and Bison and the Public Works Department has indicated that they will have sufficient funds to make further improvements at Jamboree and Ford Road if the City wishes to proceed with that area. It is important to note that the long range traffic analysis in the EIR shows all intersections in the area operating at level of service D or better in the City of Newport Beach, including the annexation area. This meets the General Plan goal for circulation system level of service. The only intersection that was predicted above .9 in the long term was at University and Ridgeline Drive in the City of Irvine. In terms of the environmental review the City reviewed the documents prepared by the City of Irvine and determined that with minor technical corrections to information related to public services and schools, the existing document would be adequate to serve the City's decision on pre - annexation zoning. This was based upon the fact that an EIR is an assessment of physical changes to the environment and its purpose is not to assess economic or social changes unless those changes would then result in ® a significant degradation of the physical environment. The project is entitled in the City of Irvine and is currently under construction. While some Volume 51 - Page 463 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX changes to the overall density would result from the approval of the General Plan, zoning and development agreement, the overall effect is a reduction in the impacts identified in the EIR. Staff has prepared an addendum with updated information related to public services and the schools and it does not identify any significant environmental impacts. The Planning Department prepared a supplemental report which provides additional information on population projections and park dedication requirements for all of Planning Area 26 and also discusses any further traffic signals on MacArthur Boulevard. Volume 51 - Page 464 City Attorney Burnham explained that development agreements are authorized by State law and the City's municipal code. Their primary purpose is to give a property owner a vested right to proceed with development typically in exchange for open space or circulation system improvements. A right to develop is vested when it can't be changed by the public agencies that have jurisdiction over the land. He said the Bonita Canyon project is unusual because the company already has a vested right to develop the property and the development agreement doesn't really give them more than they already have. The Bonita Canyon development agreement contains fairly standard provisions regarding vested rights to develop. A proposed modification to the agreement would make it clear that The Irvine Company is required to satisfy all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Changes have also been drafted to Section 3.5 which makes it clear that the project complies with the TPO, that the City is not ® waiving the TPO, and also clarifies the requirement for a traffic study if there is any change in the type or intensity of development proposed by The Irvine Company. A development agreement is also the vehicle pursuant to which the City would acquire the "banana" and the freeway reservation for open space purposes (Sections 5.1 and 5.4). Language has also been added which makes it very clear that the assessments that will be levied to acquire those properties will be limited to Planning Area 26 and no other property in the City. The agreement gives The Irvine Company the right to terminate the agreement if it determines the project is economically unfeasible, however if they do that it will give the City the opportunity to revisit the development entitlement on the property. In the event of termination, The Irvine Company is responsible for complying with mitigation of impacts that have resulted from the development that has occurred so far on a fair share basis. In recent correspondence to the Council two legal issues were raised. One issue pertains to affordable housing and the other to the environmental process. The Irvine Company has already complied with the City of Irvine's affordable housing requirements for this particular project. The development agreement contains language that the affordable housing requirements imposed by the City of Irvine are similar to those that would be imposed by the City of Newport Beach. The housing element does not deal with this specific situation where property is detached form one city and attached to another, however staff believes there is no violation of the housing element. Also, there has been some reference to state law that describes the transfer of regional housing needs assessment between cities and that is not being ® done in this case. The same group that has raised these issues has also claimed the City should acquire lead agency status. Staff has looked at state law and doesn't believe the City has the ability to do that. Volume 51 - Page 464 r, City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 Council Member Glover clarified that this proposal includes 290 single family units and 1100 apartments, and questioned whether there is any flexibility to change those numbers once the development agreement has been approved. Mr. Burnham responded that the City does not have that flexibility without amending the development agreement and the PC text. In response to Council Member Glover's question, Ms. Temple explained that the way the City structures its General Plan and zoning documents it essentially establishes densities or maximum members of units. Should the developer elect at a later point in time to either build condominiums or even single family within the multi - family area where the apartments are currently identified, that would be allowed by the City's planning documents. With the development agreement, the City couldn't necessarily force them to change the usage. Mr. Burnham clarified that the developer can always build fewer units with the development agreement but can't build more units. City Manager Murphy showed a side by side comparison of the property if developed within Irvine or within Newport Beach. If developed in Irvine there would be 12.2 acres of active parks, which includes two planned public ® parks of 7.4 and 4.8 acres. It also includes 81 additional acres of passive open space. If in Newport it would include up to 35 acres of active parks or an equivalent of 12.5 acres per 1000 residents. In Newport Beach today the current standard is 5 acres per 1000 residents. It also includes 21.4 acres of active parks which are funded from a community facilities district including a 14 acre active improved park in the "banana" and a 7.4 acre active improved park on the north end of the site near Bison. In addition, there are 13.4 acres of parkland available for park development which is the 7.5 acres along MacArthur at Ford, 4.8 acres at Bonita Canyon, and 1.1 acres along Ford Road. Regarding density, Mr. Murphy pointed out that if the property were developed in Irvine the total number of units could be as high as 2,095, which includes 190 acres of new residential development. If it is in Newport Beach it would include a total of 1390 units and 161 acres of new residential development. As far as traffic circulation, he stated that it is evident that if there are fewer units there will be