Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2004 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. INDEX CLOSED SESSION - None. A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: None C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None. D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tem Adams. E. INVOCATION - Pastor Jim McCammon, Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. F. PRESENTATIONS Recognition for Go and Do Likewise. Deputy City Attorney Ohl displayed photos of the progress at 1915 Dover Drive. He recognized Code Enforcement Supervisor Sinasek, Fire Chief Riley, Deputy Fire Marshal Bryg, General Services Director Niederhaus, Park and Tree Superintendent Lomeli, Urban Forester Conway, the Utilities Department, the Building Department, and Council Member Webb. Mayor Ridgeway presented Terry Debay and Bud Potter with certificates of appreciation. Council Member Webb expressed his appreciation to staff and Go and Do Likewise. Mayor Ridgeway stated that Mr. Ohl dealt with the matter with compassion and charity, and there would not have been a peaceful resolution without his involvement. Southern California Marine Association (SCMA) Boat Show at the Dunes Presentation. Andy Theodoroeu, Dunes General Manager, announced that the Boat Show runs from April 28 through the weekend. He stated that SCMA has a great reputation of producing shows throughout Southern California. Dave Geoffrey, SCMA Executive Director, presented an overview of what will take place at the Dunes during the Boat Show. G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR Volume 56 - Page 846 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): Council Member Bromberg announced that the Relay for Life will be held on May 14 and May 15 from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He stated that people can call Stephanie Taylor at (949) 567 -0611 if they want to participate. Council Member Bromberg announced to the residents on Little Balboa Island and the Grand Canal that there will be a Town Hall meeting on May 22 at 1:00 p.m. at the fire station. He reported that the City has been informed by Caltrans that the Little Balboa Island Bridge is no longer seismically stable and it either has to be retrofitted, taken down, or replaced. He requested input from the residents. Council Member Webb announced that Boy Scout Troop 681 was onboard the Argus last Sunday coming back from Catalina when the Skipper heard two tankers and steered off course. He stated that a couple of the Boy Scouts had binoculars and found a man overboard. He indicated that they pulled a skin diver onboard that had gotten separated from his class and had been in the water for over four hours. He reported that the Scouts contacted the Coast Guard and the man has recovered. I. CONSENT CALENDAR Regarding Item 6 (Relinquishment of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar), Council Member Nichols stated that this is one of the last steps Council votes on prior to the relinquishment happening. He noted that the City will own this portion of Coast Highway rather than Caltrans. Regarding Item 10 (Budget Amendment for the Purchase of Lifeguard Vehicles), Council Member Nichols asked if the nine vehicles make up the entire fleet. He expressed the opinion that the price per vehicle is high. City Manager Bludau reported that this represents a portion of the 13 vehicle fleet. Further, they are adding new vehicles and bringing some old vehicles back in order to patrol the beach during the summer. General Services Director Niederhaus added that some of the vehicles are carryovers and the emphasis is to keep the lifeguards rolling. Regarding Item 11 (GPI No. 2004 -001), Council Member Nichols asked if this type of issue normally happens through a General Plan Amendment. Mayor Ridgeway noted that this is a General Plan Amendment Initiation. Regarding Item 12 (In -Lieu Housing Fee Analysis), Mayor Ridgeway confirmed for Council Member Nichols that this allows builders to pay an in -lieu fee instead of have low cost housing on properties. READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOL UTIOA'S 1. Removed at the request of an audience member. 2. Removed at the request of an audience member. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION 3. Removed at the request of an audience member. Volume 56 - Page 847 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 4. tcemoveo at the request of an audience member. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 5. Removed at the request of an audience member. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 6. RELINQUISHMENT OF COAST HIGHWAY IN CORONA DEL MAR — APPROVAL OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION. 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -31 requesting that the State of California relinquish the right -of -way for Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Coast Drive and Jamboree Road; and 2) approve the Cooperative Agreement with the State of California, which provides for the relinquishment of Pacific Coast Highway from Newport Coast Drive to Jamboree Road to the City of Newport Beach. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 7. CLIFF DRIVE PARK RENOVATION — COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C- 3528). 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 1 year after Council acceptance. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 8. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT NO. 2003 -003 (PA2003 -255). Continue to May 11, 2004. 9. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT — APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, INSTALLATION AND TRAINING WITH GLOBAL CTI GROUP. 1) Approve a purchase from Global CTI Group of Irvine for a telecommunications system upgrade project at a contract price of $219,972 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Purchase Requisition; 2) approve a contingency amount of $5,000 to allow for unforeseen expenses; and 3) approve a budget amendment (04BA -052) in the amount of $224,972 from the General Fund Reserve balance to Account No. 7017- C0630754. 10. BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIFEGUARD VEHICLES. 1) Authorize the purchase of seven vehicles from the General Motors Corporation at a cost of $179,050 and the purchase of two additional lifeguard vehicles at a cost of $50,000; and 2) approve a budget amendment (04BA -053) transferring $232,050 from unappropriated Internal Service Fund reserves to the General Services Department Accounts 6120 -9100 and 6120 -9102 to fund the cost to purchase the nine new vehicles and the transfer of equipment into four surplus City vehicles. Volume 56 - Page 848 INDEX C -3699 Relinquishment of PCH (38/100 -2004) C -3528 Cliff Drive Park Renovation (38/100 -2004) (100 -2004) C -3700 Telecommunications System (38/100 -2004) C -3701 Lifeguard Vehicles (38/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX 11. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATION NO. 2004 -001 - (100 -2004) PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA2004 -041) - INITIATION TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE TO MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAN MIGUEL DRIVE AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. Approve the proposed initiation of the General Plan Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and adopt Resolution No. 2004 -32. 12. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC AND I C -3702 Volume 56 - Page 849 PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. TO CONDUCT AN IN -LIEU HOUSING In -Lieu FEE ANALYSIS AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE Housing Fee FUNDS. 1) Approve the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with EPS Analysis for an in -lieu housing fee analysis; and 2) approve a budget amendment (38/100 -2004) (04BA -049) to appropriate $19,975 from the General Fund unappropriated reserves to cover the cost of the analysis. 13. ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE (100 -2004) AED DEVICES. 1) Approve acceptance of public donations in the amount of $91,500 into Police Donations Account #1820 -5901 and increase revenue estimates by this amount; and 2) approve a budget amendment (04BA -051) appropriating $84,498.14 to Patrol Equipment, NOC Account #1830 -9300 and approve the expenditure of funds to purchase 55 HeartStart Defibrillators from the American Red Cross. 14. RELEASE OF SURETY FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED (100 -2004) FOR TRACT NO. 15829. 1) Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Tract No. 15829; 2) authorize the City Clerk to release faithful performance bond no. 410324 in the amount of $391,000 for on -site improvements and Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue off -site improvements; and 3) authorize the City Clerk to release labor and material bond no. 410324 in the amount of $391,000 for on -site improvements and Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue off -site improvements in six months provided no claims have been filed. 15. Removed at the request of Mayor Ridgeway. 16. APPOINTMENT BY MAYOR OF AD -HOC APPOINTMENTS (100 -2004) COMMITTEE TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR THE BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES SCHEDULED TO OCCUR ON JUNE 30, 2004. Confirm the Mayor's appointment of Council Member Bromberg, Mayor Pro Tern Adams and Mayor Ridgeway to serve on the ad- hoc appointments committee to review applications and make recommendations to the full Council for the Board and Commission vacancies scheduled to occur on June 30, 2004. 17. DISTRICT 5 APPOINTMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (100 -2004) AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. Confirm Council Member Bromberg's appointment of Walter Lazicki to the District 5 at -large seat. Volume 56 - Page 849 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX S24. BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR NEWPORT RIDGE: COST OF I (100 -2004) MAINTAINING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS. 1) Approve a budget amendment (04BA -055) in the amount of $151,653 to the City Manager's Professional and Technical Services account (0310 -8080) from unappropriated General Fund reserves; and 2) direct the City Manager to disperse funds in the amount of $151,653 to the Newport Ridge Community Association (NRCA). Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 15). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None J. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN PROPOSED ASSESSMENT Assessment DISTRICT NO. 75 BALBOA BUSINESS DISTRICT AND District No. 75/ DESIGNATION OF THIS AREA AS AN UNDERGROUND Balboa Business UTILITIES DISTRICT. District (89/100 -2004) Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing on the formation of Assessment District No. 75. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, asked if people are aware that Southern California Edison will not be allowed to dump whatever is in the vaults /transformers straight into the Harbor, and it will cost them more money. He believed that the general public said "no" to undergrounding utilities in this district, and asked if the City feels the public does not know best and that they should pay extra money for having underground utilities. He referenced an article in the Register about State bonds and asked if the reason for this is to have bonds so certain people can obtain money because of the undergrounding of utilities. He discussed a previous vote in which the public did not want the assessment but Mayor Ridgeway said we don't agree with this. He indicated that the cost does not seem justified and the will of the people is not being followed. He stated that heights of buildings seem to be overlooked, noting that the infrastructure can now have taller homes because of undergrounded utilities. Mayor Ridgeway announced that this public hearing is being held to hear protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention, Assessment Engineer's Report, proposed assessments and all other matters relating to Assessment District No. 75 (Balboa Business District), and for designation of the area as an underground utilities district. He noted that all written protests and ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. He stated that City Clerk Harkless announced that the notice of public hearing was given in the manner and form required by law. Volume 56 - Page 850 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX John Friedrich, GFB Friedrich & Associates, designated assessment engineer, stated that the confirmed assessment of $1,210,440.38 includes the Income Tax Component of Contribution (ITCC), but should be reduced by 7% or 8% if the ITCC is not used. He noted that it has never been used to date. He reported that it is possible for owners to reduce the amount if they pay all or a portion of the assessment in cash during the upcoming 30- day cash collection period. Mari Kosger, 502 E. Ocean Front, stated that she tried to get an estimate of how much more it would cost to do the undergrounding; however, she still did not get the information. She asked what good beautification is if she cannot afford to live there anymore. She noted that property taxes go up every year and believed they may go up more because of the improvements. She stated that there are a lot of big, old properties that are not paying anything towards this improvement and asked why they are exempt. Mayor Ridgeway reported that the assessment engineer and a Public Works engineer met with people in the interim to explain the assessment on their specific property. He indicated that he cannot answer property tax questions because that is set by the State Constitution. He stated that he would be happy to meet with Ms. Kosger and asked her to contact him tomorrow. He believed that the City may have the ability to provide hardship case loans that are spread out over 15 years. Ms. Kosger expressed the opinion that it is not proper to ask the landowners to pay for improvements on public streets. Mayor Ridgeway clarified that the assessment is for undergrounding the utilities which is a specific improvement to this district. Ms. Kosger asked why Edison couldn't pay for this when residents already pay for service each month. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that this happens because the property owners are the beneficiaries of the improvement. Robert Walchli, Corona del Mar, stated that he is happy that there is a program for low income people and suggested rolling these into bonds. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing. Following the tabulations of the ballots, City Clerk Harkless announced that there were 62 parcels that cast ballots for the total assessment amount of $691,942.12. She reported that 30 parcels submitted ballots in favor of the assessment for an assessment amount of $384,301.48 which represents 55.54 %; and there were 32 parcels that submitted ballots in opposition to the assessment for an assessment amount of $307,640.64 which represents 44.46 %. She announced that Assessment District No. 75 passed. Motion by Council Member Webb to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -33 approving contracts for utility improvements; adopt Resolution No. 2004- 34 declaring the results of the ballot tabulation, confirming the assessment, ordering the acquisition of improvement; approving the Assessment Engineer's Report, and designating the area an Underground Utilities District for Assessment District No. 75 Balboa Business District; approve a budget amendment (04BA -050) in anticipation of the formation Volume 56 - Page 851 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX and approval of Assessment District No. 75 since there were more `yes' votes than `no' votes submitted. The proposed budget amendment will increase revenue estimates by $1,141,671 and increase expenditure appropriations by $1,039,079. The difference of $100,227 will be utilized to establish a bond reserve of approximately $60,522 and $42,071 will be utilized to reimburse the City for past assessment engineering and design expenditures related to this district. The BA also appropriates $55,030 for the related assessment on City owned property. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None K. PUBLIC COMMENTS • Robert Walchli, Corona del Mar, referenced City Attorney Burnham's April 1 letter regarding 202 Fernleaf and believed that they found loopholes so the City does not need to enforce its own mandates. He indicated that the property owner changed the name of its third floor cabana to a stairway roof and now it does not need to be removed, even though a previous order was to have it removed. He believed that this sends a message to greedy developers that they can get away with whatever they want. Mr. Walchli indicated that he complained three years ago about landowners removing public park grass and replacing it with sticker bushes on the Ocean Boulevard bluff. He stated that he also mentioned that the City appears to have relinquished public property to private land owners at the south end of Ocean Boulevard. He noted that the sticker bushes still remain and there are public park encroachment issues all over the City. He requested that the City recover all public parks or potential park land on Ocean Boulevard, and also requested that this be included in the review of Irvine Terrace. He stated that he will deliver a request to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission in a few days regarding park recovery and brush abatement on the bluff. • Jim Walker, Director of Stop Tobacco Abuse of Minors Pronto, requested that the City consider and have a study session about adopting smoke free beaches. He stated that this matter has been getting overwhelming support and indicated that he has been working on a lot of these initiatives. He reported that not only was the vote 15 to 0 to have this in 38 miles of beach in Los Angeles, but there was no public opposition. He stated that, in ten years, the opposition has been reduced to next to nothing. He indicated that the people who talk about civil liberties are talking about a drug addiction. He indicated that the direct and indirect cost of tobacco use in this State is $15.8 billion a year. He stated that he hopes this can be reduced. Volume 56 - Page 852 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX Ellie Urbumbech, current President of the Earth Resource Foundation at Newport Harbor High School; Carolyn Williamson, President next year; and Amanda Green, Vice President next year, expressed how important a smoking ban would be for the community, noting that they continue to pick up over 10,000 cigarette butts at every beach cleanup. Further, they emphasized the health hazards of secondhand smoke. They indicated that, by eliminating smoking at the beaches and piers, the City will also eradicate the harmful effects that cigarette butts have on the environment. They stated that the entire beach does not need to be smoke free all at once but the City can start with smaller areas. They suggested having the ban go down the entire coast and having the police enforce it. Mayor Ridgeway asked where the 10,000 cigarette butts came from. Ms. Urbumbech reported that they were collected around the Newport Pier on April 17. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he spoke to the Police Chief and the lifeguards who indicated that they would not enforce this law because they do not have the manpower. He believed that the goal is very laudable but expressed concern about the high expectations put on other people at the beach. He indicated that he does not want the lifeguards to police this matter because they are too busy saving lives. Council Member Rosansky noted that there are smoking restrictions in many areas in public life. He stated that, when the ban on smoking in restaurants started, everyone predicted a disaster. However, he pointed out that there weren't police officers enforcing this and today there is no smoking in restaurants. He agreed that he does not see police officers and lifeguards enforcing this, but he believed that smokers are responsible people and would follow the ban voluntarily without enforcement. He encouraged staff to bring back a report so Council can look at it more in depth in the future. Council Member Heffernan agreed with Council Member Rosansky and believed that this should've been done last November. He asked staff to look at this especially since they have a model from two cities. He reported that the Bay has also become a convenient ashtray and stated that this should set the tone. Council Member Bromberg believed that most people are supportive of this. He stated that he favors staff looking at this and giving Council a true reality about enforcement. He stated that he can't compare the beach to a restaurant or public building, and it's worth looking into if the police department says they can do some type of enforcement. Maddie Dierkes, Newport Harbor High School Surf and Environmental Class, presented petitions to have smoke free beaches and piers. She stated that their class was appalled by what they saw during the beach cleanup. She reported that they just came from a press conference at the Newport Pier and received a lot of support from the press and others. Dennis Baker, Newport Bay Naturalist and Friends, invited everyone to participate in the Great Earth Walk on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. He announced that the First Estuary Awareness Day will also be held from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Volume 56 - Page 853 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 mayor niageway reported that he signed a letter today inviting the Head of Appropriations for the master dredge to visit the estuary. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, suggested making a dog beach like at Huntington Beach. He referenced the City's webpage, stating that there are shore moorings in the Grand Canal. He noted that the City removed a ladder at that location prior to putting up the City's ladder. He displayed photos. Jessie Lowe, Newport Harbor High School Earth Resource Foundation Campus Cleanup Coordinator, believed that people would respect a smoke free beaches law and that most smokers are responsible. She stated that smokers are a minority and emphasized that action needs to be taken. L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Status report — Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee (GPUC). No report. Status report — Local Coastal Program Certification Committee. 