Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2001 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting January 9, 2001- 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None. RECESSED & RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway. Invocation by Very Reverend Canon David C. Anderson, Saint James Episcopal Church. Presentation of $102,100 check from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Council Member Heffernan asked that staff look into restricting boat deliveries on Pacific Coast Highway during peak traffic hours. • Council Member Heffernan indicated that Council received a sewer report and asked what types of monitoring devices the City has within the sewer lines. • Council Member Heffernan requested information regarding the stop sign at Sandcastle and Marguerite. • Council Member Heffernan requested information about replacing the phone system at City Hall as it has been an ongoing problem. • Council Member Heffernan asked if there should be a Police Officer present in the Chambers during meetings. Mayor Adams stated that Council Policy calls for a Sergeant -at -Arms at the meetings. He indicated that he will discuss this with the City Manager. • Council Member Heffernan asked whether Corporate Plaza is a dedicated street and if the street could be posted with "No Parking" signs since the streets are already narrow. Volume 54 - Page 11 INDEX Library Foundation (50) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Regarding Council Member Heffernan's items, City Manager Bludau stated that most of the items can be handled by sending a memo to the City Council. Council Member Heffernan indicated that this would be acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway requested that an item regarding the sale of the San Joaquin Reservoir be placed on the next Study Session agenda and that EQAC members be invited to the meeting. Mayor Adams recommended that the next Study Session agenda only be limited to two major items (Measure S Guidelines and San Joaquin Reservoir) to give adequate time for discussion and suggested that the meeting begin at 3:00 p.m. rather than 4:00 p.m. Council Member Glover indicated that her issues should probably be forwarded to an annexation committee. She requested that the annexation of Santa Ana Heights be considered sooner than some of the other areas and that the committee look at annexing Sage Hill High School. Mayor Adams indicated that there is no formal committee for annexations, but requested information as to whether or not an annexation committee should be formed. • Council Member Bromberg requested a status memo relative to Upper Bayview and whether the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission has looked at this location for a passive park. • Council Member Bromberg stated that Claudia Roxburgh of The Agency sent out cards over the holiday which indicated that donations were sent to the Balboa Theater Arts Foundation in the card recipient's name. The Theater received about $3,000 as a result of this. • Mayor Adams noted the length of time it has taken to get landscaping at One Ford Road. He requested that a report be brought back which gives a definitive start date. • Noting that the unlandscaped median in front of Conexant is in the City of Irvine, Mayor Adams requested that staff enter into discussions with Irvine about possibly sharing the cost of landscaping that median. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2000. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND full of all ordinances and resolutions Clerk to read by title only. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in under consideration, and direct City 3. Removed at the request of Council Member Glover. 4. AWARD OF NON - EXCLUSIVE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE TO CST ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Continued indefinitely. Volume 54 - Page 12 INDEX Solid Waste Franchise (42) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 bbl 6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -2 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS WITH CALTRANS FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS. Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -2 delegating authority to the City Manager to approve program supplements with Caltrans for Local Assistance Transportation Projects. Removed at the request of a member from the audience. Removed at the request of a member from the audience. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 8. NEWPORT BOULEVARDIWEST COAST HIGHWAY "ARCHES" INTERSECTION DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - AMENDMENT TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 12 -335 WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA (C- 2886). 1) Approve Amendment A -2 to Cooperative Agreement No. 12 -335 with the State of California; and 2) authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Agreement. 9. NEWPORT BACKBAY SLOPE STABILIZATION - COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY AND RESOLUTION FOR A PORTION OF BACKBAY DRIVE TO BE A COUNTY HIGHWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION. 1) Approve the agreement with the County of Orange for the cost sharing of the Upper Newport Bay Slope Stabilization Project; and 2) adopt Resolution No. 2001 -5 declaring a portion of Backbay Drive owned by the City to be a County Highway during construction of the project. 10. BALBOA VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (C -3333) - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC., RMS ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. AND NUVIS. 1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Ron Yeo, FAIA Architect, Inc., for design of the Landmark Tower in the amount of $16,800; 2) approve a Professional Services Agreement with RMS Engineering & Design, Inc. for a geotechnical investigation and structural analysis of the Landmark Tower in the amount of $17,400; and 3) approve a Professional Services Agreement with NUVIS for additional planning and design tasks in the amount of $16,120. 11. CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH SEWER FORCE MAIN AND BREAKERS DRIVE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - REJECT ALL BIDS FOR CONTRACT (C- 3296). 1) Reject all bids; and 2) authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with The Keith Companies for additional design fee of $8,700 to prepare revised plans. 