fewer trips. If the project is in Irvine there are 18% more homes, more projected trips generated, and if there is an IUSD school in the "banana" area, it would bring trips and students from outside the Bonita area. If it is in Newport Beach there are obviously reduced trips to the fewer residential units and a redistribution of NMUSD students within the entire Corona del Mar zone. ® In terms of schools, if the project is in Irvine the IUSD plans to build a K -8 school to serve the project to be financed through the Mello-Roos district Volume 51 - Page 465 L City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX funds. If the school is not built in that "banana" area the landowner has approval to build up to 225 homes. In addition there is the possibility of inter district school transfers from NMUSD to IUSD because of the proximity to schools and it would be possible under state law for some of that to take place, which would reduce NMUSD revenues. If it is in Newport Beach, The Irvine Company has agreed to reserve a future school site within the "banana" and develop it as a 14 acre park initially and a future school site would be Mello -Roos financed. There has been an agreement by the school district that there will be no new students at Anderson and the funds that would be generated would be used to modernize and provide enhancements at other elementary schools and Corona del Mar High School. Under the state ADA standards the NMUSD receives $3600 per student per year and basic costs per student are $2000 per student, which will allow the school district to reallocate $1600 towards program improvements elsewhere in the district. Using an overhead Mr. Murphy explained the fiscal analysis and stated that the revenues are estimated at $1,061,546. In terms of the estimated costs he explained that the costs for police, fire, etc. have been listed, however a key issue is how they are calculated. Based on a model, it has been projected that if the number of residents are added that would come from this project it would require an expenditure of $419,000 for Police and $176,000 for Fire, when in reality it is not the intention of the City to add another police beat or police resources for this direct area nor to add any direct costs or ® additional budgeted resources for fire protection. There will be a cost for these services, however the city is not planning to budget additional resources and they would be coming from existing resources. He noted that the costs shown are a true fully - loaded cost. However, as far as park maintenance he noted that there will be true added costs in the budget. The same would be true for the library. The bottom line is that staff has projected $1,051,000 in estimated costs and $1,061,000 for revenues, so there is approximately a $10,000 excess in terms of revenues to cost. Mayor Debay opened the public hearing. Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company, commented that The Irvine Company began working with the Harbor View Homes area during the Ford Road realignment process that occurred a number of years ago. They assisted the community leaders in their effort to move the widened road away from the community. It was that realignment at the request of the community that resulted in the area referred to as the "banana." It would not have been their choice to sever that piece of property fi•om the majority of their ownership, but in recognition of a key community issue, they cooperated and worked with them to obtain the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) support on that issue. Since the property has always been in the City of Irvine it was their expectation to process the plan and begin the planning efforts in the City of Irvine. As the opportunity to develop that area became apparent they began the effort to conduct the zoning hearings in the City of ® Irvine. During that process they met on a number of occasions with the communities of Newport Beach to explain the process, to talk about the issues as they were being presented in Irvine, and conducted a number of Volume 51 - Page 466 C City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 meetings always with the clear understanding that the development would occur in Irvine. At the time that the IUSD changed their mind they had to move quickly to try to respond to the request that IUSD was making not only of Newport -Mesa but that they consider the annexation of the schools, but as the land developer that they could respond to them and try to be available to help them address what was the best in the terms of the needs of the students. As a result of some efforts to address good public policy and technical issues, The Irvine Company had to become the applicant for a General Plan amendment and zoning change to entitle property that they had fully expected to proceed with as entitled in the City of Irvine. While there has been some suspicion about their motives and plans, she said they have worked very hard with all of the agencies to respond to the requests made of them and to assist in the process that has occurred. The EIR was conducted in Irvine, which was very comprehensive. It analyzed and looked at the fact that there were conflicting boundaries between the City and the County, the City of Irvine, the school districts. The EIR looked at this and evaluated the numbers of students that would have occurred in the various school districts depending on which scenario was chosen and a very full disclosure document was provided in an effort to make sure all of the information was available to the decision makers - Irvine as the lead agency and Newport Beach as the responsible agency. She said they looked very closely at the two issues that they heard the most about from the community - traffic and schools. With regard to traffic, The Irvine Company did not request a waiver of the TPO and in fact, the analysis was done in the traffic study to analyze the traffic impacts for this project both from the perspective of the City of Irvine, as well as from the perspective of the City of Newport Beach. They complied with the requirements of the TPO, not only with the onsite improvements, but with the fees that were paid for the intersections that were noted as having impacts. Those fees were paid prior to the time any discussion was held about this project being brought to the City of Newport Beach. She emphasized that they agreed to a reduction in the number of units and to the reservation of a school site in the event that it becomes necessary in the future. They agreed to the increase in the active parks in response to community needs. The active parks will not only be made available in terms of the land area, but they have also agreed to provide $2.5 million for the active park improvements in addition to the private park that will be in the gated community and the 7.4 acre park that will improved in the arroyo area. She said they have continued to work with NMUSD to address the school issues raised by the community and in reserving that school site they are also providing funding for the renovation and enhancement of the existing facilities where there is capacity for these students which was the reason why this annexation and detachment was raised to begin with. What the Anderson School :PTA asked them to do was the right thing for the children. She explained