'Mayor Ridgeway reported that the LCP was approved by the Planning Commission and will be coming to Council in May. Status report — Newport Coast Advisory Committee. Council Member Heffernan reported that their next meeting is May 3 at the Newport Coast Elementary School to discuss The Irvine Company giving the City its preliminary development site plans for the new hotel where the existing Pelican Hills Golf Course is located and to discuss where the Southern California Edison poles should be located in Los Trancos Canyon. Status report — Mariners Joint Use Library Ad Hoc Steering Comrnittee. Council Member Webb reported that the groundbreaking ceremony will take place on Thursday, June 10 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Status report — Other Committee Activities. Council Member Heffernan reported that the Telecommunications Committee will be meeting on April 29 to deal with the right -of -way ordinance. He indicated that Verizon and Sprint are planning to have new sites in the City, noting that the City would act as a landlord to the sites. Council Member Heffernan reported that the Finance Committee met on April 20. He stated that staff presented the top budget issues that have come to surface during the budget presentations to date. He stated that they also looked at how the budget was going to be presented to Council and the public, and security for wire transfers and bills being paid electronically. Council Member Nichols reported that EQAC discussed the central park project at the 405 Freeway and Jamboree Road in Irvine, and St. Andrew Church's proposal to build a gymnasium and an underground parking garage. M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT 19. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APRIL 22, 2004. Volume 56 - Page 854 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 Ylannmg lllrector Temple reported that Item 3 (Josh Slocum's Dinner and Supper Club) was continued. Regarding Item 2 (mural at 3732 E. Coast Highway), Ms. Temple reported that the Commission determined that, by removing certain components, the artwork would be considered a mural and not a sign. Regarding Item 4 (Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan), Ms. Temple reported that the Commission recommended approval of the item. She stated that it will be coming before Council for review on May 25. Regarding Item 5 (Appeal and Call for Review Procedures), Ms. Temple reported that the Commission thought that procedures could be set to allow continued single Commissioner appeals of staff approvals and suggested some procedures to enable them to continue the 14 -day appeal period. She indicated that staff and the City Attorney's office will be working on those procedures. She believed that this will come before Council on May 25. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, Ms. Temple believed that the Commission felt that Council should determine its own number to conduct an appeal. She stated that the Commission can only appeal or call up items acted on by staff, that there is a high volume of those, that time was of the essence, and to get them scheduled it would be more effective to continue the procedure which permits only one Commissioner to call up a staff recommendation. Council Member Nichols indicated that he tried to download the Commission minutes from the webpage but couldn't and stated that he didn't get a copy of the action minutes. He believed that Council should also see Modification Committee approvals. Ms. Temple reported that they distribute Modification Committee actions and other staff actions in the Weekend Report which is distributed every week. She noted that the minutes from this Commission meeting are still being prepared. Further, the reason for the oral report tonight and the supplemental report distributed last Friday is to inform Council about what was on the Commission's agenda and their actions. N. CONTINUED BUSINESS 20. MEASURE S GUIDELINES - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (contd. from March 23, 2004). City Attorney Burnham stated that the March 23 discussion focused on the guideline provisions with regard to approvals and how to measure floor area for certain uses like hotels and theaters that are entitled. He reported that a lawsuit was filed after the meeting seeking a declaration. He clarified that the term "approval" means that Council needs to vote an amendment up or down before it is submitted to the voters. He reported that the lawsuit also seeks a declaration that Measure S requires Council to entitle all commercial uses in terms of floor area /intensity. Mr. Burnham noted that Council asked the City Attorney's office to clarify a number of the guideline provisions. He stated that there was an error in Volume 56 - Page 855 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX Exhibit C (Approval). He explained that the staff report states that the text in Exhibit C is inconsistent with the contract with Sutherland Talla regarding Marinapark. However, the way Exhibit C reads, it actually is not inconsistent with the City's existing contractual obligations. He clarified that Exhibit C generally states that Council's approval of the amendment does not adopt the amendment, but simply refers it to the voters. Further, the approval would take place after Council certifies the environmental document and after hearings before the Planning Commission and Council, and that any land use approval that is processed concurrently with the General Plan Amendment (GPA) would not become effective until the voters approve the amendment. Mr. Burnham referenced Exhibit E (Floor Area) and stated that they discovered that the General Plan allows different floor areas depending on the uses of commercial properties. He indicated that the base line will be used in cases when staff is trying to compare what someone is asking for versus what someone presently has under the General Plan. He stated that he has also tried to deal with floor area issues as it relates to hotels and theaters, noting that he presented two alternatives which use the estimated growth table: 1) where the current entitlement in the General Plan is either the number in the estimated growth table or what is on the ground, whichever is greater; or 2) adopt the last sentence in Alternative A or Alternative B which states that amendments for special uses that have not been approved prior to the effective date of these guidelines would be stated in terms of both floor area and the unit of measurement used in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual. He clarified that report actually mentions the trip rate table which is derived from the ITE Manual. Council Member Heffernan believed that Exhibit C is different than Section 423 of the Charter. Mr. Burnham stated that the new Exhibit C does not talk about the form that approves the action, but talks about what approval means. Regarding Marinapark, he believed that this language does not affect what the City currently has in regard to a contractual obligation. He pointed out that, in March 2003, Council adopted an amendment to the exclusive negotiating agreement with Sutherland Talla that said the City would put this on the ballot and Council is not going to vote for its approval or disapproval. He added that Greenlight provides that the City can schedule an election pursuant to an agreement. Council Member Heffernan asked if this proposed project falls within Greenlight which the voters have to approve. Mr. Burnham noted that he wrote a staff report in March that says that, in the event the GPA was phrased as other hotels have been phrased in the past, it would probably not require a Greenlight vote based upon the existing guidelines and since the preliminary traffic numbers show that it did not trip the 100 peak hour trip threshold. He indicated that the staff report did not say that it did not require a Greenlight vote because it still has not been decided how the ballot language is going to be phrased. He emphasized that Section 423 does not amend the General Plan, but requires certain amendments to be submitted to the voters. Further, he believed that it does not mandate that Council phrase amendments to the General Plan after Measure S differently than it did before Measure S. He indicated that he is proposing in Exhibit E that, from this point on, Council would entitle hotels and Volume 56 - Page 856 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX theaters in terms of rooms or seats and the floor area encompassed by the project. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, stated that the people should be paramount, they should have a voice, and Council should listen to what they want. He asked if it is Council's intent to contradict what the public would like. He hoped that Council will take a look at what the will of the people is. Phil Arst, Greenlight representative, presented Council with a letter, stating that the Greenlight committee is devoted to maintaining the right of people to vote on major developments that impact the City, quality of life, and traffic. He stated that they are part of the three major parties in the lawsuit and reported that their attorney told them that the court has scheduled a management conference on July 22. He requested a continuance and asked that Council create a three member committee to work towards a solution that consists of one Council Member, a Greenlight representative, and John Buttolph as the neutral third party. Mr. Arst stated that they oppose the changed last sentence in Exhibit A because it grants Council power to change the guidelines; however, Mr. Burnham indicated that the court will decide. He stated that Exhibit E has a contradictory definition, explaining that the old hotel language is included in the copy of Measure S that he has. Mr. Burnham clarified that, if Council adopted the language in the staff report, they would have to clarify Subsection D which defines entitlement in terms of floor area, as well as the trip rate table. He indicated that he may not agree that it is inconsistent, but the language can be clarified so there would not be the potential for inconsistency. Mr. Arst believed that Exhibit E is complex. He pointed out that his letter discusses Mr. Buttolph's wording and their approach. He stated that they also think there needs to be a statement that covers situations when the land use has changed. He referenced Exhibit B (Allowed Uses) and stated that "allowed uses" and "proposed uses" are contrasting terms that should be defined together to clarify the different meanings. He noted that their proposed language is included in the letter. Regarding Exhibit D (Non- residential Use Category), he stated that it seems confusing to define "non- residential" when "residential" is clearly defined. He pointed out that "limited care" and "group homes" are taken out, but believed they should be included somewhere. In Exhibit F (Procedures), Mr. Arst stated that it missed the point that prior amendments to the 80% accumulation rule only apply to the same statistical area and that they were adopted without voter approval. Mr. Arst suggested continuing this to June to give the committee a chance to work this out. Council Member Webb asked where 40,000 square feet came from as a definition for intensity. Mr. Arst stated that Allan Beek did a survey of the General Plans over the last ten years. He explained that they didn't want to have to cast a vote on everything that came up but only on major projects. He stated that, if the threshold was set at 40,000 square feet, most of the GPAs would not have had to go to a public vote. He noted that Volume 56 - Page 857 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX this number had nothing to do with traffic. Council Member Webb asked if the 40,000 square feet is in addition to what is already on the ground. Mr. Arst stated that this is for changes that are over and above the entitlement of the property. Council Member Webb asked if a vote would be triggered if an 80,000 square foot hotel was going to be 110,000 square feet. Mr. Arst stated that, if it is only 30,000 square feet and it is already entitled, the project would not be subject to a Greenlight vote. Council Member Webb noted that there is close to 79,000 square feet of development on the Marinapark site, and with the new hotel development there will be about 110,000 square feet. He stated that it seems that Mr. Arst is trying to focus on increased square footage, not a specific use. Mr. Arst pointed out that the mobile homes are a temporary use according to the General Plan. Further, the estimated entitlement table for the future is 0 square feet. He explained that only 13,000 square feet is permitted at Marinapark and, therefore, is subject to a vote. Mayor Pro Tom Adams noted that Mr. Burnham provided options to deal with establishing the existing entitlement for hotels. He asked Mr. Arst which one he favors. Mr. Arst believed that hotel rooms are 1,000 square feet. Mr. Burnham clarified that they found that rooms were not 1,000 square feet, but were close. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that this should be the number from the table or what is on the ground, whichever is greater. Mr. Arst indicated that they are concerned about recommending what is in the table and having it fixed in the guidelines. Mayor Pro Tem Adams clarified that he is talking about the existing General Plan entitlement. Mr. Arst stated that he hadn't thought about it that way. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that, if he is going to impose something other than trips on hotels, the existing entitlement has to be dealt with. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Adams' question, Mr. Arst indicated that there are more than ten people on the Greenlight committee. Mayor Pro Tem Adams noted that Mr. Arst said he would work with the City; however, the article in the Daily Pilot was inflammatory and had a lot of rhetoric, and he made assertions that Council was making personal attacks on him. He assured everyone that he has been trying to honestly work on this issue, but then Mr..Arst comes to meetings and pretends there is a wonderful working relationship. Council Member Nichols stated that Council is using the fact that Marinapark is zoned as open space to get rid of the trailers. Mayor Ridgeway emphasized that this is not clear and that the State Lands Commission has said there cannot be any residential use on tidelands. Further, the property is owned by the State and the City is the trustee of it. Mr. Burnham reported that the State Lands Commission staff has evidence that a large portion of the parcel is tidelands that was filled by dredged spoils. He noted that there has not been an official determination that it is tidelands, but it is one of the few parcels in the Lower Bay that does not have an adjudicated line of mean high tide. He reported that he has seen the State Lands Commission's evidence and emphasized that there has not been any sale of adjacent property that would change the character of the property. He added that, if the property were tidelands, it can only be sold by the State if there is a patent. Council Member Nichols Volume 56 - Page 858 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX noted that it actually cannot be sold because it's public property. Mr. Burnham reported that the State Lands Commission has the authority to remove the use restrictions applicable to tidelands upon certain findings, as they did with Beacon Bay and portions of properties in the Lower Bay. However, as a general rule, the permanent residential use of tidelands is prohibited by the Public Trust Doctrine. Council Member Nichols believed that the existing square footage is not being treated consistently. Mr. Burnham believed that Council Member Webb's point was that there is existing development on the parcel. He stated that Measure S is consistent in that you compare what the land use element presently entitles versus the proposed intensity. He confirmed that the existing entitlement on the Marinapark parcel is zero and any development that exceeds 40,000 square feet would be subject to a Greenlight vote. Council Member Nichols stated that this is complicated and the language of Section 423 seems simple. He expressed concern with only looking at traffic counts and believed that Section 423 is a truer picture of what the City is facing. He suggested postponing this so there is some agreement before conducting a vote. John Buttolph stated that he has studied the Measure S guidelines over the last six months, particularly the definition of approval, the meaning of approval, and the interpretation of intensity as it applies to hotels. He indicated that he has worked with Mr. Burnham about his concerns. Regarding Exhibit C, he believed that Council exceeded its authority under Section 423 by entering into an agreement with Mr. Sutherland. He urged Council to include language that states that a majority of Council has voted in favor of the amendment. Regarding Exhibit E, he commended Mr. Burnham on his definitions and for addressing how each one of the baselines is to be used in calculating an allowable increase. However, he expressed concern over the treatment of hotels and theaters. He stated that the closest definition to his views is Mr. Burnham's Alternative A, but stated that he has a concern with what future Councils might do to the estimated growth table. He suggested that there be wording which states that hotels and theaters will be entitled on the basis of 1,000 square feet per hotel room and 15 square feet per theater seat, or the amount of floor area existing on the parcel at the time the application is filed, whichever is greater. He believed that Greenlight cannot be used to roll back an existing title. Further, he expressed concern with the language that attempts to exempt Marinapark from the application. He added that he does not understand this language. Council Member Bromberg stated that they have seen things that have been approved by past Councils not go through as easily now, and vice versa. He indicated that Mr. Buttolph has a valid point, but that would be valid with just about anything they deal with. He asked what he would think if this was resolved through a settlement agreement issue -by- issue. Litigation aside, Mr. Buttolph stated that a settlement agreement is something he could support. However, it is his understanding that the litigation was filed because the Greenlight steering committee proposed a tolling agreement on the statute of limitations to raise a defense. He noted Volume 56 - Page 859 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX that ms concern is to nave an objective standard for intensity, not just traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the 1,000 square feet come from the ITE data and the measurement of trips versus actual hotels is where the trip generation rates lie. He indicated that there are a number of classifications for hotels in the table that have been referred to in the procedures, and by definition the average square foot for each one of those facilities differs. He stated that, over time, the ITE has developed more specific data for specific land uses. Further, the 1,000 square feet per room that was associated with the trip rate for hotels was generic and applied to different facilities early on, and only recently has more data become available. He stated that the average square foot per room varies significantly as does the trip generation rates. He indicated that the City needs to be fair with this, especially to existing hotels that have entitlement when it tries to determine the intensity issue for them. Additionally, the City needs to be careful how it establishes this for future uses, acknowledging that there are various classifications. Mr. Burnham stated that he forgot about the classification of uses in the trip rate table. He indicated that, if Council adopts these guidelines that establishes a baseline floor area for hotels, they are clarifying the General Plan that could impact the property rights of those hotels. He believed that the facilities that are currently entitled in terms of rooms are entitled to know what is going on and should be able to weigh in. Regarding the tolling agreement, Mr. Burnham stated that he is willing to talk with Mr. Arst and Mr. Buttolph and have a Council Member present. Further, he believed they can reach an agreement about floor area and what is consistent with the purpose and intent of Measure S, and then present it to Council. He clarified that he felt that the tolling agreement was inappropriate because the guidelines apply to everyone, are not Greenlight guidelines, and are not to be negotiated with any specific group. He believed that it should all be done in public where everyone who is potentially affected by these guidelines can have their say and have Council make a decision they feel is appropriate. Mayor Ridgeway stated that Mr. Buttolph felt in March 2003 that Council exceeded its authority by taking a vote on an agreement that was agendized, noticed, and information was provided. He noted that Section 423 was not considered since it was just an action by Council to take the Marinapark project and refer it to a general vote. Mr. Buttolph stated that, if Council has independent authority that allows them to refer directly to the electorate for a GPA, then they have independent authority and he is not here to tell Council that Measure S prevents it. He indicated that this is a legal issue that exceeds his present knowledge of the law. He believed that this could not be done under Section 423 because it states that the electorate votes after Council approval of the amendment. Council Member Rosansky asked Mr. Buttolph, if Council had independent authority to submit the amendment to a vote, whether the Measure S guidelines would require an additional vote. Mr. Buttolph did not know. Mr. Burnham stated that his office and Chris Taylor of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger reviewed whether Council exceeded its authority under Volume 56 - Page 860 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX Measure S, and both believe that Council is acting within its authority. However, the real intent of Measure S is to have measures considered by the electorate that are significant to the community. He noted that Council was presented with a situation that preceded the actual drafting of the language and was looking at the guidelines that were adopted in good faith by Council in 2001. He indicated that, if you follow the last 30 years of practice in entitling hotels, Marinapark would not have required a Greenlight vote. He stated that the size of the project, its location, the fact that it is on public property, and it is potentially tidelands went into a decision to tell the electorate that the City feels it is important and they should vote on it at a time when they could expect the maximum possible turnout, which is November 2004. He indicated that he did not expect anyone to have an issue with the manner in which the project was submitted to the voters. He believed that Council took the extra step to make sure that this project was going to a vote of the people. Further, the project proponent concurred at that time. Council Member Heffernan noted that he voted against that and believed that Greenlight wanted Council to approve it first and then submit it because it would've gone through all the Planning Commission and Council hearings. He stated that the people will know who voted yes or no, and it will be submitted to the voters after there is a complete project. He indicated that now there will be a quasi vote and then it'll go through hearings. He expressed concern that the voters might approve something in November but then it becomes something else after the hearings. Mr. Burnham clarified that Council did not make the decision a year ago with a different process in mind than what is being followed. He noted that Council said it wanted this processed as any other GPA. Further, a full environmental impact report (EIR) would be prepared that would be certified before it was placed on the ballot and the City would prepare a fiscal impact report. He emphasized that voters would not just have the normal information, but would know the fiscal impact. Council Member Heffernan reported that absentee ballots go out in October which means there is not a lot of time to get everything done. Mr. Burnham concurred that there is a lot of work that needs to be done and a lot of information that needs to be presented first to Council and then to the electorate. He reported that the EIR has been circulated for public comments and a notice of completion was prepared on Friday. Council Member Webb asked if Council can take a GPA to a vote since Newport Beach is a charter city. Mr. Burnham indicated that they are looking into this. Mr. Burnham believed that anyone who wants to meet to reach an agreement on the floor area issues can do that, noting that Mr. Arst will be leaving the country the latter part of May. He stated that getting language that everyone can agree upon and submit to Council would help eliminate the issues that Council has to consider and would reduce the scope of the litigation. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to continue the item to a date determined by staff. Volume 56 - Page 861 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX Mayor Ridgeway stated that he would like to be involved in the floor area discussions. Council Member Bromberg noted that the City is in litigation right now, but Section 1152 of the Evidence Code says that these kinds of discussions cannot be brought up later against either party in court. He requested that the maker of the motion add into the motion that these discussions are subject to Section 1152 of the Evidence Code. Mr. Burnham stated that this would not be applicable in this case. He reiterated that Council wants to do what it believes is consistent with the spirit and purpose of Measure S. He noted that this process began before the litigation was filed. He stated that he feels comfortable that we can engage in good faith discussions and that this is going to be a purely legal issue since there is no factual decision to be made by the court. Robert Walchli believed that the reason Greenlight occurred was because a majority of voters did not feel the City was heading in the direction they wanted and government wasn't listening to them. He stated that he hopes the City will continue to work with Greenlight so it doesn't cost them a lot of money in litigation. Further, he hoped that this is simplified so people can understand it. Mr. Burnham stated that he tried to make it as simple as possible, but the Land Use Element has idiosyncrasies that have to be reflected in the guidelines. He stated that they will try to make it simpler over time. Council Member Rosansky asked who will be involved in the discussions. Mr. Burnham believed that it would involve Mr. Arst, Mr. Buttolph, Mayor Ridgeway, himself, and any other Council Member who wants to participate. He stated that he intends to send a letter to businesses or property owners that have hotel entitlements to explain what is going to be discussed. Further, he will try to talk to their local representatives and see if they can get some input. Council Member Rosansky asked if those are the only stakeholders that need to attend these meetings. He noted that there are a number of other uses in the trip rate table that are entitled other than in terms of floor area. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that language needs to be created that establishes a link between average square footage and the trip rate for specific uses. However, there will be times where there is not a lot of data points to establish the relationship between square footage and the independent variable. He believed that they will have to approach this generically instead of just for hotel uses. Mr. Burnham noted that they have used a number for hotels and theaters, but agreed that a number needs to be set in the estimated growth table as one of the factors that Council would consider to determine the baseline. Regarding the other uses in the trip rate table that are entitled other than in terms of floor area, he suggested reviewing these on a case -by -case basis, talking about simple principals, and letting Council make the decision if and when an amendment involving any of those uses comes up. Council Member Rosansky asked if it was appropriate to have the Planning Department prepare a report that would examine the General Plan for uses that are not specifically stated. Mr. Burnham reported that the General Plan has some very broad categories and examples of uses; however, those examples aren't exclusive. He stated that a lot of the uses Volume 56 - Page 862 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 that would potentially be entitled in terms other than floor area are not likely to come to Newport Beach. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None O. CURRENT BUSINESS 21. CORONA DEL MAR STATE BEACH IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS. Council Member Nichols believed that the project has changed from what people have seen, noting that there are also three options that he has not seen. Assistant City Manager Kiff reported that someone is sending out an email with documents that were circulated about two years ago. He stated that Council has since settled on a plan that does not have three options. He indicated that the email expressed concerns about the placement of volleyball nets and fire rings; however, that is not addressed in this plan. He confirmed that Council's authorization for funding is only based on the amount of money coming in. Regarding the drawing, Council Member Nichols stated that there seems to be a lot of vegetation and asked if these are trees. Mayor Ridgeway noted that this item is just to approve a bid advertisement, and not to look at the design since this project has already been approved. He suggested that he meet with Principal Civil Engineer Dalton to go over the plans. Principal Civil Engineer Dalton explained that about $950,000 is available for award today. He stated that they are proposing to have the contractor submit two bids - one to construct a facility they could fund with the money available today and the other to construct the entire redevelopment of the facility if additional funds come in between now and the time the award is made on June 22. If funds are made available, he stated that Council will provide direction on whether to build just a portion of the facility or the entire redevelopment. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to 1) affirm the categorical exemption for this project; and 2) direct staff to advertise this project for bid. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, hoped that the advertisement is less confusing to the general public and that, when this is brought before the general public, it is more clarified. He added that he hopes there is not a lot of cost overrun. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 56 - Page 863 INDEX C -3461 Corona del Mar State Beach Improvements (38/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 22. CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION — HEIGHT REGULATIONS (PA2004 -022). Planning Director Temple clarified that Title 20 of the municipal code states that initiation of consideration to the code requires a resolution of intention by either the Planning Commission or Council. She stated that this is a generalized and broad initiation. She reported that they will also pursue community outreach. Council Member Bromberg indicated that the direction given at today's study session was to form a committee. He asked if the committee can meet and, if there is a determination to make some changes, whether they can come back and do this. Ms. Temple indicated that they could do that. She stated that, if Council does not want to pursue anything after the committee meets, this will die anyway. She stated that Council should probably have another study session if something comes out of the committee meeting. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, believed that this is a result of underground utilities. He believed that the fire station on Balboa Island was relocated on the Island, even though it was supposed to be off the Island, which set parameters on how tall homes were supposed to be in Newport Beach. He stated that homes are being constructed and all of a sudden height has to be looked at. He indicated that Newport Beach doesn't want three story homes, but now there are allowances for three story homes. He questioned if Council is following the will of the people or if it is trying to make money. He asked if the City is changing the height requirements so it can get underground utilities and issue bonds so certain people can make more money from those that can't afford it. Mr. Hildreth stated that he wants to stay here but taller homes cause the air to be stagnant and creates an environment in which people don't want to talk to each other. He believed that the agreement the general public made in the early 1970s /early 1960s for height requirements should be upheld. Nigel Bailey, Corona del Mar, realtor representing Marsh Development, noted that he spoke at the study session. He expressed concern about changing the imaginary roof extension without a reasonable grace period. He reported that his client is submitting plans to the Planning Department but is being told that the things the Modification Committee approved will likely not be approved. He stated that it is not fair to change the rules midstream, noting that this is a change in interpretation and not code. He requested that a reasonable grace period be given. Steve High, property owner in Corona del Mar and Newport Beach, President of Strada Properties, encouraged Council to consider bringing this to a public vote before taking action on the height restrictions and the current interpretations of the height restrictions, or postpone this until the Volume 56 - Page 864 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX parties who will be most affected have an opportunity to grasp the situation. Mayor Ridgeway stated that they discussed this thoroughly at the study session. He explained that this is just an initiation which is a housekeeping item. He stated that the process would take at least a year and added that he did not believe it would make it that far. Council Member Webb stated that he would like to make the motion with the understanding that staff is reviewing this with a committee of interested parties to clarify and maybe simplify the existing regulations so it can be easier on staff and the architectural community in implementing the process. Mayor Ridgeway added that there were a number of architects at the study session who did not like this. Motion by Council Member Webb adopt Resolution No. 2004 -35 initiating the amendment to Title 20 of the NBMC. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Mayor Ridgeway recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:10 p.m. with all members of the City Council in attendance. 