12. Removed at the request of a member from the audience. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 13. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JANUARY 4, 2001. Receive and file. Volume 54 - Page 13 INDEX Res 2001 -2 Local Assistance Transportation Program (28/74) C -2886 Newport Blvd/ West Coast Hwy Arches Intersection Drainage Improvement (38) C -3392 Res 2001 -5 Newport Backbay Slope Stabilization (38) C -3333 Balboa Village Improvement Plan (38) C -3296 CdM Main Beach Sewer Force Main & Breakers Drive Water Main Replacement (38) Planning (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX 14. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -022) - DONATION OF $102,100 FROM BA -022 THE NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION. Approve Library BA -022. (40150) 15. SALE OF ACKERMAN PROPERTY (2114 -2122 WEST OCEANFRONT Ackerman & 106 -110 22 ^d STREET). Continue indefinitely. Property (50/73) 16. WASTEWATER OPERATIONS REPORT. Receive and file. 17. FY 1999 -2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER). Approve the FY 1999 -2000 CAPER and direct staff to submit the documents to all appropriate parties. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (3, 6, 7 and 12) and noting the items continued (4 and 15). The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. SUMMARY OF CITY'S LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS, ADOPTION OF 2001 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND RELATED RESOLUTION. Council Member Glover stated that, over the years, other cities or bodies within the State have requested that the City adopt resolutions on issues that may not directly affect the City or be an ancillary issue. She expressed the opinion that part of the City's legislative effort should be related to Newport Beach since the City does not have the staffing or the time to address some of these issues, like the 57 Freeway issue. She indicated that, prior to staff taking time to research proposals from a source outside of the City, she would like to see a policy in which a Council Member or the City Manager directs staff to do so. Regarding the aviation component of the legislative platform, Mayor Adams indicated that it suggests that the City support measures promoting the ability of local airport operations to impose aircraft noise controls; support legislation and executive actions that preserve, extend, or recreate the John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Agreement; and support Iegislation and executive actions that promote the use of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro as Orange County's second commercial airport. He expressed the opinion that he would like the Aviation Committee to discuss this platform. Further, he recommended that the City consider amending the aviation platform to support a smaller airport, similar to JWA, at El Toro and also include the equity and fairness argument since this is the essence of the City's argument for the need of a second airport. Volume 54 - Page 14 Wastewater (74) CDBG Annual Report (87) Res 2001 -1 Legislative Platform (48) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Mayor Adams suggested that the City adopt the platform, but task the Aviation Committee with looking at the aviation component and provide a recommendation to Council regarding it. He indicated that, if the legislative platform is approved tonight, it will give the City's lobbyists continued direction and allow the City to prepare letters on urgent items. Mayor Adams added that, if Council feels any other element needs further discussion, Council may want to agendize this for the January 27 retreat. Council Member Glover indicated that discussing this at the retreat would take care of her previous concern. Motion by Mayor Adams to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -1 confirming the City's Legislative Platform for 2001 and authorizing the Mayor to issue letters consistent with the Platform; direct the Aviation Committee to review the aviation component and provide input; and discuss this at the January 27 retreat. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO $80,000 PUMPOUT FACILITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that he found information regarding the actions of the Department of Harbor Resources difficult to obtain. He expressed the opinion that this request for a resolution is vague and leads him to believe that the City will be reimbursed for all work, no matter the cost. He stated that the City could be charged with misappropriation of State grant funds and indicated that a more detailed outline is needed to assure that money is not wasted as it has been in the renovation of the Balboa Island Ferry Landing public restrooms. He noted that the residents should be informed of the companies involved with the construction, as well as the outward appearance of the renovations. He pointed out that the San Fernando Street pumpout facility grant is for $36,000 and asked what the cost was for the last facility construction and its overrun. He also noted that the pumpout facility renovation grant is for $80,000 and asked if this is to replace old /worn out pumpout pipelines or if it is for the facilities to take on the same look as the Balboa Island Ferry Landing restrooms. He expressed hope that operation and maintenance records are being kept for each facility. Further, he stated that he hopes that the public and private facilities do not discharge sewage into the Harbor and that the waters adjacent to the facilities are frequently tested. Deputy City Manager Kiff reported that the request for the larger grant includes the pumpout station at Fernando Street, plus the renovation of four existing pumpouts that have an older style. He added that the City does actively monitor its contracts to ensure that the costs are not going over and Volume 54 - Page 15 INDEX Res 2001 -3 Pumpout Facility Improvement Grant (28/51) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 that they can be made available to Mr. Hildreth for review. City Manager Bludau added that the State will also be Iooking at the contract and monitoring its costs. He reported that the costs are 100% reimbursable from the State, but the State will only be reimbursing the City 75% for the annual maintenance cost. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -3 authorizing the City to apply for and receive a pumpout station renovation grant of $80,000 from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the staff report is very specific as to the additional moneys being requested for 15th Street, the Balboa Yacht Basin, the Fun Zone, and Lido Marina Village. Further, he indicated that he and Mr. Kiff visited 15th Street to determine the obsolete nature of the pumpout station and to operate it, and reported that it is in dire need of help. He stated that he is satisfied that this is being used for appropriate purposes. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ABANDONED WATERCRAFT ABATEMENT FUND. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that Senate Bill 172 (Rainey) and the abandoned watercraft abatement fund were formulated to assist families that have been left with the financial burden of an unwanted vessel. He expressed the opinion that this should not be viewed as a way for the City to gain revenue by the acquisition of moorings or through fines, impounds, and boat sales. He stated that, if the boat is being moored and the fees for the mooring have not been paid, he is led to believe that the boat might be abandoned. He indicated that the Harbor Environmental Division of the Fire and Marine Department is now being called the Division of Harbor Resources of the Office of the City Manager. He expressed the opinion that resources are being found within the mariners' wallet and stated that Assistant City Attorney Ohl admitted that Deputy Chief Melum has lied to Council in 1999. He believed that incompetence has impounded his boat and a disregard to personal rights and public safety has resulted in a City installed ladder. Further, discussions with mariners has revealed that such treatment is commonplace. Mr. Hildreth stated that, since utility poles are disappearing, bird perches seem to be needed. Further, if the City insists that all vessels be cleared of bird droppings, he believed that a mariners assistance league and a poop - cleaning patrol should be established. He indicated that Newport Harbor has a finite number of offshore moorings and that, by using the free pumpout station service records, the City could determine which boats may need help from the mariners assistance league. Volume 54 - Page 16 INDEX Res 2001 -4 Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund (51) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -4 expressing the City's intent to participate in the Department of Boating and Waterways' (DBW) Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund (AWAF) program and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents associated with the program. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 12. 1999 -2000 BALBOA ISLAND BAYFRONT REPAIRS (C -3303) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that it used to leak in the corners but does not leak anymore, and that the repairs were well done. However, he reported that saltwater is still coming through during high tide at the section of the Canal by the Little Island Bridge. He indicated that the City installed a planter and asked a resident to maintain it, but it is difficult to grow plants because of the saltwater. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to 1) accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that he presented to the previous Council a document which he asked to have reviewed and signed. He read the document which basically states that the City installed ladder is a safe and viable structure; the City is self insured and assumes all liability associated with the seawall ladder; the ladder has been approved by the Coastal Commission and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and that persons associated with RP80100011 can safely transfer items from the boardwalk to their vessel by using the seawall ladder. He stated that, if the document is not signed, he cannot see that the structure can be viewed as a safe structure. Volume 54 - Page 17 INDEX C -3303 Balboa Island Bayfront Repairs (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 18. FLUTER MIXED USE PROJECT (STERNS ARCHITECTURE) - 2410 NEWPORT BOULEVARD - A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE BUILDING WITH 1,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 79, USE PERMIT NO. 3685 AND VARIANCE NO. 1239 (contd. from 12/12/00). Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Glover to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for further review. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 19. NAVAI RESIDENCE (JIM NAVAI, APPLICANT) - 1201 KINGS ROAD - REQUEST TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PORTIONS OF WHICH WILL EXCEED THE 24 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT RANGING FROM I FOOT TO 10 FEET. Council Member Glover reviewed the number of times this item was brought to the Planning Commission and Council, noting that it was recently approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that she received a petition from surrounding residents of the property who indicated that they wanted to have the ability to have a public hearing before Council. Planning Director Temple stated that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission a couple of times and that, in their most recent action, the Commission approved a variance to exceed the basic height limit in an area along Kings Road on the ocean side of the bluff. She noted that the lots are extremely steep. She stated that the approval of the Commission was founded on a couple of critical factors: the addition does not span the full buildable width of the property; and the project did not involve any construction further down the slope as many other residents have done. She added that the Commission felt that, as long as the applicant was willing to commit to maintaining the extra one -story element on the front of the property, as well as agree not to do any further improvements down slope at least without further review of a variance by the Commission, the variance can be supported. She indicated that the Commission made minor modifications to the roof pitch in order to create a rounded barrel -type of roof. Ms. Temple reported that the existing property has sufficient entitlement to construct a 13,432 square foot home, but the applicant is proposing to construct a 4,266 square feet foot home instead (852 square feet is a Volume 54 - Page 18 INDEX 2410 Newport Blvd. Use Permit 3685 Site Plan Review 79 Variance 1239 (88) Variance 1237 1201 Kings Road (91) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX proposed addition, with a small expansion to the garage). She reported that the Planning Commission thought that the actual design was fundamental to their being able to make the findings for the variance and emphasized that one of the added conditions of approval is the commitment to record a covenant on the property, similar to a deed restriction, that would require that the variance be amended if any further additions to the property occur. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's questions, Ms. Temple reported that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is two times the buildable area (6,716 square feet). Council Member Heffernan stated that it was his understanding that the deed restriction would encumber the property permanently and that the only thing that can be built is the 4,266 square foot structure. He indicated that the opposition he has been receiving deals with whether the City will allow the property to be open to a variance, noting that they do not want any more variances on Kings Road. He expressed the opinion that if this is a restriction, it should be a permanent restriction. Ms. Temple believed that the Commission's intention was that, as long as the present structure exists, the restriction would stay in place. Usually in these types of decisions, this applicant or subsequent owner could have the opportunity to come back to the City and see whether there are any circumstances for the City to approve any alterations. She emphasized that this would be the City's decision and not the owner's decision. Additionally, she noted that this is attached to the approval and construction of the specific project, and that if someone came back and tore down the structure to build an entirely new house, there may be some questions as to the permanence of this. City Attorney Burnham indicated that it is his understanding that the restrictive covenant would prevent the property owner from building anything on the property other than what is being permitted by the variance, unless and until the entire structure permitted by the variance was removed. The property owner can then build on the property, subject to the building and zoning codes at that time. Council Member Heffernan indicated that this means that there is a new set of circumstances rather than someone having 4,266 square feet and then wanting to add another 1,000 square feet to the existing structure. He stated that coming back to the City for a new structure is a whole different situation, rather than a piece -meal encroachment into the variance issue. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Burnham stated that Council is hearing appeals from the Planning Commission de novo, but can look at what the Commission did and rely on the documents in the administrative record. However, Council makes its own decision and does not have to be influenced or comply with what the Commission did. He confirmed that the same rules are applicable with regard to making findings and the type of evidence that is required. Senior Planner Campbell utilized a full -scale elevation drawing and reported that the existing house appears single story from Kings Road. He indicated that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition above the existing garage that would encompass a master bedroom suite that is about 955 square feet. Further, there will be a second story element with a staircase which will be part of a new entry. He stated that the width is a little over 2/3 of the overall width of the existing home. Noting that the line on the Volume 54 - Page 19 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX elevation drawing represents the 24 foot height limit, he reported that the front of the home complies with the height limitation, but at about midpoint of the proposed addition, the bayward area would exceed the height limitation up to about 10 feet. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Campbell indicated that a portion of the addition would not be permissible if the variance was not approved since it exceeds the height limitation. He stated that the applicant could choose to redesign the property and make a wider second story elevation on Kings Road which would block a portion of the view that is presently open in the proposed design. He confirmed that the applicant does have the opportunity to add to the front of the home to meet the minimum 10 foot front yard setback. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. Jim Navai, 1201 Kings Road, indicated that he obtained 39 signatures from his neighbors on his letter of support. He stated that his neighbors asked him to inform Council that a majority of them would like to see homeowners have a voice and be able to express those views to the Planning Commission. He added that the Planning Commission should have the final word since this is their area of expertise, noting that they worked with him and his architect for over a year on this project and visited him at his home. Mr. Navai reported that the front of the proposed property will be about 20 feet high, but noted that he is allowed to go as high as 29 feet. He pointed out that the east part of the property will be left open so there is a view corridor. He stated that he is currently permitted to add another 9,000 square feet, but will be giving that up to build the 10 foot high area. He reiterated that, as long as he owns the property and the variance is in effect, he cannot build on the property. However, if someone bulldozes the property, that person will have to go before the City to check the codes at that time. He emphasized that he is agreeing not to build more onto his property after this project. Mr. Navai believed that the Planning Commission also approved this plan because he will be able to do a lot of architectural detailing, which adds to his and his neighbors' property values and makes the property more in tune with the rest of Kings Road. He noted that the Planning Commission approved this plan 6 to 1. Robert Whitney stated that he is Mr. Naval s neighbor, but opposes any height variance except when he does his remodel. He asked what is the sense of having a height code if everyone that applies for a variance is granted one. He requested that Council deny this variance and suggested that Mr. Navai build wider instead of higher. Dr. Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Road, stated that he attended the Planning Commission meetings and the one Council meeting a year ago and that he, his wife, and neighbors decided to start a petition after going to those meetings, He indicated that they obtained 31 signatures from concerned citizens that live on Kings Road and that they thanked them profusely for doing this because they do not want any variances approved. He stated that Volume 54 - Page 20 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX the petition basically states their concern over Mr. Navai's request for Variance No. 1237, noting that a similar variance was already denied on this property last August. Further, it expressed the homeowners' concern about the request to exceed the 24 foot height limit which would negatively impact other homeowners' use and property values. He indicated that, after Mr. Navai found out that they started a petition, he tried to go around to the neighbors to negate their petition. Since then, he stated that they received eight more signatures on their petition. He stated that they understand that Mr. Navai has submitted slight revisions to his original plan and that the roofline has changed to mimic the property line with the higher roof elevation at the street. Dr. Yaru indicated that he also asked the Planning Commission at the last meeting why anyone would not come to the City and ask for a variance if the rules and regulations are not obeyed. He stated that the neighbors feel that the request for a height variance up to 9 feet is totally unacceptable, noting that the rear of Mr. Navai's property from Pacific Coast Highway is not one story, but is three stories with two balconies on the lower levels that could be extended into any room without requiring any variances. Regarding the terrain, he stated that it has been there for decades and everyone else who bought property on Kings Road knew the terrain and was still able to build in accordance with the code. He asked what the logic is behind stating that the City will let him go high since the terrain is tough. Mayor Adams noted the guarantee that Mr. Navai's home, in its proposed configuration, will never get larger than a little over 4,000 square feet versus an entitled 13,000 square feet. Further, that its height from the street would be less than its entitled height. He stated that the neighborhood would also be guaranteed that the house would not be built further down the slope and affect the view of the slope from Coast Highway. Regarding the question of why the City should consider the variance, Mayor Adams expressed the opinion that Mr. Navai's lot is an unusual lot compared to the others and the variance comes with a guarantee to the City that he will not build beyond the proposed plan. He indicated that this may be a tradeoff worth considering since the neighborhood would be getting a lot less than what is permitted to be built and gives a long term stay as to what the house could look like in 10 to 20 years when this house is demolished and a new house is built per current entitlement. He stated that he is unsure of where he is on this issue, but noted that, if the neighbors are concerned about the present times, this gives a guarantee. Barret Weekes, 709 Icings Road, stated that he met Mr. Navai 10 days ago and then visited his property. He believed that the plan would add value to the street and for Mr. Navai, and indicated that he was pleased with the improvements and progress that has happened on the street. He stated that Mr. Navai's suggestion for home improvement is a good compromise. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions regarding where the house will exceed the height limits, Ms. Temple clarified that the house would be 20 feet high from the street view where an average roof can be 24 feet and a ridge can be as high as 29 feet. She reported that the location of the variance is down slope and is essentially behind the proposed second Volume 54 - Page 21 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX story element. She stated that it is essentially a down slope encroachment which comes about because the roof goes out in a somewhat straight line as the grade drops at a rapid rate. She indicated that views would only be impacted to horizontal neighbors to the extent that it would encroach at or beyond their residences. Kurt Yeager, 1401 Kings Road, stated that his view is not affected by the property and thanked Council Member Glover for appealing this to Council and letting the issue be aired out and the neighbor's concerns be heard. He stated that the real issue is what is Kings Road going to look like and whether or not the variance process is the right place to address this. He noted that the lots are all odd and different on Kings Road, and all of the topography varies. He believed that the variance process is a peak at how colossal and massive a person with unlimited resources can build and then compare that to what is proposed. He stated that the City will receive variances all the time because the properties on low lots are also on large 114 acre lots. He noted that, if height is negotiable, the face of Kings Road will be changed because people on the bluff side will try to go higher since this adds value, even though at the expense of the neighbors. He expressed concern that the variance process is not the way to address this since variances are there to alleviate unreasonable burdens on the fair use of a person's property. He believed that the neighbors are trying to realize their expectations of what they can do and what their neighbors could do, and added that his concerns deal with meeting the expectations of the property owners on the street. He indicated that the City could have a rule that is similar to Laguna Beach's in which impacting a neighbor's view requires a special permit from the city and then people negotiate. He stated that, if this is approved, the height is in play for every low lot on the bluff side. He expressed the opinion that this is bad policy and would create taller houses on the bluff side of Kings Road. Mayor Adams noted that in exchange for the little wedge that exceeds the height limit down slope, the community is getting a radically downsized home over the entitlement and a home that is guaranteed to be far lower than the entitlement from the street. He