that they agree that the schedule on this project has been accelerated, however they would have never advocated this process if they hadn't have been asked to do so by two school districts and two cities. She requested the Council's favorable action, as well as the right to respond to any of the questions that may come up in the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards stated that about a year ago the Ford Motor Land Volume 51 - Page 467 101�1' City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 110111 Company agreed to contribute $25,000 to fund some traffic mitigation measures in the Eastbluff area, and asked if The Irvine Company would be willing to match that amount. Ms. Hoffman said she isn't sure of what the actual cost of the improvements are that are being proposed at that location. She said they would like to participate in that, however she doesn't know if a total match would even be necessary depending on the costs. Council Member Glover reiterated her concerns about the senior housing project proposed to be built above the Central Library, and asked if The Irvine Company would be willing to do an analysis before the November 10th meeting on whether or not they would be interested in dedicating 310 units of the 1100 for senior housing. Ms. Hoffman said she would like to defer comment on that question until the end of the public comment period so that she has time to confer with her associates. George Collins, 712 Bison Avenue, reported that they have a brutal traffic situation in their area and presented Mayor Debay with an 8- minute video tape showing the problem. He reviewed the options available to mitigate the traffic situation in Eastbluff. ® Marc Franklin, 1942 Port Albans Place, spoke in favor of the annexation if looked at as the least of evil choices. He said that it has been agreed that this area will produce 500 K -6 students, which would support a neighborhood school. He voiced concerns about the commercial development since they have been told by The Irvine Company that the site will be difficult to develop. He said he doesn't see where there has been any reduction in the density. He suggested lowering the height on the apartments to below 50 feet and stated that money needs to be contributed to build both park sites as improved parks. He also said that the single foot homes should be less than 40 feet. In response to Council Member O'Neil, Mr. Murphy reported that the commercial site is a very challenging site to build on because of the topography. He said the site is fairly limited, however staff believes it can be built since the visibility of the site is very high. John Heffernan, 1971 Port Laurent, said he has been an opponent primarily because of the difference in school mitigation in Irvine vs. Newport. He asked that the City consider a change to the mitigation and consider the value and importance of schools over passive open space, specifically the freeway reservation piece, etc. He said the money should go to the school district rather than being used for passive open space. Jill Money, 1842 Port Barmouth, President of the Anderson School PTA, ® distributed copies of a resolution adopted by the PTA executive board. She noted that the PTA executive board voted unanimously to support the annexation and said they do not want to risk losing the $5.8 million for the Volume 51 - Page 468 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 ® schools INDEX John Della Grotta, 1939 Port Bishop Place, President of the Newport Beach Little League, pointed out the need for practice fields for the students and spoke in support of the annexation proposal. Desiree Rossi, 2851 Catalpa Street, said she believes the annexation brings wonderful opportunities for the youth, however urged the Council to expeditiously implement all six of the traffic mitigation measures for Eastbluff that have been put forth. Barry Eaton, 727 Bettis Street, member of the Board of Directors for the Eastbluff Homeowners, emphasized that the traffic problem is severe and was created by the City with the alignment of it six lane arterial highway. He said the project was originally approved in Irvine on May 28th and there was a second traffic study. He said there were new significant impacts identified in the second study which were not identified in the original EIR (the two intersections of Jamboree Road and Bison and Jamboree Road and Ford Road). Irvine included the mitigation measures in its conditions of approval of Tract 15317 and asked the City of Newport what they wanted to do about the mitigation measures. Newport Beach wrote them back and indicated that the mitigation measures are needed to abate traffic safety concerns and then went on to say that they need to get $8500 from The Irvine Company to take care of a mitigation at Bison and let Ford go. He said ® that problem is further directly compounded by this annexation by at least 100 -200 high school students that will be attending Corona del Mar. Newport's solution is nothing other than to exempt this project form the TPO. He said the reason the additional mitigation measures are important are because of the CEQA guidelines and stated that there are two circumstances under which the City has to prepare a supplemental report. One is if there are one or more significant effects not discussed in the original EIR and the second is if there are mitigation measures that the project proponent declined to adopt. The guidelines state that no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until a subsequent EIR has been served. He said that his handouts also include a letter asking the Council for a solution to their problem at Bison. He asked the Council to schedule a hearing on their proposed request before the statute of limitations runs out on this project and that the City and The Irvine Company both own up to the responsibilities to fix the intersection of Ford and Jamboree before it becomes a disaster. He said that The Irvine Company should agree to provide funds to the City to fund their proposed solution to the Bison problem. In response to Council Member Thomson, he stated that the association recently voted down a proposal to gate their community. Eric Cahn, 2200 Port Lerwick Place, spoke in favor of the annexation, however noted that the residents are very concerned about the traffic generated by it and future developments. He distributed copies of a letter regarding future traffic generation increases. He said the City has three ® choices: 1) to do no nothing now and let the traffic get out of control; 2) to stop future development that will create more traffic; and 3) to deal with the problem now before it is too late. He asked that the City add some conditions Volume 51 - Page 469 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX ® to the annexation development agreement :requiring more mitigation measures. He said the City can ask The Irvine Company to commit more mitigation improvements even though they aren't required by the TPO. He also voiced concerns with the waiving of the Newport Beach building standards. Gary Crane, 2537 Bamboo Street, reiterated that there is a radical traffic problem on the street and it has become a huge thoroughfare. Kim Powell, 1936 Port Seabourne, presented a petition containing 379 names from Harbor View residents in favor of the annexation. Mike