Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2000 - Regular MeetingE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting August 8, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION — CANCELLED. CLOSED SESSION — CANCELLED. CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay (excused) Pledge of Allegiance Council Member Ridgeway. Invocation by Paul Sansevieri, Chairman of the State of California for the Christian Coalition. Presentation by Cheryl Jaffe on Upper Newport Bay Interpretive Center. After describing the Upper Newport Bay Interpretive Center and showing • renderings of the 10,000 square foot facility, Ms. Jaffe invited everyone to the opening of the Center on October 14 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. She announced that anyone wanting more information can call 640 -6746 and stated that the Center will be open everyday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Council Member Ridgeway explained that the Interpretive Center is part of a 700 acre Upper Newport Bay reserve that is administered by the County. He added that the City and the Federal government will be spending $30 million in about 2 years to dredge the Back Bay and create a better wildlife habitat in the Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. 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 suggested that staff come back with thoughts on having the City Council go dark in August or September. Council Member Ridgeway requested that a study session be held to outlaw four -wheel bikes on the Peninsula boardwalk. Mayor Noyes suggested that staff look at all the uses on the boardwalks and sidewalks. • Council Member Glover stated that she and Council Member Thomson sit on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Arts and Education Center to look at the • Newport Village site. She reported that they will be sending letters to the homeowners associations in that area and that the environmental groups, advocates for the Arts and Education Center, and other interested parties need to get in touch with Community Services Director Kienitz to set up an Volume 53 - Page 531 IIN11DAI Upper Newport Bay Interpretive Center (33) • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 appointment to do a presentation before the Committee. She indicated that Council has asked them to hold hearings on possible uses for the site and announced that their next meeting will be August 30 at 8:00 a.m. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 25, 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. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 3. RESOLUTIONS FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S PERS MEDICAL CONTRIBUTION FOR NEWPORT BEACH POLICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND NEWPORT BEACH UPEC, LOCAL 777, PART TIME EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. Adopt the following: 1) Resolution No. 2000 -70 fixing the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act only with respect to members of the Newport Beach Police Employees Association (NBPEA); and 2) Resolution No. 2000- 71 fixing the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act only with respect to members of the Newport Beach UPEC, Local 777, Part Time Employees Association (NBPTEA). 4. SALE OF BONDS FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 78 (LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND). Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -72 which sets forth the terms and conditions for the sale of bonds and approves the Purchase Agreement submitted by the designated underwriter for Assessment District No. 78. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 5. SUPPLEMENTAL MOUs FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ASSOCIATIONS. Approve the supplemental MOUs which contain provisions for implementing the 3 % @55 enhanced retirement system in conjunction with corresponding cost reduction measures in other areas. 6. OCEAN FRONT STREET END IMPROVEMENTS, 60TH, 62ND, CEDAR, WALNUT, AND LUGONIA STREETS (C -3234) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance. 7. Removed at the request of Council Member Ridgeway. Volume 53 - Page 532 i `!010 Res 2000 -70/ Res 2000 -71 C- 2056/C -3362 PERS Medical Police Employees/ Part Time Employees (38) Res 2000 -72 Assessment District 78/ Little Balboa Island (89) C- 2932/C- 2056/C -2946/ C- 2060/C -2058 Public Safety Employees (38) C -3234 Ocean Front Street End Improvements (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS S. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR AUGUST 3, 2000. Receive and file. 9. Removed at the request of an audience member. 10. REQUEST FOR CO- SPONSORSHIP FOR THE 2ND ANNUAL 5K RUNIWALK FOR THE ARTS. Approve City co- sponsorship of the 2nd Annual 5K Run/Walk for the Arts including: 1) support for City services not to exceed $5,000; and 2) staff services of Wes Armand, City Manager's office, to assist the Volunteer Run Committee. 11. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR PROPOSED RULE 20A UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NOS. 16,17 AND 18. Schedule public hearings for 7:00 p.m. on September 26, 2000 to determine whether or not Underground Utilities Districts 16, 17 and 18 should be formed. 12. PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING DONATIONS. Approve the new procedure by adopting revised Council Policy F -3. 13. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT - THE RAINY SEASON'S FIRST FLUSH HITS THE HARBORS OF ORANGE COUNTY. Direct staff to forward attached Grand Jury response (First Flush) to the Superior • Court of Orange County and to the Grand Jury. 14. Removed at the request of an audience member Motion by Council Member O'Neil to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (7, 9, and 14). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 7. AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF INTERNET COMPUTER VIDEO EQUIPMENT AT NEWPORT BEACH LIFEGUARD HEADQUARTERS. Chief Riley stated that the agreement provides the City an opportunity to enter into a public/private partnership, utilizing existing resources for the benefit of the public. He reported that the camera system will allow the lifeguards the ability to use two video cameras that already exist at the Wedge and 56th Street and that an additional camera will be installed by • Surfline at the lifeguard headquarters. He reported that Surfline will publish this on the internet as part of their surf forecasting website and the lifeguards will be given full control of the three cameras to observe specific parts of the beach that the cameras cover. He stated that the cameras will Volume 53 - Page 533 INDEX Planning (68) Co- Sponsorship 5K Run(Walk for the Arts (62) Underground Utility Districts 16,17 & 18 (89) Council Policy F -3 (69) Grand Jury Report Water Quality (51) C -3363 Lifeguard Video Equipment (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • have full pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ) capabilities and that this type of technology is useful now that summer is almost over. Further, this will provide them with more eyes on the beach in areas that are unstaffed. He noted that they have been looking at this technology for two years but budgetarily have not found a way to do it. This partnership will give them a way to do this at no cost to the City. Chief Riley confirmed for Council Member Ridgeway that Surfline will be providing one additional camera at the headquarters that the lifeguards can control by remote. He reported that the camera lens is a 20:1 zoom lens which will allow them to zoom in about 300 yards with pretty good clarity. He pointed out that camera limitations deal with inclement weather and light conditions. He stated that, if this works well for them this year, they are looking at placing a City funded camera in Corona del Mar. Ted Diets, 4021 Aladdin Drive, stated that he was the owner /operator of Surfcheck which is a surfing website very similar to Surfline. He indicated that Surfcheck is and continues to be the largest website that provides surf images around the world. He reported that Surfcheck also owned the software that powers the cameras that Surfline uses. He noted that Surfcheck was sold to Hardcloud in March, but Hardcloud relinquished control of the software at that point. He stated that Hardcloud would like the opportunity to talk with the City to possibly develop the same surf camera infrastructure using Hardcloud's technology and that