indicated that he is having a hard time making a connection between Mr. Yeager's argument about colossal homes and the expectation of property owners from the street, and what is being talked about in this case. Mr. Yeager stated that he does not oppose colossal houses; however, he has an issue with height. He reiterated that a variance is supposed to alleviate an unreasonable burden on the fair use of property by a property owner. He added that this does not mean that it is fair if Mr. Navai builds a 12,000 square foot house that spills all over the lot. Mayor Adams indicated that the Planning Commission agreed 6 to 1 and made the finding that this was the case. He reported that he was on the Planning Commission for five years and that, from time -to -time, variances came before the Commission and these exceptions are considered. He stated that there is always the concern that this would set precedence and be a misuse of the variance process; however, he does not see this running rampant. Mr. Yeager pointed out that Council approved a height variance on the bluff side about three years ago and there has now been two variance applications since then. Volume 54 - Page 22 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX Council Member Glover believed that there has been an inordinate amount of variances on Kings Road and knows which house Mr. Yeager is talking about that ran amuck. Mr. Yeager believed that the variance process is not pursuant to any principals that are part of the zoning code and expressed concern that, for a low lot, people will continually try to build up and gladly give up lots of things to do this. He stated that this moves money from residents who live inland to the people on the bluff side because they now have this understanding that, if the house is designed tastefully and a few view corridors are left, they can build higher. He believed that this creates a bad process if these types of things are going to be bargained, especially if the standard will be to compare it to what they can build if they max out. Council Member Glover stated that, by State law, the City is allowed to issue variances. Council Member Heffernan emphasized that the variance is down slope. He noted that Mr. Navai is permitted to cover the front of the lot up to 29 feet, but is willing to give that up and provide a view corridor. He stated that it does not make sense that the neighbors are saying they would rather have him build on the street side to the maximum height than intrude down slope. He reiterated that the restriction is permanent on the property. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the latest house that was approved on Kings Road is opposite of this project since they built a garage at level, was within the height limitation, and covered the entire frontage of the property. However, Mr. Navai is proposing to build a garage at street level, build above the garage, and then build down the hill, which is a very standard architectural design. Kathy Schuler, 900 Kings Road, stated that the height limit when she moved into her house was 16 feet. She indicated that the history of Kings Road's height limit dates back to 1959 and has continually increased. She indicated that she sees the compromise that is being offered with this plan; however, she expressed concern with variances since every lot does have a special circumstance. She noted that Dr. Yaru's property is at street level and her lot is about seven feet above the curb on the inland side. She indicated that Dr. Yaru may be able to ask for a variance to go higher because of his special circumstance that his lot is not equal to everyone else's lot. She referenced the side profile of Mr. Navai's home (page 45) and pointed out that the existing structure already extends past the maximum height limit. She believed that codes need be adhered to if the City is going to have them, otherwise they do not mean anything. Gary Hill, 503 Kings Road, expressed the opinion that a variance approval is not a good thing for Kings Road and will start a precedence. Further, he believed that there are a lot of neighbors who are not present tonight who are very worried about that. He requested that Council deny this variance. Mayor Adams closed the public hearing. Council Member Bromberg stated that he met with Mr. Navai twice and visited the property, and that he was impressed with the plan he wants to accomplish. He indicated that the City does have rules, but the City also uses variances and modifications to take care of those rules, and that this is Volume 54 - Page 23 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX nothing new. He stated that he does not think that Mr. Navai's proposal is really going to hurt anyone, in fact he believed that the property will benefit the community where he lives. He indicated that he saw an alternative project that Mr. Navai could build, which entails taking out all the trees, and reported that he could build something that was the size of a barn and had the same height throughout. He added that Mr. Navai could build that without coming before the Planning Commission or Council. He indicated that he is going to support the variance. Council Member Proctor stated that he met with Mr. Navai and encouraged him to speak with his neighbors. He also reviewed the plans that Mr. Navai could implement without any approval and believed that the building would be a serious detriment to Kings Road. He stated that he was impressed by Chairman Selich's comment that a variance is a technique whereby the Planning Commission is able to use independent judgment to deal with a difficult site. He added that he does not think a variance sets precedence but is used as an exception to precedence. Additionally, because of the steep topography, it is virtually impossible to have a standardized set of rules that can apply to every site. He believed that the variance is a tradeoff for what could happen and what would happen, versus what is being proposed. He indicated that he will be supporting Mr. Navai's request for the variance. Council Member Glover stated that the applicant has been very reasonable in trying to work this out. She indicated that she understands about findings and conditions since she served on the Planning Commission for five years and the City Council for six years. She noted that the applicant can build without a variance, but has chosen to apply for one. She