Wade, 901 Chestnut Place, Regional Commissioner of AYSO, explained that there are 1600+ children playing youth soccer. He spoke in favor of the annexation as it will allow the opportunity for youth sports and soccer to continue. Patrick Digiacomo, 1701 Port Sheffield Place, President of Harbor View Community Association Phase I, said he believes the annexation with mitigation is a major victory for the children, the community and the City. The Harbor View Board of Directors, through a formal vote, unanimously approved the annexation of Bonita Canyon to Newport Beach. ® Tim Schoenberg, 1948 Port Albans Place, said he was personally opposed to the annexation at first, however now he is in favor of the annexation because it represents a significant opportunity for everyone to shape the future of Newport Beach. Absent the annexation, he said the community may become victims of whatever Irvine decides to do with this parcel of land. He asked the Council to support the annexation and to also be vigilant in pro - actively managing all aspects of this annexation. Teri Ross, 2722 Vista Del Oro, said she has not heard anyone discuss the impact this annexation will have on the North Bluff Homeowners Association with the possible reopening of the Eastbluff School. She requested that the Council address this issue. Cathy Schroeder, 19 Half Moon Bay Drive, spoke in favor of the annexation and stated that Corona del Mar High School is in needs of funds to make it a better school. Carol Gaetano, 1824 Port Westbourne, spoke in support of the annexation. She said that if it becomes part of Irvine, the City won't have any control over the development. Jean Watt, 4 Harbor Island, representing SPON, noted that the process violates CEQA and the residents right to the proper analysis. She said the project also specifically avoids an analysis under the Newport Beach TPO which can result in a skewed analysis. She said SPON has for 24 years ® sought ways to analyze planning so they wouldn't be surprised and disappointed with the results. The TPO's intent is to insure that planned development will not result in unsatisfactory traffic levels and intersection Volume 51- Page 470 E City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 110 1) capacity that can't be changed later. Recently the City took action to essentially "gut" the TPO, thus allowing a lifting of the lid on General Plan development allowances and traffic. She said they don't think that is a good idea, but at the very least they want the community to analyze, discuss and have a choice in it. In this case the City claims the Bonita Village project isn't subject to the TPO analysis. Using their assumptions of 26,000 average daily trips, if 20% of those trips are changed because residents go to Newport Beach schools, use Newport Beach recreational facilities and programs, and shop Newport, it would result in impacts on the roads that have been mentioned beyond what is prepared in the analysis. She said that if her educated guess is true than the accumulative effect could be even more onerous in that traffic analysis for future projects will be skewed as well including those initiated tonight for Newport Center. Michael Bigi, 2639 Blackthorne, member of the Board of Directors at Eastbluff, thanked Mayor Pro Tern Edwards for meeting with them on a number of occasions to discuss the traffic problem. He said the annexation has become a flash point to further highlight existing problems since they haven't even seen the effect of Ford Loral being; built out yet and already they are experiencing this massive rush of people going to the churches, schools and markets on Eastbluff Drive. Based on the October 27th letter written to the Council they would like the Council to realize there is a problem with existing traffic. He said they want to eliminate any impedance ® from a budgetary point of view, which is why they asked for $100,000 in the letter. He said they would like to give the six point program a chance on a trial basis and proceed with it post haste. Jim Petrilli, 2501 Bamboo Street, requested that the six point proposal that has been requested be addressed on November 10th and that the funds to modify the Jamboree/Bison intersection be approved as well. Phil Glasgow, Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner, said that the parks proposal presents a tremendous opportunity for the City. He said a committee of the commission has been working on an open space plan for the last six months. They conducted a survey and the results indicated that the number one thing the residents wanted was more active fields. John Packer, 1951 Port Weybridge, said he was originally opposed to the annexation, however since the change in plans and the proposed open and park space, he is now in favor of it. He suggested that the proposed park for the arroyo be lighted for adult use. He said he believes Eastbluff will improve as a neighborhood if it gets back its neighborhood school. Cecelia Flanagan, 1833 Port Tiffin Place, said she is concerned about the speed in which this issue is being rushed through. She voiced concern about the height and number of apartment buildings. She said it is important to look at the proposed traffic light as a potential liability. She noted that Patty Temple wrote a seven page letter objecting to the City of Irvine's EIR and ® before annexation is agreed to it would be worthwhile to look at her concerns. She also voiced concerns with the assumptions used in the school issue. Volume 51 - Page 471 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 101 Charles Griffin, 732 Bison, said that if schools are provided it will bring in young people with families. He said that at this time it would be appropriate to remove the utility poles along MacArthur Boulevard and put the utilities underground. Ken Gerdau, 2651 Bamboo, applauded the Harbor View area homeowners for their solidarity. He spoke in support of the annexation, increased parks, etc., however he said that whatever is decided the traffic needs to be controlled and it needs to be made a contingency of the project. Michael O'Neill, 1807 Port Margate Place, echoed concerns about the speed in which the process has progressed and focused on how the speed of annexation affects the content of the annexation and development agreement. He said he doesn't feel like enough latitude has been put into the agreement and urged the Council to get more flexibility in the agreement. Robert Brown, 1942 Port Weybridge, said his main concerns were with the school issues and he still doesn't feel there are enough assurances for the school. He said he would like the Council to wait and look at some of the issues that the school board has. He voiced concerns with the revenue projections and said he feels the project is revenue neutral. He asked if anyone has seen any renderings of the proposed apartments. ® Catherine O'Hara, 1960 Port Albans Place, said she was originally opposed to the annexation because she felt there was something better on the table. She said there was something better and she feels the City got it. She said she feels an adequate analysis has been provided. Greg Dilhon, 7 Bodega Bay, concurred with Ms. O'Hara that the process has been shortened, however it has been very complete. He voiced concerns with the traffic. He said the issue isn't whether this development