they can • possibly also provide income to the City. He pointed out that they currently have five stationary cameras in Newport Beach for about a year (one at Blackies; 2 on 35th Street; and 2 on 56th Street). Mr. Diets emphasized that they have the capability of installing PTZ cameras since the software that powers these cameras also powers stationary cameras. Mayor Noyes stated that Mr. Diets should talk with Chief Riley. City Manager Bludau requested direction from Council with regard to gaining revenue from this type of beach activity, noting that they are looking at this from a public safety point of view. Emphasizing that public safety is more important and that he would like to proceed tonight, Council Member Ridgeway believed that Mr. Diets presented an interesting proposition that the City should pursue further. Mr. Bludau suggested limiting the Surfline agreement to one year in order to look at other alternatives. City Attorney Burnham pointed out that the agreement has an exclusivity provision (Section 2.c) which gives Surfline exclusive rights for three years. Council Member Ridgeway requested that the City Attorney review Section 2.c since the City already has cameras. In response to Mr. Bludau's question, Mr. Diets confirmed that the cameras they have located in the City are on private property and provide live streaming video. Craig Brown, 3503 Seashore Drive, stated that he is a security consultant • and wanted to make the City aware that there are many companies that do this. He pointed out that there is additional revenue that the City can receive, noting that most locations do receive compensation. He reported that a banner is also generally provided that can drive traffic to the City's Volume 53 - Page 534 INDEX • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 INDEX homepage, create exposure for the City, and bring in additional revenue from tourism. He believed that the advantages of having the City do this on its own are additional revenue from the banners and having complete control, noting that it costs about $1,800 to $2,800 per camera. However, the disadvantage for the City providing the cameras is that it would receive less exposure. Mr. Brown reported that one of these companies can show the beaches but the City can also have other cameras that show the Harbor or other places of interest, and then the City can sell its banners to businesses within the City to create additional revenue. He emphasized that Newport Beach has prime locations that may be the most dangerous spots (i.e. the Wedge, the river mouth, the Point, and Little and Big Corona), but noted that the dangerous spots are where surfers like to be. Mr. Brown requested that the City take a look at all the options and not lock itself into something. Ron Romanosky stated that he is opposed to placing a surf cam at the Wedge. He stated that the Wedge is already overcrowded whenever there is a south swell and noted that traffic and parking are already bad. He pointed out that the visitors leave trash in the area, make a lot of noise, and conduct offensive acts since there are no restrooms in the area. He believed that the reach and power of the internet is not fully understood by many Peninsula residents, and that the cameras would make existing problems larger and turn them into year -round problems. He suggested that, if safety is really the reason for installing the cameras, the cameras should solely be linked to the lifeguard headquarters and there should always be lifeguards present • when there are waves, rather than just have a lifeguard man a monitor. He expressed the opinion that the cameras will have a negative affect on the Peninsula residents' quality of life. He suggested that Council also look at creating a bike path extension to the jetty, installing public restrooms, and building a parking lot. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Chief Riley stated that there are a number of cameras provided by many companies over the internet that anyone can view; however, the City does not have exclusive access to any of them. He stated that the agreement will give the City an additional camera at the lifeguard headquarters and allow full control of the cameras at the three locations to determine if there are trouble spots. He stated that in the summertime there is no greater benefit than having every lifeguard tower staffed and lifeguard unit patrolling the beach, but during the winter they do not have the luxury in the budget to have that level of coverage. He believed that the cameras give them the opportunity to view the beach without having lifeguards in the towers. Council Member Glover asked if having the cameras would make the public file more litigation against the City. Mr. Burnham believed that the use of the cameras could reduce the potential of injury which would reduce the potential for litigation against the City. Further, the City would be better capable of responding to situations that could conceivably result in litigation. In response to Mr. Romanosky's comments, Council Member Ridgeway • stated that the Wedge is already a worldwide attraction, is available for viewing on the internet, and that the local newspapers and television publicize when the waves are coming in from the south. He noted the inherent conflict between a residential community and having restrooms, Volume 53 - Page 535 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • parking, and the boardwalk. He emphasized that public safety is paramount here, that he is satisfied that public safety will be served, and assured that he will protect the residential community as best he can. Noting that the agreement is for three years, Mayor Noyes asked what value the City is receiving in return. Chief Riley stated that, if the City were to install the camera, the City would need to buy all the equipment and have it installed so that there would be live streaming video that would go into the City's homepage. Further, control circuits would need to be developed that allows the City to control them. He reported that they budgeted the last two years to do this and that it was budgeted for about $3,000 for installation, plus an annual cost of $4,000 for the telephone lines, control circuits, maintenance, and operation. Mr. Diets reported that the initial cost of installing a PTZ camera would be about $6,000 to $7,000; access to the broadband cable would be about $125 a month for commercial internet access; Hardcloud would take full responsibility for maintenance; and Hardcloud also would have the capability of completely controlling each system at the main office. Mr. Diets stated that he respects Mr. Romanosky's opposition, but reported that the cameras can also reduce the pressure on the beaches. He explained that they found that, if a surfer drives to the beach without checking the surf conditions on the internet, he will go into the water no matter what the condition is since he drove the distance to the beach. However, if the surfer • checked the surf conditions over the internet, it may deter him from getting into his car. This reduces the pressure on the beach by one, there is one less car going to the beach, and leaves one additional parking space. In response to Mayor Noyes' question regarding revenue, Mr. Diets stated that Hardcloud could pay up to $500 or $600 a month for the right to have a camera at that location depending on the popularity of the beach and the view to the beach. Further, they generally give the host/owner of the resident free internet access for their home computers and Hardcloud's computer. He reported that Hardcloud also can give the host an ad banner that is worth about $600 -$700 a month and that a location can get up to $1,000 a month on an individual location basis. Regarding the PTZ cameras, Mr. Diets confirmed that Hardcloud has the ability to install them since it is a universally -used software. Robin Brogdon, Director of Operations for Surfline, 300 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 310, Huntington Beach, stated that they have been known for the last 15 years as the premier surf, wave, and weather forecasting business around the world. She reported that they disseminate information to the public and have had a great relationship with the Newport Beach lifeguards and other lifeguards in the State. She stated that, in addition to providing access and override controls, they will continue to offer forecasting services specific to City beaches through their weekly publication (The Wave Fax); access to