reported that Kings Road has had a history of unhappiness because of the heights on the bluff side. She added that, in the 1970s, Council decided to address this issue and mansionization, and imposed certain rules. The homeowners sued the City and the City backed off. She stated that the City has made a couple of bad mistakes over there and that the residents never forget a mistake. She indicated that she is going to vote against the variance, even though she feels the variance and the applicant have been reasonable. Motion by Council Member Glover to deny the decision and findings of the Planning Commission regarding Variance No. 1237. Mayor Adams believed that Council Member Glover's opposition to this is a significant factor in his decision since she is probably more in touch with the residents and issues in her district. He indicated that this is a reasonable tradeoff and valid variance, and that he does not lightly overturn the work of the Planning Commission because they did exhaustive work on this application. However, the fact that there is a significant number of neighbors that are opposed to this, especially the abutting neighbor, he will be supporting the motion. He reported that people are not legally entitled to views, but there is an expectation that their views will not be impacted due to variances. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he served six years on the Planning Commission and two years on Council, and that mistakes were made on Kings Road. He disagreed with some of the comments that the City is not playing within the rules, noting that a variance is written to be within the Volume 54 - Page 24 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX rules. He indicated that he respects district boundaries and Council Member Glover's opinion; however, he expressed the opinion that Mr. Navai has been very reasonable and has agreed to an extraordinary condition that he would not agree to under any circumstance. Further, there had been a number of variances granted, some of them wrong, but he does not feel this is wrong. He reported that the Planning Commission worked hard to carve out an exception. He stated that the variance does not establish heights on Kings Road and does agree with the principle of not allowing additional heights. He reported that he would not approve this if this was brought before Council with a height variance for a 13,000 square foot structure. He reiterated that Mr. Navai can build 13,000 square feet of house on this property with two stories facing onto Kings Road with a 24 foot roof height and a 29 foot ridge height. He stated that he cannot undo some of the variances that have been approved, but this is a reasonable variance and he will not go against his conscience. He stated that there was a period of time on the Planning Commission when, if there had been precedence set, this would be an easy issue. However, he stated that the only place the City made an exception on Kings Road is where it faces onto Dover. He expressed the opinion that this variance is not inappropriate and to deny it would be treating Mr. Navai differently. Council Member Heffernan stated that, given the fact that the City is dealing with massing on Kings Road, he believed an exchange for reduction of the mass from the sidewalk and adding a view corridor is a good compromise. He stated that he does not view this as setting a precedence, but views this as setting a precedence that someone is going to have to reduce the massing from the street in exchange for getting the extension of the height limit down slope and the long term restriction on the total building envelope. He indicated that he would support the variance and explained that he only seconded the motion so that Council can vote on this. Mayor Adams stated that he is going to stick with his decision, but indicated that he is perplexed by the residents and their rejection of this reasonable compromise. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Glover, Mayor Adams Noes: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Proctor Abstain: None Absent: None Motion by Council Member Proctor to uphold the decision and findings of the Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 1237. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Proctor Noes: Glover, Mayor Adams Abstain: None Absent: None Volume 54 - Page 25 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 20. BALBOA INN & EXPANSION - 105 MAIN STREET & 707 OCEAN FRONT - A USE PERMIT FOR THE BALBOA INN LOCATED AT 105 MAIN STREET ITS PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE 707 OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY. THE EXPANSION PROJECT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND THREE STORY STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 11 NEW GUEST SUITES, GUEST SPA AREA, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND A PARTIALLY COVERED 20 SPACE, TANDEM PARKING AREA. IT WILL ALSO INVOLVE THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING ONE - STORY RETAIL BUILDING AND POOL AREA THAT CURRENTLY SERVES THE EXISTING BALBOA INN. THE USE PERMIT APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUILDING BULK AND BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE EXPANSION. Council Member Bromberg announced that he must recuse himself due to a possible conflict of interest. He reported that the applicant's representative is a director with the Balboa Performing Arts Theater Foundation; he is an officer, director, and legal counsel for the Theater Foundation; and the Theater Foundation has taken a formal position on this issue, which creates an automatic bias. Planning Director Temple noted that this project does not include any significant alterations to the existing Balboa Inn at this time; however, construction will take place on the parcel of land across from the oceanfront boardwalk which is currently occupied by a small retail kiosk and a pool area that serves the Balboa Inn. She reported that the project includes construction of both retail and hotel facilities, and a partially covered parking area since the Inn currently has no parking of its own. She added that the project includes using the flexibility contained in the General Plan and zoning code to allow more floor area for low traffic generating land uses, which hotels are, and it also includes a request to exceed the basic height limit to a secondary height limit