takes place at all, it is whether it takes place in Irvine or in Newport Beach. George Piggett, 1949 Port Claridge Place, said he thinks the Council should reject the annexation. Based upon the admitted unfeasibility of a commercial site, he feels that financially the project will prove to be a net negative. He said that this is being pushed through so the City has control over the development, however no control is being exercised. David Keligian, 1 Bodega Bay Drive, concurred that the process has been rushed through. He pointed out that the nwnbers and projections are changing daily. Carl Collier, 1912 Port Weybridge, noted that this development of 342 acres is happening and the grading is done already. He spoke in support of the annexation. ® Sandy Collier, 1912 Port Weybridge, said she feels the traffic in the Eastbluff area will get better once the students start going to their own community school. She noted that the open space is desperately needed and Corona del Volume 51 - Page 472 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 1 � ® Mar also needs money so the students get the programs they deserve. Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company, clarified that they agreed to a height limit of 40 feet at the Planning Commission meeting and also agreed to work with the staff to evaluate the building plans which are currently under review at the City of Irvine. She said a number of the homes are only being built at 32 feet. With regard to the apartments, the 40 foot height limit is to be continued in that area as they have requested.. As it goes through the site plan they intend to work with the planning staff to evaluate those and pointed out that there are significant setbacks from the roadways and significant design considerations under way at the present time. There is a seven acre parcel of Caltrans right of way along the frontage on MacArthur that will separate a good part of this project from the street. The topography will also contribute to that because it slopes down and the landscaping will also be designed in such a way as to provide greater compatibility as well. She said that The Irvine Company did the traffic analysis and did exactly what was asked of them by the City of Newport Beach to address the mitigation at the intersections that were noted as impacted. With regard to the question raised by Jean Watt about whether the "banana" would stay in open space in perpetuity, it is clearly their commitment and is noted in the development agreement, that the site is reserved for a school for up to ten years and will be developed as open space in the interim. In the event that a school has to be constructed on the site, they acknowledge that a good ® portion of the site would still remain in ball fields and open space because even the most aggressive design of a school site would only use a small portion of that for classroom buildings with a large part of the remainder being in open space. With regard to the commercial site, The Irvine Company acknowledges publicly that this site is constrained in terms of both topography and Caltrans easements and that is the reason they accepted the 55,000 square foot limitation of the development area. As per Council Member Glover's request about whether The Irvine Company would consider moving the proposed senior housing from the Avocado site to Bonita Canyon, she stated that it would raise a number of issues. It raises the issue of whether it is as appropriate a location for seniors given the Avocado site proximity to transportation, medical services, etc. It raises the question of compatibility and desirability of affordable seniors in a non -age restricted resort type of apartment development. The site may also not meet the qualifications for the financing of seniors. She said they could study it, however they feel the projects should be analyzed separately on their own merits. She indicated that The Irvine Company would match the $25,000 pledged by the Ford Motor Land Company for traffic mitigation measures in Eastbluff. Mayor Debay closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Thomson to introduce Ordinance No. 97 -34 approving amendments to Districting Maps Nos. 55, 56, 57 and 58 to prezone property generally located between the San Joaquin Hills Transportation ® Corridor, MacArthur Boulevard, and Old Ford Road (Bonita Canyon) to Planned Community and to adopt a Planned Community Development Plan [Amendment 8651; to introduce Ordinance No. 97 -35 adopting an Annexation Volume 51 - Page 473 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX ® and Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company [Development Agreement 111; and to require that The Irvine Company provide $25,000 as matching funds for the Ford Motor Land Company contribution for Eastbluff traffic mitigation measures. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. RECESS AND RECONVENE The Council took a recess at 10:45 p.m. and reconvened at 10:55 p.m. with all members except Mayor Pro Tem Edwards present. 15. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. PCA 862 97 -36 AMENDING CHAPTER 20.60 (SITE REGULATIONS) OF TITLE Mixed Use 20 OF THE NBMC BY ADDING SECTION 20.60.115 WHICH WILL Zoning Dist PROHIBIT BUSINESSES LOCATED IN MIXED -USE ZONING (94) DISTRICTS FROM BEING OPEN FOR BUSINESS BETWEEN HOURS OF 2:00 A.M. AND 5:00 A.M. [AMENDMENT NO. 8621. Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the Planning Commission decided not to approve this amendment because the City already has a number of business regulations. They were also concerned that this proposal would control businesses in mixed use districts but would not control businesses that are in commercial districts that might actually be closer to residential uses. If the Council wishes to proceed with this amendment staff would suggest that it be done so with the changes that were made by the ® Planning Commission and are included in the proposed ordinance. Those changes would allow businesses who have been existing to operate between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m, for the past two years to continue to do so and to allow businesses whose hours are controlled by a special event permit or a use permit to continue to do so. It also provides for the Planning Director to approve late night operations if one of the four findings listed in the staff report are found. Motion by Council Member Hedges to continue this item to November 24, 1997. With Mayor Pro Tem Edwards absent, the motion carried by acclamation. 16. CITIZEN'S OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) FUNDS. Cops/Crime Suppression Unit Motion by Council Member Glover to approve the receipt of state funds for (70) the continuation of the Crime Suppression Unit in the Police Department. Mayor Debay opened the public hearing, and, hearing no testimony closed the hearing. With Mayor Pro Tem Edwards absent, the motion carried by acclamation. CONTINUED BUSINESS ® 17. CONSTRUCTION OF THE LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND (SECTION 5) WASTEWATER PUMP STATION REPLACEMENT (contd. from Little Balboa Island Pump Station 9/8/97). C -2975 Volume 51- Page 474 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 r!