Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/2000 - Regular Meeting9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting March 28, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. IQ111 ►./ - 4:00 p.m [Refer to separate minutes] CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Thomson, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Debay. Invocation by Pastor Kevin Querry, Living Waters Christian Fellowship; Chaplain, Newport Beach Police Department. • CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Council Member O'Neil requested that staff provide information on the construction status of a sidewalk on Coast Highway from Morning Canyon to the entrance of Cameo Shores. He stated that the Cameo Shores Community Association has asked about the prioritization of the project in the City's Capital Improvement Program He added that the information could be provided during the review of the 2000/2001 budget. Council Member Glover requested that the City Manager, when preparing the 2000/2001 budget, also prepare a fixed income budget. She stated that the no growth initiative should be taken into consideration and the City should be prepared to operate with no increases in revenues. Council Member Thomson repeated Council Member O'Neil's request and stated that there is a need for recommendations from staff. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS • 1. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2000 AND THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF Volume 53 - Page 266 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 is MARCH 14, 2000. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION 3. ADOPT RESOLUTION REQUESTING A GRANT FROM BOATING AND WATERWAYS TO REBUILD AN EXISTING PUMPOUT FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -28 approving the Vessel Pumpout Facility Installation Contracts as provided in the staff report to receive grants from State Boating and Waterways totaling $36,000. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 4. ORDINANCE DELETING CONSTRUCTION SITE CLEANUP DEPOSIT SCHEDULE FROM CHAPTER 15.60 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -6 approving amendments to Sections 15.60.010 and 15.60.020 of the NBMC deleting schedules of construction site cleanup deposit amounts and make reference to schedules adopted by resolution of City Council. • 5. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Pro Tern Adams. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Pro Tern Adams. PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF THE CORONA DEL MAR WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN (C- 3332). Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, to complete a preliminary design study and prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a 9,000 -foot long water transmission main to improve water service in Corona del Mar. 8. REQUEST FOR CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE. Approve the contract agreement with Marilyn Fisher in the amount of $6,500 for the period of April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 9. PLANNING and file. AGENDA FOR MARCH 23, 2000. Receive 10. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -049) TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS • AND REVENUES BY $3,975 RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAMILIES FOR LITERACY CAMPAIGN. Approve BA -049. Volume 53 - Page 267 INDEX Res 2000 -28 C -3335 Vessel Pumpout Facility (38) Ord 2000 -6 Construction Site Cleanup (26) C -3332 Corona del Mar Water Transmission Main (38) Employment Contract (66) Planning (68) BA -049 Literacy Campaign (40/50) u • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 11. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -050) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,200 TO TRANSFER THE REIBER TRUST FUNDS, GIVEN AS A BEQUEST FOR PROMOTING CHILDREN'S SERVICES AT THE BALBOA BRANCH, FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT. Approve BA -050. 12. REQUEST TO ALLOW IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) TO SERVE RECLAIMED WATER TO HARBOR RIDGE. Direct staff to work with the Harbor Ridge Association and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to come up with a proposal that will allow Harbor Ridge to be served with reclaimed water. 13. SPONSORSHIP OF INTERACTIVE CHILDREN'S WATER DISPLAY AT THE DISCOVERY MUSEUM OF ORANGE COUNTY. 1) Approve participation in the Blue Planet Foundation Project's development and sponsorship of a "hands -on, interactive, water model and educational display" to be located at the Discovery Museum of Orange County; and 2) authorize a sponsorship contribution of $2,500. 14. STATUS REPORT ON SANTIAGO DRIVE SPEED REDUCTION PROGRAM. Item continued due to lack of notice. 15. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Ridgeway. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (5, 6 and 15) and the item continued (14). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Thomson, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING CONSTRUCTION SITE FENCING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he sees some value to having construction sites screened off, but he cited an example of a large project taking place near his office on Von Karmen where the developer voluntarily screened a chain link fence. Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that if many developers are already screening their construction sites voluntarily, it didn't make much sense to require it when considering the financial impact, as mentioned in Bob Yant's letter of March 17, 2000. He added that the screening can restrict vehicular sight lines and suggested that if the City does require the screening, traffic engineering should look at the implementation to make sure they're erected safely. Volume 53 - Page 268 INDEX BA -050 Balboa Branch Children's Services (40/50) Harbor Ridge Reclaimed Water Service (89) Discovery Museum Water Display (89) Santiago Drive Speed Reduction (85) Ord 2000 -7 Construction Site Fencing (26) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Ridgeway responded to Mayor Pro Tem Adams' comments by stating that commercial sites are required to fence, but not to screen. He pointed out that the ordinance under discussion is for residential fencing and