telephone recorded information that updates the forecast on a daily basis; and Surfline personnel are available year- round. Ms. Brogdon • reported that they get over 500,000 visitors to their site a month and noted that Hardcloud was previously a subscription service. She stated that they are also giving the lifeguards the opportunity to create a safety page for each of the beach pages in order to educate the public about specific problems Volume 53 - Page 536 INDEX • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 related to that location. She indicated that they have a camera installed at Seal Beach's lifeguard headquarters, in conjunction with the Coast Guard, and that they both have the capability of overriding the cameras in an emergency situation. He reported that they have also had cameras installed in Santa Cruz and Oceanside, and will also be installing one at Morro Bay. Sean Collins, President of Surfline, 300 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 310, Huntington Beach, stated that they have been doing this since 1985. He reiterated that they have a camera in Seal Beach, Santa Cruz, and Oceanside, and they also update the weather daily. He added that Surfline has developed new software that is pretty close to live television video and stated that Surfline will have three PTZ cameras in Newport that will cover a wide range of areas. He noted that Surfline is not just offering cameras, but would like to offer the City lifeguards access to the existing cameras and a camera at the lifeguard headquarters. He stated that they are unique because of their forecasting capabilities and surf alerting that they have been doing for almost 10 years. Council Member Glover stated that when the City normally awards a contract Council has figures, staff has worked out the competitive process, and it is not brought before Council with people trying to sell them. Motion by Council Member Glover to continue this to the August 22, 2000 Council meeting and direct staff to work with the other web cam groups. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 9. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR MS BAY TO BAY BICYCLE TOUR. Community Services Director Kienitz stated that this is a request to process the MS Bay to Bay Bicycle Tour as the thirteenth special event. She indicated that this event has occurred in the City before. She reported that Council Policy I -8 limits these types of events to 12 events per year to try to contain the activity that affects the City's public safety, staff and residents. Following discussion, she explained that walking /running/biking events were always limited to 12 events per year, and that the recent amendment to Policy I -8 added limitations to surf events. Terri Koberstein, 31 Brittany, stated that she chairs the planning committee for the MS Bay to Bay Bicycle Tour and is representing the committee and the National MS Society. She requested that the event permit be approved. She stated that this is the premier fundraiser for the National MS Society in Orange County, noting that they raise $500,000 from this event every year, which is 30% of their annual budget. She reported that proceeds go towards research and services to benefit the 3,000 residents in Orange County that have multiple sclerosis, the #1 neurological disease of young adults. She Volume 53 - Page 537 INDEX Special Event Permit for MS Bay to Bay (27) • • C J City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 stated that the race has started In Newport Beach for about 10 years without any incident and that they would be leaving from Newport Dunes, proceeding south on Coast Highway toward Carlsbad. They start the race between 7:00 and 9:30 a.m. to minimize disruption to residents and allow about 40 riders to leave every five minutes so that they can scatter the riders. She indicated that the MS Society experienced a staff vacancy between February and May which resulted in the permit not being filed. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to approve the issuance of a special event permit for the MS Bay to Bay Bicycle Tour, October 7 -8, 2000, pending final approval by the City departments reviewing the application. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 14. SAN MIGUEL/PORT RAMSEY PLACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL. Public Works Director Webb reported that the City currently has a contract for the construction of four traffic signals. He stated that several weeks ago they received comments from people in the adjoining community expressing concern that they had not received notification regarding the project and that they did not want a traffic signal at San Miguel and Port Ramsey. He indicated that they normally do not send notices to residents in the adjoining areas for these types of projects. He reported that Council asked Public Works to generate a signal priority list in Fall 1998. They sent letters to community associations throughout the City for input related to whether they wanted traffic signals at various locations. He indicated that this information, along with traffic counts and accidents reports, were applied to the State's traffic signal warrants. He stated that the priority list was brought before Council in August 1999 and pointed out that the San Miguel/Port Ramsey Place traffic signal was #2 of 23 on the priority list. Mr. Webb indicated that, if the City were to stop construction at this time, the City would need to issue a change order and there would be some type of settlement with the contractor to remove the signal from the contract. He stated that staff believes this is a worthwhile signal installation because of the location and improvement of traffic from Port Ramsey Place. Mr. Webb added that Public Works does not feel there would be bypass traffic through Port Whitby Place and Port Durness Place. In fact, the bypass would be short circuited because it would be much easier for people to come out of the shopping center and onto San Miguel Drive. Peggy Stair, 2240 Port Durness Place, stated their homeowners association was not notified, believing it would have been helpful two years ago to have received notification. She indicated that she has lived there for 15 years and that there has always been a lot of traffic that cuts from Spyglass Hill Road to Port Durness Place, Port Whitby Place, and into the shopping center. She believed that the best solution would be to close that entrance to the shopping center and not install the traffic signal. She also noted that Newport Coast is also using the Ralphs shopping center and believed that Volume 53 - Page 538 INDEX Traffic Signals San Miguel Drive (85) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 INDEX the traffic study that was done a year or two ago is not an accurate reflection of the traffic in that area now. She requested postponement of the installation. Bill Beaver, 2306 Port Carlisle, stated that he supports the installation of the traffic signal, reporting that children are having difficulty crossing the street to go to Anderson Elementary School and that it is not safe for adults either. He stated that San Miguel Drive was once a relatively safe, low speed street but is now a commuter artery to Newport Center. He also recalled that a vehicle was overturned at the intersection last year and encouraged Council to continue the traffic studies on San Miguel Drive. He also noted that he never received notice about the traffic signal installation. Kaz Ochi, 2350 Port Aberdeen Place, stated that he is opposed to the signal installation because he did not find out about it until recently and it will not take away from the traffic. He believed that people will look at the signal as a hindrance and decide to drive onto Port Whitby Place, Port Durness Place, and Port Harwick Place. He also expressed concern with the Newport Coast community cutting through their neighborhood. He believed that more studies need to be conducted, especially because of the impact of the park, and that this will create more traffic, not less. Phil Harrington stated that the traffic signal will likely create more traffic through their community than less and suggested that more studies be • conducted. He asked what potential mitigation measures will be enacted if the signal results in more traffic through the community. He stated that this traffic light might need to be installed, but as a community they have not seen enough traffic flow studies to come to the same conclusion. Council Member Ridgeway believed that the City has traffic information that is available to the neighborhood. Noting that he is a shopping center developer and visited the site, he indicated that the attraction to the intersection will not be a traffic signal, but the Ralphs shopping center. He indicated that he has to accept the recommendation from staff and reiterated that the intersection was #2 out of list of 23 intersections. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to continue with the installation of the new traffic signal at San Miguel Drive and Port Ramsey Place. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay PUBLIC COMMENTS • Nan Morisseau stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Pacific Virtuosi • Division of the Newport Beach Recital Series - Classical Chambers Music Series. She stated that they will be presenting Beethoven's 230th Birthday Celebration Tribute at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, August 27 at the Irvine Barclay Theater. She reviewed the program and stated that the artists are Artistic Volume 53 - Page 539 • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 INDEX Director and Pianist Leonid Levitsky, Clarinetist Michele Zukovsky, and Cellist Boris Andrianov. Tickets can be obtained by calling the Barclay Theater, Ticketmaster, or through their website at www.paciflcvirtuosi.org. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, referenced Assessment District 78 (Little Balboa Island) and stated that he wonders if this Council placed financial gain over personal safety and community wellbeing. He reported that the City stopped allowing three story structures on Balboa Island in the 1970s because of public outcry and since the island could not support such growth. He stated that he hopes that the upgrades in sewage and utilities has not led the City to believe that the island will soon be able to support growth. He noted that the Little Island Bridge is once again showing movement cracks and hoped that the work will not further weaken it. He reported that Associate Civil Engineer Tse indicated that, if a sewer line did develop a crack, the smell and the island skirt will help to keep it from contaminating the harbor waters. He noted that the assurance that the island will not give off an odor is no longer being given. • Charles Griffin, 732 Bison Avenue, stated that Caltrans has a division of aeronautics and an associated public utilities code which mandates the Airport Land Use Commission who creates an airport environment land use plan. He indicated that the plan shows the estimated 20 year growth of airports in the County and that all airports have this type of plan. He noted that El Toro's plan has not been updated in 5 years and is due to be updated • as soon as the Commission receives the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He stated that they have EIR -563 which states that the anticipated growth for 20 years is going to be 28 million passengers a year, but believed that the airport layout may be changed since the runways need to be rebuilt so that the airplanes takeoff downhill into the wind and over undeveloped land. Mr. Griffin utilized charts to demonstrate takeoff directions. He also reported that the Irvine Planning Commission is reviewing a development of Planning Area 17 (strawberry field area) which is in line with the open space and takeoff from Runway 0119. He stated that The Irvine Company is planning to build about 2,300 homes and a school in that area and expressed the opinion that this development is not appropriate. He believed that, since the planning of El Toro is still uncertain, there should be a moratorium on that development. He expressed hope that the City will use its influence with Mr. Bren who is a resident, controls The Irvine Company, and has his business located in the City. • Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Drive, stated that it is entertaining that those who opposed the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when it was adopted are now proclaiming the TPO as the savior of the City and the excuse for their anti - Greenlight initiative. He believed that they also identified their initiative as the Traffic Phasing Initiative (TPI) in an attempt to confuse it with the TPO. He expressed the opinion that the City is also going along with this by identifying it on the City's web page as "aka TPO" and that this is unfair since the City is supposed to be impartial on these matters. He requested that the web page be amended to identify the Traffic Phasing • Initiative as the TPI since the TPO is the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He also requested that the title that appears on the ballot be amended to read, "Shall Greenlight be cancelled and shall a vote of the people be required for certain amendments of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" since the current title Volume 53 - Page 540 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • does not mention that the only real purpose of the initiative is to cancel Greenlight by voting "yes" for the TPI. • Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, also expressed concern relative to the initiative title that will appear on the ballot since there is nothing on the Traffic Phasing Initiative (TPI) that states that it will cancel Greenlight if it receives a larger majority vote. She stated that she would like to get a measure of fairness so that people who do not read anything else when they go into the polling booth understand that there are two things they will get if they vote for the TPI. Council Member Ridgeway requested that the City Attorney and City Clerk provide a response at the next meeting relative to the comments made by Mr. Beek and Mrs. Skinner. PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. GPA AND PREZONING OF SANTA ANA HEIGHTS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING AMENDMENT AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CHANGE PRIOR TO ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 240 ACRES WITHIN THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA TO THE CITY. Larry Lawrence, consultant and project manager, reported that Council • passed a resolution several months ago that initiated annexation proceedings for the east Santa Ana Heights area. Consistent with that action, staff generated the necessary General Plan Amendment and prezoning actions in order to specify the permitted land uses, development standards and other regulations that will apply to the area upon annexation. He stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the amendments at its July 6 meeting and is now forwarding them to Council with a recommendation of approval. He reported that the proposed annexation area encompasses the eastern 2/3 of Santa Ana Heights. The remaining western portion is within Costa Mesa's sphere of influence and is not included in the proposed annexation prezone area. He pointed out that portions of the specific planned area are already within the City and is larger than the annexation area shown on Page 22. He pointed out that, unlike the County specific plan, the City plan includes all of the lots that abut the south side of Mesa Drive plus the northeast corner, professional administrative office area on Bristol Street South. Mr. Lawrence reiterated that the zoning area is currently governed by the County but prezoning of most of the annexation area is provided for in the new City version of the Santa Ana Heights specific plan which closely follows the current County plan. He stated that the draft specific plan has been distributed to Council, has been made available for public review in the Planning Department, and will be incorporated into the City's zoning code as Specific Plan No. 7. He noted that the differences between the County and City specific plans are that the County allows land uses by site development • permit while the City uses use permits approved by the Planning Director; the County allows land uses by use permit approved by the County Zoning Administrator while the City allows use permits approved by the Planning Commission; and the requirement for a recreational horse permit to allow Volume 53 - Page 541 INDEX Ord 2000- 14/Res 2000 -73 GPA 99 -3(B) Zoning Amendment 903/ Santa Ana Heights Annexation (21/45) • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 the keeping of more than two horses in the residential equestrian district has been replaced by the issuance of a use permit by the Planning Director in order to avoid the creation