� LJ Public Works Director Webb reported that on September 8, 1997 the City Council directed staff to do some additional studies on the wastewater pump station and come back with alternatives that would provide the same degree of reliability that the proposed station had taking into consideration pump and power backup. Currently the existing pump station pumps sewage from Collins Island, Balboa Island and Little Balboa. Island. The structure was constructed in 1924 and was rehabilitated with pumps and some piping modified in 1948. The existing pump station deficiencies are that it is 73 years old, is too small and in too small of an area, the motors and controls are subject to flooding, and there is poor access into the station for both maintenance and operation. The wet well concrete is badly deteriorated. The site has very difficult vehicular access and when it is accessed vehicular access to at least three houses in closed down. The pumps and piping need to be replaced because they are badly deteriorated. The Park Avenue station that was proposed will provide one hour of peak storage to provide for emergencies. It has submersible pumps and motors which allows them to be changed out if there are problems. It will be constructed in a wider street location, which will both improve the access for construction as well as maintenance and operation. It will be much more efficient than the existing station and will have above ground motor control panels, portable generator connections, and a bypass pump connection. One of the things in looking at reliability is we have to be able to take care of the emergency response to ® replace the one hour additional storage that the Park Avenue station has. Staff was directed to consider a dedicated permanent generator to help in that aspect. Staff also looked at the addition of one vactor truck. The one hour storage helps prevent sewer spills in case of a failure before staff is able to respond. The types of station failures you can expect to have in a sewer pump station are power outages, mechanical pump failures, pump inlet line failures, motor control panels can fail which causes the pumps not to be able to go on, and a force main break. During the week the City's 9 man wastewater crew is available to respond to failures and during the weekends and evenings there are two men that handle both water and sewer problems. It takes them 30 -45 minutes to respond to a location and to get the backup support to them (calling in other workers and getting equipment to the site) quite often takes from one hour to one and a half hours. Emergency storage will allow time to prevent a sewage spill and for the crew to get to the site to fix it. If there is a dedicated generator it would solve the problem of power outages, however it does not handle the pump failures, the blockages, electric control malfunctions, or the force main break. He said they looked at four locations for dedicated permanent generators. The first would be in Park Avenue in the median avenue. It could be constructed underground and it would require shoring and excavation that would be about one -third the size of the Park Avenue pump station and it would have to have some sort of facility constructed above ground. It is estimated to cost $586,000. The one area that is closest to the site can't be seriously considered because it would in effect almost eliminate the possibility for somebody to build on the lot (the vacant lot between 1810 and 1804 S. Bayfront). The least ® expensive option would be to construct a 16 x 20 building at the end of Jade Street to house a generator ($183,000). He said there is an existing standby generator at the Fire Station (35 kw). They have looked at a combination Volume 51 - Page 475 10 1 -. C -3156 C -2935 (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 INDEX ® generator for the pump station and fire station and it would require 100 kw. The proposed generator is about four feet longer than the existing one, and the building would have to be modified to accommodate the larger indoor generator. Without the emergency storage, the City would need to purchase one additional vactor truck to supplement the two that we already have in order to keep up with the sewage flow that would be produced from the two islands. The three alternatives that staff looked. at were: 1) to remodel the existing pump station with a wet well and dry well; 2) to use submersible pumps in the existing structure; and 3) a replacement submersible pump station in Jade Avenue at South Bayfront. Each alternative includes a stationary dedicated generator, an additional vactor truck and an emergency pump connection. For Alternative 1, all of the equipment and piping would be taken out of the existing station, the roof of the station would have to be removed to improve access, as much of the deteriorating concrete as possible would have to be removed, a liner would have to be installed, and new pumps and piping would need to be installed. The advantages of this would be that there would be no deep excavations, the pumps would be in the visible dry well, and the existing structure would be utilized. One of the deficiencies in the alternative would be that the capacity of the station would not be increased because of insufficient room. He said staff is somewhat concerned about whether or not the structural modifications could be made with the current state and condition of the concrete. This alternative does not improve any of the facility access items and maintenance and operation will still block the three houses. During construction the east alley would be ® blocked or would have a dead -end situation. In staffs opinion, this alternative does not solve the problem for space that is needed and doesn't improve the system. It takes an older facility, puts something new inside of A, but will still require a replacement sometime within a 15 -20 year period. Staff does not feel that this is as reliable an option because of the disadvantages. Alternative 2 is essentially the same as Alternative 1 in the way of construction, however a hole would be knocked in the wall between the wet well and the dry well so that both facilities could be utilized. For the wet well storage the submersible pumps would be partially exposed because of insufficient depth. The advantages are similar to the first alternative. It would be easier to remove and replace submersible pumps than the fixed dry well pumps. The disadvantages are essentially the same as the ones for Alternative 1. Staff is not recommending Alternative 2 because of all the disadvantages and it would not be as reliable as the Park Avenue station. If a submersible station were to be constructed in Jade Street it would be essentially the same as the Park Avenue station but without the emergency storage. That station has the advantage of providing the capacity and service that is needed for the island, has a 50 -year serviceability, allows enough room for a third low -flow pump to help economize on the pumping relationships as far as when there are low flows as opposed to the high flows. The disadvantage is that it would still have to be constructed in an area where the bedrock is down 65 feet so there would be a much more significant shoring problem than at the Park Avenue site. There would still be some difficulty with large vehicles and obtaining access at the end of the street. He reported that Council Member Hedges asked staff to look at an equivalent ® life cycle including maintenance and operation over a 50 -year period. Based on the figures, the proposed station at Park Avenue ends up being the least Volume 51 - Page 476 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 BVDEX ® expensive under that option. One of the reasons why Options 1 and 2 are as expensive as they are is that staff would anticipate that the stations would have to be replaced in about 15 to 20 years. The staff recommendation is that the contract be awarded tonight to construct the Park Avenue station. Ted Munroe, 1810 S. Bayfront, said he reviewed the drawings and plans for the proposed pump station, and spoke to the people providing the pumps. He spoke in support of the Public Works Department: recommendation. Marianne McDaniel, 127 Jade, said she is in support of the proposed location because it is the best for the islands. She said she feels the old station is inadequate. She reported that the Big Island Property Owners Association has voted unanimously in favor of the project and Little Island has voted unanimously in favor of the proposal with one abstention. Dorothy Munroe, 1810 S. Bayfront, said she thinks Dottie Lewis is overly concerned about the potential damage to her house. She explained that she spoke with the neighbors near the project across from City Hall about the impact of the project and virtually all reported that they didn't have any damage. She said if the City tries to redo the existing pump station there are three to four houses that will be permanently isolated during the entire construction project, which means no emergency vehicles will have access to them. ® Council Member Hedges asked whether a probability factor for inverse condemnation has been built into any of the alternatives. Jim Busby, 111 E. Bayfront, said he is probably the closest neighbor to the existing pump station. He said either way that this goes they are dramatically affected because of the plumbing, so he considers his position to be one of practicality rather than a personal involvement. He spoke in favor of the Public Works Department recommendation and said he would rather see more inconvenience so that the citizenry on all three islands gets the best project. Terry Lewis, 127 Topaz Avenue, spoke in opposition to the construction of the station at the Park Avenue site. He said :he feels it is a $2 million mistake. He said the engineers that have been working with them have no personal stake in the outcome, however they believe there is a better solution. He questioned what the plans are for the replacement/refurbish- ment of the other pump stations in the City. He noted that Alternatives 1 and 2 will work and cost half as much as the Park Avenue recommendation and urged the Council to vote no the proposed pump station. Bill Willis, 107 Garnet, pointed out that the August 8th power outage was a once in a lifetime event in the history of electricity. He said it is clear that concerns for reliability of electric service is one of the criteria that was utilized in designing the basic concept of what was needed for Little Balboa ® Island. He provided facts on electrical liability and stated that the August 8th outage should never be considered. He said the circuit feeding Little Balboa Island has gone out three times in the last five years and each time Volume 51 - Page 477 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 Q1 1 ® for less than one minute. He stated that there are things Edison can do to provide an automatic back -up system that would guarantee effectively no loss of power. The cost would be $50,000 - $60,000. Additionally, the existing system has the capability of 2 -1/2 hours storage time, therefore it is not necessary to have additional backup storage or larger wells. Fred Youngdahl, Civil Engineer, Youngdahl -Park and Associates, 3822 Campus Drive #204, said he was asked to look at different options to refurbish the existing pump station. He reported that Alternative 2 is almost exactly what he had in mind to propose. Some of the concerns with Alternative 2 were that the submersible pumps would be out of the water for such periods of time that they would overheat and wear out much quicker. He said they have looked at that and feel that with some minor modifications to the floor of the pump station the pumps could be lowered a little to eliminate that problem without going down 65 feet to bedrock. He said on a cost benefit ratio they feel Alternative 2 would provide less disturbance to all the residents involved and less damage to any of the surrounding houses. Public Works Director Webb explained that Table #1 Modified shows that Alternative 2 varied in price with a base cost of about $2,052,909. With the generators, the new vactor and the engineering it works out to about $2.9 to $3.7 million. Looking at the initial cost of constructing just the first phase of it staff estimated that the structural modifications could be made for around ® $1.1 million including engineering, but the station would have to be re -built in about 20 years which would be more expensive because the entire structure would have to be replaced. Phillip Lugar, 1704 Park Avenue, said he will be impacted by the proposed project at Park Avenue, however he is in support of it. He said he has reviewed the plans and specs, the design is excellent, and the cost studies are right on. Vince ( ?), questioned the need for an additional hour of storage capacity, said he has a lot of questions on the reports, noted that the numbers are all different and there are many inconsistencies in them. He said they would like to sit with the city engineers to discuss this and questioned why this has to be rushed through. Wendell Warner, 7245 Seashark Cr., said that the engineering is a beautiful piece of work, however the proposal is an overkill and the current system with good maintenance services can be brought around to do what it has to do for as long as it has to do it. Charlie Garren, Corona del Mar, said he hopes the Council isn't going to be "penny -wise and pound - foolish." He noted that there isn't proper room at the old site for the equipment that is needed and doesn't believe modifying the old station is even an option. He urged the Council to vote in support of the recommendation made by the Public Works Department. ® Marsha Gilpin, 1710 Park Avenue, reviewed a series of events that took place in the neighborhood with the taping of equipment backing over the Volume 51 - Page 478 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 IMI , ® bridge. Doug Ashton, 418 -1/2 Larkspur Ave., voiced concern about the $2 million cost plus potential overruns, as well as the potential damage to surrounding properties and the bridge. He questioned whether a larger tank is really necessary and reminded the Council that new toilets and faucets use less water than the old ones. He urged the Council to refurbish the old facility. Dottie Lewis, 127 E. Bayfront, reported that the people that proceeded her, etc. have done a great job for them and all pursued them because of the Channel 3 coverage of the City Council meeting. She spoke in support of refurbishing the old facility. Warren Wimer, 221 Via Firenze, pointed out why the City can't afford the $2 million and how the numbers presented to Council by the Department of Public Works have been designed to prove only that the