23. G -1 POLICY REVIEW. (100 -2004) General Services Director Niederhaus reported that Appendices A, B and C were missing from the Negative Declaration. He stated that copies were distributed this evening and the document has been updated. Further, the draft response to the Negative Declaration was replaced by the final version on Friday. He noted that five more pieces of correspondence have come in since the staff report was distributed, but pointed out that one of those was already attached to the original report. Mr. Niederhaus utilized a PowerPoint presentation and reported that the City has 40,000 trees and, according to the 2003 inventory, the City has 31,500 trees and Newport Coast has the remainder. He stated that the value of 31,500 trees is $70 million. He reported that the trees range from $200 to $49,000, of which both those priced trees are located at City Hall. He indicated that the inventory was conducted throughout the City and it not only located the trees, but placed them on a GIS map. He reported that, from 1991 to 2003, the inventory grew from 21,000 to 31,500. Mr. Neiderhaus stated that Council can either approve the revisions to the G -1 policy as recommended by the Ad Hoc Tree Committee, retain the policy or make changes to the proposed provisions. He reviewed the recommendations. He reported that the G -1 policy has been amended 11 times since 1967. He believed that they are proposing a more durable policy. He stated that the most recent G -1 policy consideration started in December 2002. He reported that in March 2003, Council appointed the Volume 56 - Page 865 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX unair of the Yarlcs, neacnes & 1Cecreation Lommission, Debra Allen, to select two Commissioners (Tobin and Skoro) to the tree committee. He stated that they met seven times between April 1 and October 7, 2003, and minutes and records were kept. He indicated that the tree committee presented its recommendation at the August 26 study session and Council directed staff to bring this to the September 9 regular meeting. He reported that Council brought up seven issues that they wanted the committee to look at again. He stated that staff brought back the ficus tree maintenance staff report on October 14. He believed that the proposed G -1 policy will be a more flexible policy and provide more balance to meet the community's need against the needs of the urban forest. Mr. Niederhaus reported that the City spends $2 million a year trying to take care of the urban forest and the damage it causes. He noted that sidewalk damage has occurred at about 6,500 locations and money is spent more on infrastructure repair rather than managing the forest since they cannot remove the problem trees according to the current policy. Mr. Niederhaus displayed a breakdown of tree costs, including tree trimming, repairs, and claims. He stated that the City is spending $50,000 to $60,000 for root pruning and annual trimming. He also displayed an overview of the claims received the past 6' /s years. He explained that oftentimes they can do a tree removal and the claimant will drop their monetary claim. He noted that the costs also include personnel and pointed out that pesticides have doubled the past year. He stated that trees can create the need for curb and gutter repairs, damage water and sewer lines, and create standing water problems. Mr. Niederhaus pointed out that the City has a master tree plan which describes which species to use, a designated street tree list so there is a uniform treescape for the various areas in the City, a street tree bible to help place trees that cause the least amount of damage, five policies that direct staff on how to deal with trees, views, and encroachments, ordinances that deal with planning and parkway tree requirements, and an Urban Forester. He stated that 30 trees were removed and 148 trees were planted as of March 4. He indicated that this represents .001% of the urban forest removed per year, which is considerably less than what there would be through natural loss. Following the Council meetings and the tree committee meetings, Mr. Niederhaus stated that an outside firm was hired to conduct an environmental review. He indicated that Dudek & Associates' study resulted in a Negative Declaration being prepared and noted that Joe Monaco of Dudek & Associates is present tonight. He reported that the proposed revisions in the Negative Declaration will not result in a significant environmental impact since they don't believe that the potential loss of trees will exceed 470 trees per year which will not be a significant loss to the total inventory of trees. Regarding slower growing replacement trees, he stated that they believe that the urban forest will continue to grow under the revised G -1 Policy. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the proposed policy retains checks and balances since there are a lot of steps that would need to happen prior to removing a tree. He emphasized that the purpose of the policy revision is to provide more flexibility and allow the various decision levels to review and decide whether to retain or Volume 56 - Page 866 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 remove a tree. INDEX Mr. Niederhaus concluded by stating that the revised G -1 policy would be more flexible and decentralized, and allow the Urban Forester to do his job and work with citizens in conserving one of the City's most valuable natural resources. Regarding claims, Council Member Heffernan asked what determines which trees are removed after a claim is paid. Mr. Niederhaus stated that the Risk Manager confers with the Claims Adjuster who settles the claims, the Urban Forester prepares a tree removal form which goes to him for a recommendation, is forwarded to the City Attorney, and then is looked at by the City Manager. Council Member Heffernan asked if the proposed policy changes the process. Mr. Niederhaus stated that the process would remain the same except that the review process would only involve the Urban Forester and City Manager in cases that involve problem trees. He indicated that the process takes about two weeks, but the process may be expedited based on the amount of the claim and whether the claimant is willing to not accept monetary reimbursement in lieu of the tree being removed. Council Member Heffernan noted that staff initially recommended a 36- inch box tree, but it was reduced to 24 inches for some circumstances. Mr. Niederhaus reported that staff is an advocate of 24 -inch box replacement trees for problem trees and reforestations because it becomes more adapted, grows more rapidly, and catches up with the 36 -inch box tree. He clarified that they are recommending 36 -inch box trees for all other and special trees because those are the larger, more mature trees. He stated that larger trees should be replaced with 36 -inch box trees if it can be done safely and economically. Council Member Webb stated that a lot of the problem trees create beautiful canopies and make the neighborhood what it is. He expressed concern that, if there was a reforestation project with one or two trees and the trees are problem trees, the City is going to plant 24 -inch box trees. He noted that he does not live in a view community, their views are the canopies, and if you make it easier to take out problem trees which takes their views away then there is a problem. He asked if it would be easier to work on a maintenance program that trims these trees and conducts root pruning more often in areas where there are no view problems. He reported that the Castaways Development planted eucalyptus trees on Dover Drive about ten years and they are still so small that they cannot even hold themselves up. He added that the jacaranda trees are barely surviving. He believed that the street trees are slow growing which is why the City does not have root or trimming problems. In spite of claims, he expressed the opinion that taking out beautiful trees and replacing them with slow growing trees is the wrong thing to do in communities that don't have view problems. Mr. Niederhaus stated that they are not advocating the wholesale removal of problem trees. He reported that they are in their second year of remediation for annual trimmings, root pruning, and barriers for ficus trees. He indicated that there has been good progress but they have no proof that it's reducing the claims; however, they are willing to work with that. He noted that only 600 of the 3,700 parkway ficus trees Volume 56 - Page 867 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX are causing damage. He emphasized that they are concentrating on saving as many of those trees as possible. He stated that, when there is a claim for $100,000 or $200,000, they would remove the tree and replace it with one that would not cause damage to avoid the cost of the claim. Council Member Webb stated that the City does need to continue with the maintenance program. Council Member Rosansky asked why the policy states that replacement trees of a 24 -inch box may be planted if funding permits, but replacement is mandatory for other trees. Mr. Niederhaus stated that funding is a factor, reporting that they normally receive about $50,000 a year for reforestation but they generally run out of money about six months into the year. He explained that mandatory removal can be done because it is a requirement under reforestation that the requester pay for the removal and replacement of the tree. However, under "all other" they feel that the tree should be replaced because they are almost always dealing with a large, mature tree which would be replaced with a 36 -inch box tree. He noted that problem trees can either be replaced by the City if there is money to replace it or the requestor can pay for the replacement. He reported that the tree committee had strong public comments about making the replacement tree a 24 -inch box tree and making replacement an option. He added that a problem tree may be in a place where the City does not want to plant a replacement because it may violate another policy regarding placement, i.e. being too close to a stop sign or in an alley approach. Council Member Rosansky asked if the policy should include another finding to that effect. Debra Allen, Chair of the Ad Hoc Tree Committee and Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, stated that problem trees are species of tree that the City is not going to replant and are not on the recommended tree list. She noted that the City Manager has the authority to remove a maximum of 250 problem trees a year but cannot remove them without notifying the Council Member in that district. She showed photos of trees in Harbor View Hills and presented them to Council. She noted that the photos show that problem trees are not always big and also show what a vast majority of ficus trees in the view neighborhoods look like. She noted that the purpose of the view provisions are to enable the homeowner associations and neighborhoods without associations to have a user - friendly way to come to the City and ask to pay the City to take out a problem tree and replace it with the designated street tree. She reported that Harbor View Hills South residents were so enthusiastic about the opportunity to pay the City to remove trees that they have had additional people ask if they could reforest their problem tree and replant the street tree. Council Member Rosansky stated that he does not have a problem with removing problem trees, but asked why replacing these trees is discretionary as opposed to being mandatory. Ms. Allen reported that the problem trees that are being replaced in the view communities are being replaced at the expense of the homeowner association that is adjacent to the tree. She stated that the language Council Member Rosansky is referring to is for situations in which the City takes out a tree because the City wants to take the tree out, but does not have the funding to replace it. She noted that the City Manager has the authority to take the tree out and he is also the person that puts together the budget. Council Member Rosansky believed that in Volume 56 - Page 868 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX any case wnere a tree is removed, another tree should be planted unless there is a finding that particular locations are not suitable for any tree. Ms. Allen stated that these instances are extremely rare. Ms. Allen reported that the tree committee held seven public hearings, heard testimony from hundreds of people, took over 16 hours of testimony, PB &R had two public hearings, and this issue used a lot of staff and their time. She noted that only 29 trees were removed and 487 trees were planted last year. She stated that only one of three trees in a row can be removed from a parkway over a three year period. She believed that Council should not try to rewrite the policy now because the provisions are interrelated. She requested that Council pass the policy and give PB &R a chance to work with it for a couple of years to make it work. Robert Walchli, Corona del Mar, stated that the majestic palm trees at Lookout Point are dying, but would hate to see these trees replaced with 4- foot trees. He believed that there should be a provision to replace these types of trees with full -sized trees. Peggy Saers, President of the Seawind Homeowners Association, stated that half the houses have ficus trees but they have been chopped due to the views. She requested that Council pass this so that the removal and replacement of trees is simplified. Bud Volberding, Harbor View Hills resident, urged Council to pass the policy. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he has received more than 200 emails over the past 12 months and reported that all but four of the emails support the policy. Kay Mortenson, Newport Beach, stated that she is representing the Peninsula Point Homeowners Association. She noted that they have worked with the City over the past six years on beautification projects and expressed the opinion that the proposed revisions are an improvement since they are simplified and are more balanced. She stated that they welcome a more clearly defined role for the homeowner associations. She requested that Council approve the revised policy. Yvonne Houssels, City Tree Chairperson for the Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association, stated that their association is a view community and is composed of 449 homes in Corona del Mar. She requested that Council approve the newly revised G -1 policy. She stated that their experience has proven that the policy amendments will have a significant, positive effect on the environment. Further, the amendments have been approved by the Corona del Mar Residents Association and numerous other homeowner associations. She noted that they were one of the first associations in their community to participate in reforestation efforts. She reported that planting 24 -inch box trees was a requirement in 1988 and 1999, and now the trees are healthy and attractive, have been shaped to create a canopy, and kept at a height below the roofline of the community. She referenced a speech by the Los Angeles Times garden expert in which he states that large trees have larger roots that prevent Volume 56 - Page 869 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX good growth. She stated that the urban forest specialist for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection states that trees are routinely topped when they block views, interfere with buildings or shade areas where sunlight is desired, and topping is a temporary solution for oversized trees. Further adequate height reduction can sometimes be achieved by thinning or removing branches; however, these remedies are usually not satisfactory and it is better to remove the tree, replace it with a smaller growing tree, and then plant trees that are more appropriate to a given space. She thanked staff and PB &R for all of their help. She indicated that they are planting 24 -inch box trees and the policy will encourage more homeowners to replace trees and to beautify their parkways. She presented Council with photos of some of the trees that have been reforested and its replacement trees. She noted that the trees can grow to 25 feet but they have to keep them between 15 to 20 feet for view purposes. Mayor Ridgeway asked if the 25 foot trees would need to be topped eventually. Mr. Niederhaus stated that the trees will max out. He explained that, when they generated the designated street tree list, they were very careful to select trees that would not go much above the roofline in view communities. He stated that 25 feet is acceptable to them. Jan Vandersloot, Balboa Arbor Society, stated that they oppose the changes, and believe that the EIR and Negative Declaration are not adequate, Council should consider a tree protection ordinance, and this should be taken to the Coastal Commission since it has aesthetic impacts. He reiterated that in some parts of the City the trees are the view but the Negative Declaration does not address this issue at all. He reported that they want a policy that helps protect the trees because it is the view. He indicated that they understand the view communities' position but pointed out that everything they want is already in the existing policy. He believed that the City doesn't need a problem tree category because any tree that is causing problems can now be removed under the existing policy. Dr. Vandersloot stated that the new G -1 policy is going to remove an excess of 470 trees a year, noting that only 384 trees have been removed in the past six years. He noted that this is a significant impact and it needs to be addressed and mitigated, even though the Negative Declaration states that there is no significant impact. He stated that the 250 tree limit is up to the City Manager and anything over 250 trees can still be done by bringing it to PB &R. He indicated that there are 6,000 trees identified as problem trees but are only "problems" because of their species and not because they are causing a problem. He indicated that he supported and helped develop the existing G -1 policy. He stated that there was a problem with enforcing certain aspects of it which led to the ficus tree fiasco on the Peninsula. He noted that last year the view communities stated that the G -1 policy does not need to change. He clarified that the policy is not saying that problem trees have to be replaced, but if the City runs out of money they do not need to replace the tree. Dr. Vandersloot asked that this aspect be addressed. He expressed the opinion that the new policy gives too much latitude to the General Services Director. Kathy Young, Cameo Homeowners Association, stated that the tree committee conducted extensive meetings and dealt with every issue that Volume 56 - Page 870 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX llr. V anclersloot orougtlt up. She behevea that this is not the time to reopen every issue. She stated that they have always found it easy to work with the Urban Forester and the new policy will make it easier. Steven Miles, Balboa Arbor Society Attorney, stated that the one thing that has not been addressed is whether the. Negative Declaration is sufficient and whether the proposed changes result in any significant environmental impact. He noted that a predominant issue addressed by the settlement agreement was the desire for an ordinance to have definite direction by the City about quantification and other items that are necessary to do a valid analysis of impacts associated with tree removals. He believed that the G -1 policy increases the potential removal of City trees on an arbitrary basis and, if the Negative Declaration is approved, the City will rely on this for all future tree removal actions. He stated that Mr. Niederhaus displayed nine pictures that allegedly represent the problem trees in the City and the Negative Declaration claims to know specific details of "most" of the problem trees without specifics on why they are problem trees. He asked why the trees are not identified and why there is no explanation why they need to be removed. He suggested analyzing the results. Regarding Council Member Webb's concern, Mr. Miles stated that the City does not believe that the specific definition of a view neighborhood is warranted in the context of the environmental analysis. He believed that the main issue is the conflict between tree aesthetics and view aesthetics. He stated that people need to know what a view neighborhood is or at least identify those areas and state which trees may or may not be removed. He added that Section 5.1 of the Negative Declaration doesn't state that trees are considered to be view impediments in the context of the visual impact discussion. He stated that right now the City has an amended G -1 policy that isn't enforceable, they don't know what the identified impacts are, and analysis cannot take place if the impacts are not identified. Mr. Miles suggested that Council deny approval of the Negative Declaration or at least re- circulate it with strong direction to continue with the fact that the City knows about most of its problem trees. Iris Kimmel, President of Harbor View Hills Community Association, stated that as far as their community and the other homeowner association presidents she has spoken to are concerned, there is no confusion. She indicated that they completely agree with Council Member Webb regarding tree communities. She stated that the view communities throughout the years have not tried to tell the non -view communities what to do or how to address their tree problems. She asked why they can't have their views and the non -view communities have their trees, and why does it have to be one way or the other. Ms. Kimmel believed that the proposed policy is to accommodate non -view communities, pointing out that it does not say that the City is going to take out trees that no one wants taken out. She stated that she completely trusts Mr. Niederhaus to not take out any trees unless a lot of reason is given and a lot of pressure is put on him. Further, they trust City government, its departments, and Council Members. Steve Lewelling, Harbor View Hills, stated that he would not have had to wait ten years to get his tree out if the G -1 policy was working. He believed that something needs to be done, noting that the tree will end up Volume 56 - Page 871 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX costing him at least $1,500 by the time it's taken out because of the sewer lines that needed to be cleaned. He requested that Council change the policy. Barry Allen, Harbor View Hills, stated that the purpose of the G -1 policy is to simplify the method of removing trees in situations in which all parties agree to remove the tree. He indicated that no one thinks that the Urban Forester or the City Manager is going to start ripping out trees, or that Mr. Niederhaus has a reputation of being a tree- hater. He stated that Council can call the matter up if it doesn't like it. He urged Council to approve this, as is. BJ Johnson, Chairperson of the Corona del Mar Residents Association, reported that they did vote to support the G -1 policy as it is being presented and hoped that Council also supports it. Larry Porter stated that he was involved with the situation at the Peninsula and believed that the trees did not get their fair hearing. He believed that the new G -1 policy would make it too easy to remove trees. He agreed with Council Member Webb's comments about trees and that those living in view communities should have their issues addressed. He asked what is a problem tree and who gets to decide, and what will happen to the habitat, the air supply, and shade. He stated that people want their trees removed now but asked if this will then allow trees to be removed that others don't want removed. He asked if it would be better to have a policy that more people agree on. Linda