of another type of City permit. Mr. Lawrence reported that the General Plan Amendment consists of the realignment of the intersection between Birch Street and Mesa Drive. He indicated that the parcels adjacent to that intersection would be redesignated as administrative /financial/commercial as opposed to residential. He added that the northern portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course will also be added to the General Plan boundaries. In response to Council Member Glover's concern regarding the horses, Mr. Lawrence indicated that horses in Santa Ana Heights are mostly kept in the Residential Equestrian (REQ) District (Page 51), but noted that all the land use designations and boundaries have been maintained in the City's specific plan. He stated that there would be very little change and that they would be able to keep their horses as they do now. He explained that, if someone in the REQ District wanted more than two horses, they would need a use permit from the Planning Director instead of a recreational horse permit. He clarified that the change is a very similar type of administrative action that the County takes. Council Member Glover expressed the opinion that it is nice that Newport Beach is going to become a community where people are allowed to have horses and that she would not want to take that right away. Mr. Lawrence assured Council Member Glover that the text is designed to avoid any changes so that people can keep horses. Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing. Clifford Bohart, 2242 Mesa Drive, stated that his family moved to their 2.5 acre location when he became interested in showing and raising horses. He breeds and shows Icelandic horses and his sister raises poultry, sells the eggs, and will be raising Icelandic sheep. He expressed concern with the City's agreement to keep the area as it is presently zoned, noting that Santa Ana Heights has different zoning and that their property has been zoned Agricultural (A -1) for over 50 years. He indicated that he has spoken with the County and they assured him that the agricultural zoning will not change; however, he is not sure if Council realizes what is entailed if they agree to not change the zoning in his area. He indicated that he has watched their many horse trails gradually turn into one very narrow, undeveloped strip of dirt adjacent to Irvine Avenue directly next to the busy traffic and that he would hate to see the same thing happen to the last parcels of agricultural land that are left in the Upper Newport coastal area. For this reason, he indicated that he and his family would prefer not to be annexed into the City but remain under the jurisdiction of the County. Robert Hanley, 1601 Indus Street, stated that he lives in the Santa Ana Heights western division, although they feel they are part of Santa Ana Heights. He expressed concern relative to the division of Santa Ana Heights, their future with respect to the airport, and having to go back and forth between Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). He believed that they are the edifice that can collapse if there is an expansion at John Wayne Airport (JWA). He stated that he knew there was an airport there when he purchased his property Volume 53 - Page 542 INDEX J City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 1"113 DA1 and raised his children, but the airport has grown sigmticantly since then. He indicated that they are looking for an ally to hold JWA at bay and it seems that Newport Beach is the only entity that has done anything. He added that he does not like how Costa Mesa runs their city at -large and prefers Newport Beach's representative government. He expressed hope that the City will take them along with the rest of Santa Ana Heights. Regarding joining the western part of Santa Ana Heights to the annexation effort, City Manager Bludau confirmed for Council Member O'Neil that the citizens of west Santa Ana Heights have made a request to LAFCO to change their sphere of influence from Costa Mesa to Newport Beach. He reported that this annexation application does not include west Santa Ana Heights, but the staff at LAFCO have assured the City that they will look at east and west Santa Ana Heights as a community and will make a determination as to whether they feel the City's annexation proposal should be amended. He stated that it seems that Costa Mesa and the City are willing to allow that to happen. In doing it this way, the City will not need to generate new surveys and can proceed forward. Council Member O'Neil stated that he would be in favor of doing this. Isabel C. Hernandez, 1700 Kings Road, stated that they have kept the City abreast of the progress they have made since they filed their request to change their sphere of influence with LAFCO. He indicated that he faxed correspondence to Council and that the Costa Mesa City Council is willing to • release their sphere of influence to Newport Beach. He added that the Costa Mesa City Manager also agreed that east and west Santa Ana Heights should remain as one community. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he believed the only item on the agenda is the GPA and prezoning for Santa Ana Heights east. He noted that he owns property in west Santa Ana Heights and cannot participate in discussions about that area. City Attorney Burnham clarified for Council Member Ridgeway that he does not have a conflict of interest in just listening to testimony. Ann Watt, 20261 Spruce Avenue, encouraged the City to annex west Santa Ana Heights since the County does not represent their interests at all. Caroline Dobbins, 20272 Orchid Street, believed that this issue warrants more public comment. She stated that she first received notice about this on May 31 when the public review period was from May 1 to May 31, Roger Summers, 20252 Birch Street, stated that he has owned property in Santa Ana Heights since 1978, has a copy of the 1982 draft County specific plan which he helped author, and is the Chairman of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). He summarized from a Daily Rlot article dated October 30, 1984 in which the neighborhood expressed concern that their ability to curtail what may become an annexation to JWA will be affected if they do not join the City. However, he stated that he is not sure if he • believes this since the City tried to annex Santa Ana Heights 16 years ago and former City Manager Bob Wynn and former Mayor Evelyn Hart indicated that the annexation of Santa Ana Heights would do nothing to enhance the City's airport fight. Mr. Summers added that, in 1995, several Volume 53 - Page 543 • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 INDEX of them met with Council Member O'Neil and others because the City wanted to annex Santa Ana Heights again, but the territory was such a costly area that the City would have had to assess each of the property owners. He stated that they generated a letter dated October 19, 1999 to the City Manager which requested certain considerations and that the response be done in writing. He indicated that Deputy City Manager Kiff has offered to meet with them but there still seems to be a lack of communication, noting that they knew nothing about a Planning Commission meeting that discussed this issue. He stated that they conducted a straw vote in which 57 of 160 east Santa Ana Heights residents expressed interest in the annexation; 75 were not interested; and 28 were undecided. He believed that some of them are a little weary of the City's intention and believed that they would not receive better municipal services from the City. Regarding the efforts that have been taken over the past 25 years, Council Member O'Neil stated that economics was an issue at one time and that the current proposal indicates that the annexation will be revenue neutral since the County is willing to negotiate a favorable property tax split and, therefore, no attempt to form an assessment district or increase taxes will be made. He assured everyone that this Council will work closely with the community to ensure that their property and property rights will be protected against future JWA expansions, reporting that there is an upcoming agenda item that requests that the Board of Supervisors extend the current settlement agreement for an additional 20 years. • Regarding Mr. Summer's concern relative to whether the City can provide better municipal services, Council Member O'Neil stated that this will be addressed in the plan of services that will be presented