Park Avenue station is a viable alternative. He noted that the numbers have been shifting since they got them on Wednesday so their technical people can't even look at them. He said they have shown that the wet well is not required. Steve Bromberg, 1506 Park Avenue, President of Little Balboa Island Property Owners Association, and also speaking on behalf of the Balboa Island Improvement Association, said that a number of alternatives have been presented, however as far as he has seen it and as far as the Board of ® Directors has seen it so far nothing has changed than to further validate what Public Works has said regarding the recommendation for the station at the proposed location. He noted that four experts have presented testimony for the first time tonight and questioned where they have been for the past 11 months. He said the residents need the best possible protection that can be given them. Steve Nelson, 106 Jade, said he just bought his lot two months ago and they have had a ringside view of the studies and proceedings. He urged the Council to consider the facts and to support the proposed sewer pump station on Park Avenue. Mayor Debay closed the public hearing. Mayor Debay explained that this has been in planning and design since 1989, a preliminary study was done in 1991, in 1995 Jade and South Bayfront plans were looked at, in 1996 it was redesigned and went to further options, and there have been public outreach meetings. Zeki Kayiran, AKM Consulting Engineers, reported that the lining system that was suggested in Alternative 2 was felt to be necessary. The t -lock lining that was referred to in their report and was designed into the project is a lining system that it is cast with the concrete when a facility is constructed brand new. The lining repair system that is proposed has only ® been in existence for about one year, is of the same material but used as a repair material. He explained the way that the product works and noted that it does not have a history of performance. He said they don't feel that the Volume 51 - Page 479 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 I`1 01' ® bond between the mastic and the concrete provide any structural repair to the concrete itself, it just protects it from further attack from the sewer gases on the inside of the structure. He noted that the existing structure has degraded and there was a ledge in the original structure that is all but gone, however it is impossible to assess the existing structure in its entirety because there is groundwater within three feet of the surface. None of the cores that they took could be taken through the entire thickness of the structure because there was no way to repair it once they penetrated all the way through. He said they don't know the impact of seawater on the outside, but don't feel the structure will last another 50 years and the 20 year life is appropriate to use. Council Member Hedges reviewed the cost differentiation between the alternatives. He said his approach was to look at base cost comparisons between Alternative 2 and the Park Avenue design and they are roughly equivalent. The submersible in the existing structure does not have the unknowns associated with it with respect to liability and the damage to surrounding structures from the kind of work that would need to be accomplished with the Park Avenue site. With the Park Avenue design there would be the disruption caused by the sewer station as well as from tearing up 500 feet of street, which has costs associated with it beyond the direct construction costs. He said that since both alternatives are roughly equivalent and will provide roughly the same level of reliability, the alternative that causes the least amount of pain should be selected which ® would leave $500,000 - $1,000,000 for another pump station. Motion by Council Member Hedges to reject the bids and provide direction to staff to redesign the project. using Alternative 2, submersible in the existing structure without the generator and without the additional vactor truck. The motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Noyes said he isn't comfortable with spending $1.1 million to rebuild the old pump station since he doesn't have any confidence in the repairs. He said with the new pump station there is a degree of passive safety involved. Motion by Council Member Noves to proceed with contract award to Advanco Constructors of Upland, California, in accordance with the following four recommendations as outlined in the September S, 1997 Council report: 1) Approve the plans and specifications for the construction of the Little Balboa Island (Section 5) Wastewater Pump Station Replacement (C- 2975); 2) Award Contract No. 2975 to Advanco Constructors of Upland, California in the amount of $1,665,150, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of the City; 3) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement on behalf of the City with Daniel Boyle Engineering, Inc. (C- 3156) to provide construction management services related to the Little ® Balboa Island Pump Station Replacement Project for a fee of $177,912; and Volume 51 - Page 480 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 ® 4) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with AKM: Consulting Engineers (C- 2935) to compensate for additional engineering services to perform extra work beyond the original scope of work, for a fee of $56,343. Council Member Glover, Council Member Thomson and Mayor Debay spoke in concurrence with Council Member Noyes. Council Member Hedges noted that the contract price is $1.6 million plus $178,000 for a professional services agreement with Daniel Boyle to field public questions and complaints. He said he feels the City is missing an opportunity to modernize or repair other pump stations. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: Hedges Absent: Edwards Abstain: None 18. APPOINTMENT OF JOHN SAUNDERS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. ® Motion by Council Member Glover to confirm the appointment of John Saunders to fill a vacancy created by the resignation of Harry Woloson as the Airport Area representative on the Economic Development Committee. With Mayor Pro Tern Edwards absent, the motion carried by acclamation. �I 19. BAY KNOLLS REQUEST TO CHANGE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. 20. UPPER NEWPORT BAY DREDGING STATUS REPORT. 21. ORAL STATUS REPORT ON NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue Item 19 to November 24, 1997 at the request of the applicant and to continue Items 20 and 21 to November 10, 1997. With Mayor Pro Tem Edwards absent, the motion carried by acclamation. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None ADJOURNMENT - 12:40 a.m. to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Monday, November 3, 1997 at 9:30 a.m. for the purposes of holding a closed session meeting. Volume 51 - Page 481 INDEX EDC (24) Annexation 1 AFCO (21) Upper New Bay Sediment Control C -2987 (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes October 27, 1997 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx *xxxxxxxxa : xx The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on October 22, 1997 at 3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. 4 Recording Secretary a or mw) /gxnc. M, YVQ�XkX�h City Clerk Volume 51 - Page 482 1 1