Grant, Balboa Peninsula, stated that Debra Allen represents the Harbor View community well. She noted that a lot of people fought to get the trees removed on Main Street but she has never seen those people before on that street. She stated that she is grateful there is one tree left but is fearful that people who love their trees will wake up one morning to find them gone from their homes. She believed that this needs to be separated. She stated that she does not have a problem with the Harbor View people having trees removed that block their view. She stated that everyone who is arguing to approve the policy seems to be from Harbor View, but there is no one to represent them. She agreed that a problem tree should be removed if it is causing a problem, but not removed if it is just prohibiting grass from growing in someone's yard. She asked that the City keep the G -1 policy; however, if it is voted on, she hoped that the City looks at each situation and not allow people to rip out trees because it is in their way. She stated that solutions need to be found, pointing out that there is now a problem with fumes on Main Street since the trees have been removed. Council Member Bromberg stated that this is a two prong approach in which they first have to determine whether the Negative Declaration is appropriate, and then if it is, determine whether this is a good thing to do for the City. He expressed the opinion that the Negative Declaration is one of the best he has seen. He noted that he lives in a community where the trees are their view. Further, he has a beautiful ficus tree in front of his house which gives him shade and, until the roots cause a problem, he wants the tree to stay. He stated that he does not feel threatened by the Volume 56 - Page 872 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX policy and pointed out that there are a number of safeguards. He indicated that he has been to all the view communities where this is an issue and spent a lot of time in Harbor View. He emphasized that this is not just for the view communities, but they should not be penalized for being a view community. He stated that he is supportive of this, noting that he can't remember the last time there were so many homeowner associations in favor of one project. Motion by Council Member Brombere to 1) adopt Resolution No. 2004- 36 approving the Negative Declaration; and 2) approve revisions to the G -1 Policy. Council Member Heffernan believed that it is not fair for one side of the Bay to pay for the six figure claims that occur because the tree policy doesn't address the removal of trees that are causing these substantial claims. He stated that staff has to have flexibility and the residents have to have confidence that the City is not there to take every tree out. He believed that this is fair for the view communities but also feels it is fair for the residents since this is a comprehensive policy that deals with these claims that are not going away, but will only get bigger. Substitute motion by Council Member Rosansky to change the language of page 3 of the policy where it makes the replacement of trees discretionary if funding permits. Council Member Rosansky stated that the City is replacing trees on a 7 to 1 basis, and he does not see how the City will not have funds to replace them. He believed that, if the City is replacing 470 trees a year, it needs to make the commitment that it will pay for the replacement. He indicated that he knows there are view communities and believed that the City needs to protect those views to the extent possible. He added that he feels the City should replace trees on at least a 1 to 1 basis if it is going to remove them. Council Member Nichols stated that most of the problem trees are in the 7- foot setbacks and believed that they should be taken out. He indicated that the people who are against this are not backing up what they are asking for, and suggested they provide the City with an insurance policy so there is no loss. He stated that the City is starting to suffer dramatic loss that is getting worse. He indicated that the trees need to be removed quickly and replaced by trees that do not cause problems if they are going to be replaced at all. In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions regarding the procedure for removing City trees (page 6, line 8), Mr. Niederhaus clarified that the underlined portion denotes the individuals that can override his decision not to remove a tree. He emphasized that there are checks and balances on his authority. Referencing page 3, lines 40 and 41, Mr. Niederhaus clarified that removing 250 problem trees and replacing them will cost more than $100,000. He noted that, since they have never received a budget of more than $50,000, they wanted to give themselves an option to occasionally not Volume 56 - Page 873 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX replace a tree because they never anticipated having that much money to replace trees 1 for 1. He clarified that the majority of the 470 trees being replaced came from donations or reforestations. Council Member Rosansky stated that, if this is going to be the policy, Council needs to step up and fund $100,000. He expressed hope that, by removing the problem trees, the City will be saving more than $100,000 a year in claims, etc. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Webb Noes: Adams, Bromberg, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Abstain: None Absent: None Council Member Bromberg's motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Webb Abstain: None Absent: None Mr. Niederhaus announced that the Arbor Day Event will be at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, April 30, at Lincoln Elementary School. P. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Mayor Ridgeway to limit testimony to two minutes per item due to the late hour. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2004. Jim Hildreth believed that lateness of the hour should not be an excuse for Council's actions. He referenced Volume 56, Page 826, and believed that a lot more words need to be included. He believed that he said that the locations in the Grand Canal are access structures, not piers. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Volume 56 - Page 874 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Mayor Ridgeway noted that Item 2 is a waiver. 3. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF NEW SHORT TERM LODGING PERMITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 1, 2004. Robert Walchli, Corona del Mar, expressed concern that there will only be one more opportunity for public comments before the ordinance is adopted. He stated that restricting weekly rentals in certain R -1 zones such as Cameo Shores or Irvine Terrace might enhance property values but will not work in Old Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, or other mixed use communities. He believed that this may actually damage the property values for R -1 owners. He believed that this is selective restriction on people who own R -1 homes, while someone can rent out their property 20 feet away for any length of time they want without restrictions. He stated that the developer of Corona del Mar envisioned a mixed use beach community of owners and renters. He indicated that he pulled permit papers to have short term rentals, it would cost him $118 annually, and they were thinking of renting their property out because of the problems with 202 Fernleaf. He believed that it is unfair to have him pay a fee to protect himself while his neighbors only have to pay to convert from a long term to a short term rental. He stated that he does not believe this ordinance would hold up in court because it unfairly restricts a certain class of people from opportunities available to others in the same neighborhood. He hoped that Council either kills the ordinance tonight or creates a different version that exempts Old Corona del Mar and other mixed use areas from the ordinance, or makes all of Corona del Mar long term rental only. Mr. Burnham stated that he would be happy to talk with Mr. Walchli to discuss his concerns and possible changes to the ordinance, and asked Mr. Walchli to call him tomorrow. He explained that the ordinance is designed to ensure that there is no alteration in the character of R -1 neighborhoods, would not affect Balboa Island, and applies only to areas zoned R -1. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to introduce Ordinance No. 2004 -6 as proposed and pass to second reading on May 11, 2004. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Webb Abstain: None Absent: None Volume 56 - Page 875 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 INDEX 4. PUBLIC NUISANTCE ABATEMENT (CHAPTER 10.50) — PROPOSED (100 -2004) AMENDMENTS. Jim Hildreth stated that the pages are unique and he does not understand them. He asked if the light part of the pages is what is being considered and asked if we are going to agree to something that is obscure because of the lateness of the hour. He believed that the ordinance does not need to be put into law and he does not see any reason for it unless the City is trying to get rid of golf carts on the street. He stated that parking around the place is difficult, believing that this is to make more revenue for the City. Motion by Council Member Webb to introduce Ordinance No. 2004 -7 amending Chapter 10.50 of the NBMC to streamline the process and add parking or storage of vehicles other than in a garage, carport or driveway as a public nuisance; and pass to second reading on May 11, 2004. Council Member Heffernan asked if this means that parking a car in other than a garage, driveway, or carport will be declared a nuisance. City Attorney Burnham stated that it could be a nuisance, but clarified that this ordinance deals with private property. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (100 -2004) (NPDES) REQUIRED INSPECTION FEE ORDINANCE REVISIONS. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, believed that the City will be getting permit fees to allow people to discharge water because of the Federal Clean Water Act. He stated that there is nothing to assure that they will not be polluting the waterways in Newport Beach and this is just revenue. He indicated that he does not see that this is going to benefit the community in any other way beyond fees. He asked how this is going to save the community, protect the coastal waterway, and quality of health. Motion by Council Member Webb to adopt Ordinance No. 2004 -5. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 15. COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT (100 -2004) ENTVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED Volume 56 - Page 876 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting April 27, 2004 CENTRAL PARK INTERSTATE 405). (JAMBOREE ROAD SOUTH OF Mayor Ridgeway stated that the intent is to send a cover letter signed by the Mayor to the City of Irvine which includes the entire EQAC report. He indicated that he has a copy of the letter and suggested that the last portion of the sentence at the end of the first paragraph be deleted. Motion by Mayor Rideeway to approve and direct staff to transmit a cover letter from the ?Mayor to the City of Irvine with EQAC comments attached. Jim Hildreth believed that there should be someone better qualified. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Q. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. R. ADJOURNMENT - 11:47 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on April 21, 2004, at 3:25 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on April 23, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 877 INDEX