to LAFCO. He expressed the opinion that the residents will find from the studies that they will receive better police, fire, and paramedic response times. He assured everyone that the City does want Santa Ana Heights, Newport Coast, and Bay Knolls to be part of Newport Beach. He emphasized that the existing zoning, general plan designations, and specific plan will stay the same, with only some procedural differences. He stated that they hope the Santa Ana Heights residents support the annexation as it would be good for their community and the City. Mr. Summers indicated that they still want something in writing and added that they want to stay one community. Regarding Fire Station No. 27 which services Santa Ana Heights and is located near the airport, Council Member Ridgeway reported that it will probably be closed in the near future but the City plans to relocate it close to the Santa Ana Heights area. Russ Niewiarowsky, 20102 Kline Street, reported that Santa Ana Heights dates back to the 1920s. He requested that "east" and "west" officially be dropped and that the references of living east or west of Irvine Avenue be used instead. Regarding the Vicinity Map on Page 22, Mr. Niewiarowsky emphasized that the annexation does include more than what the map shows and requested that Council try harder to keep the area one • community. He referenced Pages 24 and 25 and stated that he is not speaking to challenge Council's intention but to support their action and decision to annex Santa Ana Heights into Newport Beach. Volume 53 - Page 544 Volume 53 - Page 545 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August S, 2000 INDEX • Donna McMeacon, 20422 Bayview Avenue, stated that she would really like to be a part of Newport Beach. She indicated that she feels it would help them with the airport situation and that, as a group, would stand stronger against a JWA expansion. She thanked Council Members Glover and O'Neil for speaking out about the importance of keeping the animals in the area. Craig Ima stated that all his Santa Ana Heights neighbors are very much in favor of the annexation and want to be a part of Newport Beach. Tom Guy stated that he lives on Cypress Street and has horses. He applauded Council's efforts in adopting the County's current plan because it does provide for horse use. However, he expressed the opinion that the County plan does not go far enough. He stated that development is occurring that reduces the utility of the residential equestrian lot for residential use. He indicated that other jurisdictions have looked at this issue and adopted measures which essentially limit the development on residential equestrian lots to preserve the utility of the lots for future residential equestrian uses. He stated that, unless this is done, the streets will eventually be converted into a normal residential street with tennis courts and swimming pools in the back. He asked that Council direct staff to look at what sort of pro- active zoning requirements can be enacted to limit the development on existing residential equestrian uses. There being no further testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing. • Motion by Council Member O'Neil to 1) adopt Resolution No. 2000 -73 approving a General Plan Amendment for the Santa Ana Heights area [GPA 99- 3(B)]; 2) introduce Ordinance No. 2000 -14 approving a zoning amendment for the prezoning of the Santa Ana Heights areas (Zoning Amendment 903) and pass to second reading on August 22, 2000; 3) certify the Negative Declaration; and 4) direct staff to look at limiting development on residential equestrian lots to preserve the utility of the lots for future residential equestrian uses. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 16. 1514 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PARKER STANBURY LLP - Ord 2000 -15 APPLICANT) A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND Res 2000 -74 USE ELEMENT AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE GPA 99 -2(C)/ PLAN TO RE- DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM Amendment 904/ GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES Local Coastal (GEIF) TO TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R -2), AMEND Program DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Amendment 55/ FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) TO TWO FAMILY 1514 West Balboa Blvd. RESIDENTIAL (R -2) AND TO ESTABLISH A FIVE FOOT FRONT (45) • YARD SETBACK ALONG THE WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD FRONTAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Volume 53 - Page 545 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • Council Member Ridgeway stated that Council approved a 2.5 acre lot for a public storage facility on Camelback rather than approve it for apartments because of the electromagnetic field (EMF) adjacent to the property. He indicated that he was under the impression that lenders had a difficult time because they did not know the long term impacts of EMF and pointed out that Council may be zoning this into a situation that cannot be sustained by the lender market. In response to Council questions, Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that the normal setback for an R -2 District is 20 feet. However, in this neighborhood, most of the surrounding area that is zoned R -2 has special 5 foot front yard setbacks due to the small size of the lots. She stated that the power station and an apartment building are next to the lot. She clarified that staff is recommending this proposal because the lot is so small that they would not be able to develop the duplex and supply the necessary parking without asking for an exception. Mayor Noyes asked if the City is trying to shoehorn in a duplex on that lot. Ms. Wood indicated that staff did not feel there was a feasible Government, Education and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) use because of the size of the lot and since multifamily developments already exist in the surrounding area. In response to Council Member Glover's question, Ms. Wood stated that it would not be a good planning practice to zone this single lot as R -1 when the surrounding lots are designated R -2. She added that she does not believe • that this lot is smaller than other lots in the area. Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing. Richard Jones, Parker Stanbury LLP, 888 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, stated that they represent the owner, Maverick's Development. He indicated that there are no lending concerns since Maverick's completely owns the property and has sufficient funds to develop it. He stated that the proposal is not "shoehorning" since a duplex is consistent with the neighborhood. He noted that the Planning Commission indicated that, should the property be rezoned, future development will need to incorporate appropriate design and construction techniques given the proximity to the substation and the three story structure. Regarding EMF, he pointed out that the City has a park adjacent to the Edison substation. He indicated that Edison conducted studies and there has been litigation, but there is no evidence of ill affects from EMF. He stated that his client knew that they were buying a property adjacent to a substation, had every intention of developing the property, and received an offer to purchase the property for a significant sum. In light of that offer, his client instituted the request for the R -2 zoning which is consistent with the neighborhood. Regarding the 5 foot setback, he indicated that his law firm, their real estate broker, and their client canvassed the neighborhood and found that the entire block has 5 foot setbacks. He added that the apartment complex that sent in the only letter of objection also has a 5 foot setback. He reported that they discussed all of these issues at the Planning Commission meeting and they unanimously approved this. • Further, in the event they get to build a structure, it will have to be consistent with what City guidelines require. He believed that a beautiful duplex on the lot would actually insulate the three story apartment from the substation. He added that the letter also discussed sunlight, but stated that Volume 53 - Page 546 INDEX • is • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 that the proposed duplex would probably block sun to the apartment. There being no further testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -74 approving General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2(C) and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 55; and introduce Ordinance No. 2000 -15 approving Amendment No. 904 and pass to second reading on August 22, 2000. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 17. 2000 ANNUAL WEED AND OTHER NUISANCES ABATEMENT City Manager Bludau reported that the following properties are the only properties still on the list: 230 Ocean View Avenue; 2427 Margaret Drive; 1815 Bayadere Terrace; 455 North Newport Boulevard; 1025 West Balboa Boulevard; and 449 North Newport Boulevard. Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing to consider objections of any property owners whose property is subject to cleaning by the City appointed contractor. There being no public testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Resolution No. 2000.75 ordering the Fire Chief to abate weeds and other nuisances identified in the amended list to be existing upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, parkways, and private property within the City; and schedule a public hearing on October 10, 2000 to confirm assessments against those properties cleaned by the City. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 18. WEB SITE REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE. Mayor Noyes stated that he will probably be continuing this item until more Council Members are present. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue this item to the August 22, 2000 Council meeting. Volume 53 - Page 547 INDEX Res 2000 -75 Weed & Other Nuisances Abatement (41) Web Site Review Ad Hoc Committee (24) • is City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay 19. NEWPORT BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU 2000- 2001 ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTATION. Henry Schielein, Chairman of the Board of the Newport Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (CVB), expressed his appreciation to the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors who have assisted him tremendously. He indicated that the report was generated by Rosalind Williams just after the fiscal year was over and prior to her passing. He reported that the CVB produced 269 conference leads valued at about $40 million and booked 50 of those meetings which included almost 7,000 delegates and over 15,000 room nights. He stated that the leads came from many sources like David Green Associates who booked almost $500,000 worth of rooms in the City at the cost of $11,000. Further, 17,000 trade shows were attended, 10 familiarization (fam) trips were organized, 10 sales trips were taken to attract business to the City, and they produced many consumer publications. Mr. Schielein stated that CVB's accomplishments included booking California Conference and Tourism for 2001; launching extra programs for summer business; implementing a first mail/telemarketing effort to enter the golf meeting market; participating in the Toshiba Golf Tournament; establishing access to a remote internet database for the traveling sales force; putting all staff on email; increasing the internet hits to 700,000 as a result of the redesign of the website; coordinating radio programs; housing the Newport Beach Jazz Festival, with City cooperation, and adding a second sold out weekend; helping form the new Newport Beach Film Festival; conducting sales calls to the American Airline reservation center and AAA; implementing direct mailings to New York and New Jersey; organizing Newport Beach's appearance on the Wheel of Fortune; conducting strategic planning board sessions for current research projects; introducing kiosk systems; securing national television advertising on ABC, ESPN, and at the Toshiba Tournament; negotiating a new lease for the CVB office space; and becoming a key wholesaler (makes major travel arrangements and then sells them to travel agencies and bureaus) in the U.S. and German. He added that 1,000 people received publications on Newport Beach; and over 200,000 visitors guides and village, small inn, golf, and dining guides are distributed regularly. Mr. Schielein stated that the following new publications were produced by the CVB: 2000 Newport Beach Visitors Guide; 2000 Newport Beach Calendar; Newport Beach Destination Planner; newsletter for members and • clients; and a collective tourism piece which was included in Newport Beach residents' water statements. He reported that the CVB collectively exceeded all sales goals; accomplished all strategies outlined in the previous year's plan of work; partnered with the Orange County Marketing Consortium for Volume 53 - Page 548 INDEX C -2638 Conference & Visitors Bureau Annual Report (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • leisure utilizing County funds; reached 98 media outlets with the circulation of 17,800,000 (represents an advertising value of almost $500,000); and helped increase the Citywide average occupancy from 70.4% to 71.1% with the average rate increasing from $137.74 to $142.60. He stated that the overall tourism industry contributed $21,202,000 to the City's General Fund. He indicated that the CVB is also working with the Golf Marketing Consortium to identify meeting planners with a golf component and conducted many fam trips with David Green Associates to increase leads. Mr. Schielein stated that Council also has a copy of the 2000 -2001 sales and marketing plan, along with a supporting budget that was passed at the last Board of Directors meeting. He indicated that their objective is to remain aggressive and have a strong resolve to bring additional business to the City. He reported that the Executive Committee meets weekly to review staff activities and provide the necessary guidance and approval. Mr. Schielein reported that the CVB hired an executive search company to assist in finding a new Executive Director. He stated that they hope to make a selection within the next two weeks; however, they will not hire just anyone until they have the right person. Mayor Noyes stated that the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and he met with Mr. Schielein and told him that they appreciate that he has taken on the responsibility and informed him that the CVB can • expect the same level of cooperation from the City. Mr. Schielein promised, on CVB's behalf, that they will continue on until the right person is hired to take over the CVB. 20. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE TERM. Mayor Noyes explained that this follows Council Policy A -17 that has been in place since 1972 and indicated that it establishes a comprehensive program to minimize the impact of John Wayne Airport (JWA) on the quality of life of Newport Beach residents by preserving the current operational restrictions at JWA and investigating ways to extend and/or strengthen those restrictions. He reported that Council is just trying to amend the existing agreement to extend the operational restrictions and that the City retained special counsel, Clem Shute, to assist in this endeavor. City Attorney Burnham added that Mr. Shute has been involved in JWA legal matters for 20 years. Mr. Shute stated that he has been involved with JWA matters since the early 1980s. He reported that a settlement agreement was reached in 1985 which resulted in the limits of flights, noise levels, and terminal construction. He believed that the County has abided by the terms of the agreement and has worked out any misunderstandings that may have occurred. He indicated that the proposal is to extend the agreement from 2005 to 2025 without much change and reported that this requires approval • from Council and the Board of Supervisors. Further, to move forward, they must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act even though it is still uncertain what environmental document will be required. Regarding the proposed resolution that calls for County cooperation, Mr. Shute Volume 53 - Page 549 INDEX Res 2000-76 C- 2535/C -3364 Amendment to the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement (38/54) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • reported that they have become aware of a case that may redefine what a "lead agency" is for CEQA purposes and, therefore, he recommends that the resolution be adopted under the concept of a cooperative agreement rather than referring to a lead agency. Mr. Shute believed that the City can prevail in this endeavor. He stated that, although the political side involves whether the County is willing to go along with this, he is getting signals that