screening only. Building Director Elbettar clarified the comments by stating that the screening and fencing applies to all construction sites, and that screening is currently not required but it is done at many large projects as a measure of erosion control. He added that fencing is often a requirement of the insurance carrier. Council Member Ridgeway recalled that at previous construction projects, he was required to fence but not to screen. Council Member Glover stated that her intent in initiating the screening requirement was to have it apply to residential areas only. She cited examples in her neighborhood where green vinyl screening reduced construction noise. She added that she is constantly getting calls from residents about construction in the neighborhood and that screening makes • tremendous amount of difference. Council Member Glover stated that it is • quality of life issue. Max Morgan, 480 Old Newport Blvd., stated that he has construction currently taking place on a three -lot subdivision. He said that the curb and gutter have to be removed so that the various work projects can be done. He • stated that he does projects simultaneously and that a fence won't give him the room he needs to work or bring the materials on site. He said the site currently has a fence for the purpose of protecting the grading work, and he thinks his construction site might possibly be grandfathered into any new requirements. He said he won't replace the sidewalk until after all the work is done because it would be broken by the equipment that needs to enter the property. Mr. Morgan added that fencing would encourage construction sites to be cleaned less often, that it wouldn't allow people to view a site under construction for possible purchase consideration, there's the possibility of graffiti and the problem with the screening blowing in the wind. He concluded by stating that no other cities in Orange County have such an ordinance. He said it would be better to look at each job separately. Council Member Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Morgan that he has fencing at his current construction site, but no screening. Council Member Debay asked if lot size affected the ability to install a fence. Mr. Morgan stated that a standard -sized lot in the Newport Heights area is 50' x 12T, and a single lot like he is currently working on is 70' x 85'. He added that a gate is needed to get equipment onto the site. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Mr. Morgan stated that he prefers to place dumpsters on the site rather than in the street. Mayor Pro Tem Adams pointed out the exception clause in the proposed • ordinance and felt that it would take care of the issues discussed. Additionally, he wondered how reasonable it is to require the fence at the commencement of grading and excavation. He thought a fence could hinder Volume 53 - Page 269 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX • those processes. Building Director Elbettar agreed that fencing at the time of grading and excavation may be a problem. He said that the Building Department would address each site depending on its own merit, and could decide that the screening can be postponed until after the grading. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that screening is probably not necessary in the commercial areas, even though these are the properties that can probably most easily afford it. On the other hand, he said that a $2,000 fencing requirement to a single - family dwelling unit is a fairly significant percentage of a home remodel or construction. Mayor Pro Tem Adams referred to the staff report that provided the approximate costs of fencing and screening. Council Member Ridgeway asked if the cost estimates were for the frontage of a property only. Building Director Elbettar stated that the estimates in the staff report were for an average size lot of 60' x 120'. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he opposed the proposed ordinance when it was introduced at the City Council meeting of March 14, 2000. He stated that he supports the fencing, but not the screening. He stated his belief that screening is an unnecessary added expense because it can't reduce noise and makes construction loans even more difficult to get. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -7, with a modification to delete the screening requirements. is Per the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Adams, Council Member Ridgeway amended his motion to include wording in the ordinance that would encourage the use of screening. The amended motion failed for lack of a second. Council Member Thomson asked for which projects the fencing or screening would be required. Building Director Elbettar stated that it is required for major remodels only. Mayor Pro Tem Adams added that the information is contained on page 5 of the proposed ordinance in proposed section 15.60.080. Council Member Debay stated her understanding that Council Member Glover's purpose for initiating the proposed ordinance was to add the screening requirement. She also stated that a fence can get in the way and isn't required in any other city. Motion by Council Member Debav to not adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -7. Council Member Glover confirmed that the motion continues the present policy and does not require fencing or screening. She stated that she can't support the motion and doesn't care if other cities aren't doing it. She stated her belief that fencing and screening would provide an added benefit to the • quality of life in Newport Beach. Council Member O'Neil stated that he has no compelling reason to vote for or Volume 53 - Page 270 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • against the fencing and screening requirements, so will support the motion and maintain the status quo. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: Glover Abstain: None Absent: None 6. BAYSIDE DRIVE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3320). Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that, at his request, the plans for the project were on display at the current meeting. He suggested that when the City Council is asked to approve a project of such prominence, that they should see the plans so they know what they're approving. He added that he understood a rendering was also done, and should have been seen by the City Council also. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his support for the project and acknowledged that many people have worked for several years on the improvements. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the plans and specifications; award contract to Green Giant Landscape, Inc. for the total • bid price of $70,593 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; establish an amount of $6,500 to cover the cost of unforeseen work; and approve a budget amendment (BA -051) to transfer a total of $45,413 from various accounts listed in the staff report to the Bayside Beautification Fund Account No. 7015- C3170510. Council Member Thomson stated that the project is long overdue, and has been worked on for a number of years. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 15. NEWPORT BAY UPDATE - DREDGING, WATER QUALITY, MORE. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he wanted to specifically address the Lower Newport Bay general dredging permit situation. He said the permit has not been approved by the Coastal Commission and it was recommended by Council Member Glover at the earlier Study Session that the 1,200 private permit holders in the harbor be notified. He said that by pulling the item, he is beginning the notification process and wants those who are watching the current meeting to know that no dredge material can be taken • out from under docks because the City does not have a general permit. He said the dock owners can obtain a separate permit on their own, but it would probably cost about $20,000 for a $1,500 job. He stated his support for the Volume 53 - Page 271 INDEX C -3320 BA -051 Bayside Drive Parkway Improvements (38/40) Newport Bay Dredging and Water Quality (51) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • recommended action. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the speakers at the earlier Study Session made some statements regarding emergency boat access and other problems caused by lack of dredging. He stated that the Coastal Commission is doing the City a great disservice. Barry O'Neil, 221 East Bayfront, who also spoke at the earlier Study Session, stated that he learned at the Study Session that the problem will become much larger in the very near future. He said that his dock and pier are being damaged, and he can't get the needed dredging permits. He stated that the public needs to be aware of this problem. He added that boats will have to be taken out of the harbor if the condition gets worse. He said business owners, the reputation of the City and property owners will also be affected. He concluded by stating that he doesn't know the answer, but he feels that the Coastal Commission is allowing the destruction and deterioration of the harbor. He encouraged the City Council to find a strategy to deal with the problem. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the reason the Coastal Commission is supporting a hard -line position is because they are supporting the Water Quality Act of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He added, however, that the City's water and sand is cleaner than it has ever been. • Motion by Council Member Rideeway to direct City staff to pursue changes to the proposed General Dredging Permit for Newport Bay that are appropriate for full use and enjoyment of the Harbor; and approve recommended strategy for accomplishing these changes with a not -to- exceed cap of $8,000 for Coastal Commission advocacy services. Mayor Noyes stated that it was also recommended at the Study Session to notify and enlist the help of the dock owners in Newport Harbor. Mayor Noyes added that the newspaper could also provide assistance in getting the word out. Council Member Ridgeway amended his motion to include notification to the dock owners. Council Member Debay reflected that the City used to be able to speak directly to the Coastal Commissioners, but now the City has to work through Commission staff and it has the potential to impede the process. She stated that the conditions placed on the permit renewal by the Coastal Commission are very difficult and expensive. She recommended that the information be provided to the dock owners in the notification process so that they have a full understanding of the situation. She suggested that the dock owners and the public write letters to the Coastal Commission. Mayor Noyes suggested that a progress report be provided at the next City Council meeting. • The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 53 - Page 272 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Winship announced a new television talk show that he is working on called The Cutting Edge. He said the website for the new show can be accessed at www.cuttingedge - atalkshow.com. He stated that the new show will be different, and discuss local and national politics. He proceeded to make some personal comments about the appearance of the council members. Mr. Winship then made some brief comments about the Dunes project and his feeling that the Planning Commission is out of control. In closing, Mr. Winship requested that the City Council address the slumlords and the problems with rentals in the City. Robert Hanley, 1601 Indies Street, Santa Ana Heights, stated that he attended the Open House for the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed El Toro airport on March 20, 2000. He stated that at that meeting, he read that the night ban at John Wayne will be lifted in 2005. He has since gone to a City of Irvine meeting and asked why South County won't take any of the responsibility for air service. He said the response was that they have shared in the responsibility of landfills and jails. Mr. Hanley • concluded by stating that he is appalled by their attitude. Russell Niewiarowski, 20102 Kline, Santa Ana Heights, stated that it is important for the City to include West Santa Ana Heights in the annexation of the Santa Ana Heights area in order to completely shore up the southwest border of John Wayne Airport. He stated that Alternative G includes a runway over the West Santa Ana Heights area. He said his community's greatest defense against the expansion of John Wayne Airport is incorporation into Newport Beach, not Costa Mesa. Mr. Niewiarowski stated