there is a very good chance of that. He is aware that people think that the airlines and FAA will not let this happen, but indicated that the process should be started and it should be worked through professionally. Mayor Noyes stated that this is a good opportunity for the County to send a message that they are really there to protect the quality of life of each and every city. Council Member O'Neil stated that he is glad that Mr. Shute is on the team, noting that he has worked on other sides of issues with him and his firm over the years. He indicated that Mr. Shute is a formidable attorney and is very knowledgeable in airport laws and all the environmental aspects. He stated that it was his understanding that JWA was grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) provisions so that they could maintain the various noise abatement procedures, takeoff limitations, curfew restrictions, weight limitations, etc. Mr. Shute expressed the opinion that ANCA was enacted by Congress in 1990 under outrageous circumstances, explaining that it was done as part of the reconciliation of the budget for that • year, it never went through any public hearings, and there were no public notices. He reported that ANCA states that anyone who tries another JWA agreement will have to get FAA approval which will never be given. This was a direct attempt to try to prevent the 1985 agreement from happening again. However, the current agreement is grandfathered, nothing that is being proposed will increase the restrictions and does not impair safety. These are the two requirements for maintaining the grandfather status. He indicated that he is sure there will be arguments about this and that this will be a fight at some level, but he feels the City has a solid position. Council Member Glover stated that she appreciates the Mayor's leadership on this. She indicated that she and the Mayor have spoken with several of the Supervisors and noted that elected officials throughout the County have supported and encouraged the City to do this. She believed this is a positive move for Newport Beach. She stated that the City never intends to close JWA and accepts it as part of the City, but it is a quality of life issue for Newport Beach residents. She indicated that they want to ensure that the things that are in place now continues for several decades. Tom Naughton, 1700 Port Margate Place, President of the Orange County Airport Working Group (AWG), stated that AWG supports this effort to extend the settlement agreement to 2025. However, he indicated that they are also dedicated to ultimately having an airport at El Toro in addition to having JWA. He stated that the settlement agreement was structured in 1985 to allow 39 Class A aircrafts and 34 Class AA aircrafts. However, in • 1993, the City allowed Class E aircrafts. He reported that about 41 Class A, 34 Class AA, and 60 Class E aircrafts now fly out of JWA daily, with that number increasing with the advent of the regional jet. He believed that the only protection the City has today is to continue the 8.4 million cap. Without Volume 53 - Page 550 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • the cap, he believed that Newport Beach is in for a lot more exposure and that there will be a lot of pressure on JWA if there is no El Toro airport. He noted that South County and a KNX radio editorial stated that a solution to the airport problem is to utilize the underutilized JWA by removing the cap and allowing it to run to its limit. However, they are ignoring the fact that JWA is the 18th busiest airport in the world when you judge takeoffs and landings. He stated that the City should also press the issue that El Toro must move forward, in combination with JWA. He believed that this is what the County and Newport Beach need more than anything else. Mayor Noyes emphasized that this is not an El Toro issue and noted that, even if there was an airport at El Toro, the City would still be asking for an extension to the settlement agreement. Russ Niewiarowski, 20102 Kline Drive, presented Council with correspondence regarding Santa Ana Heights and the creation of an El Toro airport. He referenced Council Policy A -17 and stated that E1 Toro can become an asset to the County if properly utilized. He expressed hope that the City does not embrace South County's olive branch. Ann Watt, 20261 Spruce Avenue, thanked Council for taking the first step toward maintaining the cap at JWA but acknowledged that there are a lot of regulatory bodies that the City has to convince to keep the cap. She recommended that the City prepare the environmental impact reports so • that County residents can review them and pointed out that the City is trying to go to Congress to allow a local community to regulate interstate commerce. Charles Griffin, 732 Bison Avenue, noted that the Code of Federal Regulations Part 161 is on the internet and states that the City's agreement is grandfathered. He added that the agreement also states that the County will look for another airport. He emphasized the importance of keeping this stipulation in the agreement, particularly looking at El Toro, and expanding it in a way that is as compatible with the surrounding residents as we want it to be around the residents near JWA. He added that it is important that the City participate in the Irvine Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, August 17 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Shute reiterated that they have to comply with the Environmental Quality Act, but first it has to be determined what type of environmental document will be required. He indicated that Council and the Board of Supervisors will then be able to approve the extension. He reiterated that he believes that the FAA will have to honor the grandfather status under ANCA because they will not be doing anything that is not already in the existing agreement. Further, many of the County restrictions exist independently of the settlement agreement. He added that the terminal agreement is not subject to ANCA since there is no requirement in Federal law that forces an airport proprietor to build another building or extend a runway. • Council Member O'Neil also acknowledged Mayor Noyes' fine work and demonstration of leadership in initiating this effort, along with Council Member Glover who is the Chair of the Citizens Aviation Committee. They have both spent a great deal of time over the past months meeting with Volume 53 - Page 551 uRENTO 7 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes August 8, 2000 • Supervisor Tom Wilson, Congressman Christopher Cox, and the airport groups. He emphasized that a great deal of work has been done to just get to where the City is now and that the City Attorney and Mr. Shute have been involved in this issue for many years. He stated that, if the City can be successful in extending the settlement agreement, the City has done more to protect the quality of life than anything else. He deferred to Mayor Noyes to make the motion. Motion by Mayor Noyes to 1) approve, in concept, the draft project description (Exhibit B); 2) authorize staff and special counsel to finalize the project description after consultation with appropriate County staff and other interested parties. Staff and special counsel are authorized to make minor changes to the project description and or project objectives as necessary to the project description and or project objectives as necessary to comply with CEQA or to ensure consistency with Council Policy A -17; 3) authorize staff and special counsel to conduct an Initial Study of the project, determine the environmental document required by CEQA, issue appropriate notices and prepare the document; 4) direct staff to prepare an agreement with Shute Mihaly and Weinberger to act as project manager and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement; and 5) adopt Resolution No. 2000 -76 (Exhibit C), as amended, that requests Supervisor Wilson and the Board of Supervisors to cooperate with the City in the preparation of the environmental document and approval of an agreement authorizing a cooperative agreement to prepare an environmental document. • The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Adams, Debay MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None. ADJOURNMENT — 10:05 p.m. + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on August 2, 2000, at 4:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. �f Recor dings cretary oil I U � ,� Z Mayoki City Clerk Volume 53 - Page 552 INDEX