that there is a lot of propaganda and fear being spread throughout the County about the airport issue. He concluded that it is reasonable to support a reasonable airport at El Toro and that a second airport will be needed. Julie Ryan, Library Board of Trustee, stated that the Library Board has decided to provide regular updates at City Council meetings to let the community know who the Library Board is, what they do and what is happening at the library. She stated that the Library Board is comprised of five trustees appointed by the City Council to administer the library. Ms. Ryan stated that one of the most exciting projects currently going on at the library is Commitment to Excellence. She stated that fifty members of the community are involved in a planning process to create a vision for the library in the year 2010 and decide how to reach the objective. Ms. Ryan went on to list the many programs taking place at the library. She stated that recent gifts received through the Friends of the Library and the Library Foundation totaled approximately $125,000. She said that commercial and • residential members of the community have funded the Distinguished Speakers Lecture Series. Ms. Ryan listed some of the acknowledgments the library has recently received. She concluded by stating that the community Volume 53 - Page 273 I_ I0 .� • E • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 should be proud of the achievements and accomplishments of the library. PUBLIC HEARING 16. BALBOA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL PUBLIC HEARING AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR 2000 -2001 FISCAL YEAR. Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -29 confirming the levying of the assessments, since protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 17. PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC AND DENSITY INITIATIVE - ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING PREVIOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. City Manager Bludau stated that the City Council previously approved a study to help make a determination on how the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative ( Greenlight) would affect the 49 statistical areas in the City if approved by the voters in November, 2000. He stated that in order to proceed with the study, some assumptions need to be made and staff felt it was best to discuss those in a public meeting, and receive recommendations from the City Council. Planning Director Temple stated that making recommendations on the assumptions is an important fist step in analyzing the potential consequences of the initiative. She stated, however, that the study is not intended to analyze what may occur with the future planning process in the City or to assess any legal issues associated with the initiative. It is only to collect past data in terms of the City's general plan activity in the various statistical areas in the City. Planning Director Temple stated that in looking at the terms of the initiative, staff felt that there were several areas where staff would have to make a judgement call on how to collect the data. Referring to the staff report, which lists the issues along with staffs recommendations for assumptions and methodology, Planning Director Temple discussed "peak hour trips ". She stated that staff is recommending that the existing Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual be used to accumulate Volume 53 - Page 274 INDEX Res 2000-29 Balboa Village Business Improvement District (27) General Plan Amendment Evaluation/ Greenlight Initiative (39/68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • peak hour traffic data. She said it could be different than the original traffic assumptions used because some projects may have required special trip generation studies. She stated, however, that Greenlight requires that the most recent ITE manual be used, so the study will need to reaccumulate the data for some projects. City Manager Bludau confirmed with Planning Director Temple that when the manual is updated and it affects the land use for any data collected, the data would need to be updated. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how the ITE manual would be used, and added that there is a lot of discretion in its use. He stated that when the manual was first published, it was simple and stipulated trip rates based on various independent variables associated with land use. He stated that it has since evolved to be much more complex and requires a great deal of judgement to use. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that a decision needs to be made by someone on how the manual will be used. He provided some examples of decisions that need to be made and stated that many professional traffic engineers don't even understand how to use the manual. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his concern for how the manual will be applied from the simplistic language in Greenlight. He stated that he didn't believe that the people that drafted Greenlight understood the ramifications of the initiative. He feels that for the study to be done properly or for the initiative to be implemented, the list of issues in the staff report was incomplete. He stated • that there are many more assumptions that need to be made. City Manager Bludau stated that the study is expected to accumulate the most basic data on what the capacities of the 49 statistical areas are. He agreed that the implementation of Greenlight would require many more assumptions. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how the number of trips would be estimated in the statistical areas. He suggested that the trip estimates that were done in the original studies for the general plan amendments should be used, even though this is inconsistent with the language in Greenlight. He stated that trip generation estimates need to be done in the context of an entire traffic study. City Manager Bludau stated that Mayor Pro Tem Adams' suggestion would be the simplest way to proceed. Council Member Glover confirmed with City Manager Bludau that the study could use what the general plan allowed and what is projected at full build - out for a statistical area. Planning Director Temple stated that staff makes estimates for build -out of an entitlement under the existing general plan, with trip rates done for all the various land uses that are accommodated by the general plan. She stated that the study will look at all the general plan amendments that have been approved by the City Council over the past ten years and, depending upon the decision made at the current meeting, will either use the ITE manual or the original traffic information from when the amendments were approved. She stated that the historic data will show • where each statistical area stands in relationship to the various thresholds required for voter approval if Greenlight is implemented. Volume 53 - Page 275 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • Council Member Glover confirmed with Planning Director Temple that each amendment will need to be analyzed, and asked how long this process will take and how the statistical areas were set up. Planning Director Temple responded by stating that the statistical areas were primarily set up to gather and tabulate data. Council Member Glover referred to the assumptions and methodology chart in the staff report, and confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the maximum would automatically be applied for the calculation of trips when a project does not use the full development entitlement approved in an amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what the basis for the entitled use will be when calculating the difference between trips for the amendment and entitled use. Planning Director Temple stated that the maximum would be used and, for the larger projects the standard commercial mix rate would be used. Mayor Pro Tom Adams stated that the issue again illustrates a discretionary decision that needs to be made and could make a big difference in the results of the study. He stated his belief that the authors probably want the land use that is assumed in the model to be used. He stated his concern for a developer questioning why the maximum entitlement trip generation wasn't assumed when it is what the impact of the general plan amendment is. • Mayor Pro Tom Adams added that entitled land uses that can be built without a general plan amendment are also discretionary. Planning Director Temple referred to the last two issues listed in the chart in the staff report and said they address circumstances where the amendment is not just a simple intensification of entitlement, but circumstances where the actual land use is changing. She stated that the initiative doesn't include language that provides clear guidance on how to treat this backward accumulation. Planning Director Temple stated that the first issue is how to accumulate the peak hour traffic trips. She said that staff is recommending that when the actual trip rate goes up, a deduction would be made to the existing entitlement from the accumulation totals so that only the change to the peak hour trip rate would be added. On the other hand, if the new project has the same or fewer peak hour trip rates, staff would recommend that a credit not be granted. She explained that the reason for the recommendation is that the initiative doesn't address the issue of credits, so staff decided to take a conservative approach. Planning Director Temple stated that staff is recommending a similar approach for the issue of how to account for dwelling unit and floor area counts. She said, again, a change would be made for new land use categories but no credits would be granted for numbers that have been removed. She cited an example of a project that involved a conversion of land use that • didn't affect peak hour traffic trips but added 400 dwelling units. Council Member Ridgeway referred to the chart in the staff report and the Volume 53 - Page 276 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • last issue and assumptions in the chart. He confirmed with Planning Director Temple that when the original general plan was done, certain traffic generations were assumed for land uses and that arterial highways were sized accordingly. He asked why credits wouldn't be given when there is an overall reduction in the generation of traffic, since the system would still be sized for more traffic. Planning Director Temple explained that the study that is being done will only determine when a project will need to go to voter approval and will not determine the adequacy of the circulation system. Planning Director Temple further explained that if the credits were given, fewer projects would be subjected to voter approval but it shouldn't change the actual analysis of the amendment itself. Council Member Debay stated that any approved project will most likely have conditions placed on it by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. She asked how long it would take to get a project before the voters, if required, once approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. City Attorney Burnham stated that it could take as long as two years but could be reduced to 120 days if a special election is called. Council Member Debay asked about the cost of a special election. City Clerk Harkless stated that the cost is between $1.50 and $2.00 per registered voter and that there are approximately 46,000 registered voters currently in the City. • Council Member Glover stated that it would be interesting if an overlay was done for the amendments done over the last ten years to see which areas have a plus and which might have a minus. City Manager Bludau reminded the City Council that three calculations are being made for each statistical area and he listed these as being peak hour trips, square footage and housing units. Council Member O'Neil stated that the purpose of retaining a consultant to analyze the data and some of the provisions within the initiative was to provide the City Council and the public with a better understanding of the effects of the initiative. He stated his reluctance for making recommendations on assumptions when he has had no input on the drafting of the initiative. He is concerned that if the City Council directs the study to be done in one way, but the authors of the initiative wouldn't agree with the assumptions, that a problem is being created. He stated that he personally would rather the voters just vote on the initiative. Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that the consultant should possibly just use his judgement when making assumptions and to clearly state these assumptions in his findings. He agreed with Council Member O'Neil that it is possibly inappropriate for the City Council to recommend the assumptions that should be used. Council Member Ridgeway stated his agreement for the suggestion. • Council Member Thomson asked who would determine if an approved project would go to the voters and whose assumptions would be used in the determination. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council would Volume 53 - Page 277 1111] D/ 1 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 • decide if a project needed voter approval and that the assumptions used would be the guidelines that will need to be adopted if the initiative passes. He added that the guidelines require six affirmative votes to be adopted. Council Member Thomson asked for clarification on the reason for making recommendations on assumptions at the current meeting. City Attorney Burnham stated that staff was trying to get some direction from the City Council and to talk about some of the issues. He added that staff also wanted to inform the City Council that, in some cases, two assumptions were used when looking at past general plan amendments. Referring to Planning Director Temple's earlier comments, he stated that the study may provide analyses using different assumptions, since the initiative doesn't make it clear. City Manager Bludau added that he felt it was worthwhile to have some public dialogue on the assumptions and interpretations. He stated that he also wanted to increase the credibility of the study by having agreement on the assumptions. Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue, stated that it appears that a defense is being built against Greenlight. He stated that many of the people that signed Greenlight don't feel that it is the solution, but it sends a message to the City that they'd like to see more outreach on where the City is going. He thinks the message should be addressed. • Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his disagreement that a legal defense is being built. He stated that the City is just trying to understand the implications of some of the elements of the initiative. He also mentioned the project cited earlier and the potential for projects approved to generate fewer peak hour trips. He stated that similar misperceptions probably exist. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the assumptions and methodology outlined by staff to be used in evaluating previous General Plan Amendments to determine impacts of the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative; that the assumptions be clearly articulated in the findings so that the basis of the analysis is understood; and that the range of the results that can be expected from alternative assumptions also be discussed in the findings. The motion failed for lack of a second. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the observations made by Dan Purcell earlier were good. He stated that the message he hears from Greenlight is for the City to find a solution and be inclusive of the entire community. He referred to the next item on the agenda which discusses the update of the general plan. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to receive and file the staff report, and make no suggestions regarding the assumptions and methodology to be • used in the study. Council Member O'Neil asked if the study would still be done. Volume 53 - Page 278 INDEX • • C City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 Council Member Ridgeway stated that the study would still be done but that the consultant doing the study would use his own assumptions and methodology. Council Member O'Neil stated that if the initiative passes, some guidelines will need to be adopted and that's when he thinks the time and money should be spent on implementation. He stated that if people don't understand the initiative, they shouldn't vote for it. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the use of statistical areas and the implications of going back ten years to analyze capacity is confusing, but he still feels the exercise can be valuable. Council Member Ridgeway agreed that the report can be valuable, but he just doesn't want the City Council to endorse the assumptions. City Manager Bludau confirmed that the study will continue with the recommended assumptions, which were arrived at through deliberations by the consultant and staff. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 18. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN. Planning Director Temple stated that the staff report outlines all of the elements in the general plan. She stated that the report includes when the elements were adopted, when they were most recently amended, some of the issues with each and some ideas on what advantages there are to including the element in a comprehensive general plan update. Council Member Debay complimented the report and felt that it was a good review. Mayor Pro Tem Adams complimented the report and stated that he was also hoping for a more detailed look at each element. He suggested that maybe a page by page discussion of each element could be done at future study sessions. He stated that this would also provide an opportunity for public comment. Mayor Pro Tem Adams agreed with Mr. Purcell's earlier comments and felt that this could provide a starting point and a good opportunity for the public to get involved. Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Adams to receive and file the report, and direct staff to bring each element back for more detailed discussions at future study sessions. Volume 53 - Page 279 INDEX General Plan Update (68) • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 City Manager Bludau noted that the next two or three study sessions are already booked. Mayor Noyes stated that it might be too long to wait and he'd look at the schedule with the City Manager. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. ADJOURNMENT - 8:53 p.m, in the memory of Rex Brandt and Clement Hirsch. t�, trrrrrra ,t *•re + +rttrrr,t *�to,tta The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on March 22, 2000, at 3:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secre y Volume 53 - Page 280 INDEX