allowed by the code through the approval of a use permit. James W. Read, Jr., P.O. Box 780, appellant, stated that he found it interesting that the people speaking on the last issue were discussing essentially what he, his neighbors, and the Central Newport Association oppose. He stated that they understand that they cannot totally oppose a building there since they are already entitled to build a smaller, less dense project. He reported that this project exceeds floor ratio and height, and that a 55 x 32 foot wall would block the view from his porch. He indicated that the Central Newport Association's policy states that they oppose the increase of hotel capacities, new hotel construction, and the licensing of additional take -out food service establishments within the boundaries of this Association, the beach, or the recreation area of the Peninsula. He stated that a neighbor east of the Inn submitted a petition containing about 63 names in opposition to this project and that there is no petition supporting the project. He expressed the opinion that the Balboa Inn, the Performing Arts Theater, and the Balboa parking lot should be considered together since traffic has always been bad in the area. He also reported that about $55,000 in bed tax has not been paid and finds it disingenuous that the applicant Volume 54 - Page 26 INDEX 105 Main Street 707 Ocean Front Use Permit 3683 (88) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX said he was not aware of this. He also asked about the Greenlight provisions since this is an excessive project. Mayor Adams stated that the Planning Commission has required that the bed tax be paid before the applicant can receive a building permit. He noted that no one has entitlement to views; however, it appears that the view impact from Mr. Read's porch is relatively insignificant compared to the total view. Mr. Read stated that he would not be able to see all of the pier and the ocean to the east after construction, which is a loss of about 30 degrees of his view. Mayor Adams stated that, by looking at Mr. Read's photos, it appears that his view is already significantly blocked by palm trees. He noted that the staff report finds that the appeal packet does not present compelling new information that would render the Planning Commission's decision invalid. Mr. Read believed that Council is having a de novo hearing, adding that this would be an excessive building by way of use permit. In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Ms. Temple clarified that the use permit is for the height limit and to allow the project to make use of the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) provided in the General Plan and the zoning code which allows low traffic generating land uses to go to a higher 1.0 FAR. She stated that the use permit is still part of the approval and is a permitted level of development, not a variance level of development. With regard to the number of rooms, she indicated that this is a matter of design. Mayor Adams stated that Mr. Read contends that there is some similarity between this and the previous hearing; however, the last hearing was a variance. Further, Mr. Read suggests that Council is starting fresh, but the City Attorney pointed out that Council can take everything that the Planning Commission did into consideration. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Read stated that there is no new or different circumstances that exist regarding his opposition. Regarding the unpaid hotel tax, Council Member Heffernan stated that it seems like the applicant is coming before Council owing $50,000 to the City and asking for a favor. He asked why the amount has accumulated for so long and why it is not a condition for him to pay this up front before he does anything. City Attorney Burnham stated that he cannot state why the amount has accumulated to the extent that it has, but the issuance of a building permit is the firmest evidence that the proponent is taking advantage of a use permit that may be granted. Council Member Heffernan expressed the opinion that the City should receive the money sooner rather than wait for the applicant to get a building permit since the money is already owed. Mr. Burnham stated that Council can set a different timeframe for collection of the amount. He indicated that it was his understanding that the applicant was not the individual who was responsible for payment of the taxes before they accrued to the amount that they have. He stated that the condition has been placed, but Council can set a trigger of 90 days after this decision becomes final. Council Member Heffernan stated that, considering the size of the project, the applicant is going to be spending a lot more than $50,000 on architects and engineers to put together a construction drawing. Mr. Burnham suggested that Council ask whether the applicant consents to the condition. Volume 54 - Page 27 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX Ron Baers, representing the applicants /owners of the Balboa Inn (Raymond and Michelle Pourmussa), stated that the unpaid Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was an inherited problem that the owners have been working with the City on for a year. Mr. Baers reported that the Balboa Village and Balboa Inn are within residential neighborhoods. He utilized illustrations to show that the proposed addition is to be constructed where the retail, storage building, and pool are currently located. He stated that the parcel and the Inn are part of Balboa's street grid and is part of the Village. He reported that the Inn has two story front wings, three story back wings, and is about 40 feet high. He added that many of the commercial buildings, including the Pavilion, are three stories high. He stated that Balboa Village is changing due to the City's reinvestment to beautify public streets and spaces, and to improve infrastructure. He believed that the proposed changes to the Inn will implement many of these improvements, particularly around the parcel. He added that the proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing a street level, covered arcade along Main Street and by installing and maintaining about 3,000 square feet of landscape around the property at the owners' expense. He stated that other improvements include the provisions for a garden court and water feature. He indicated that they also propose to extend the historic attributes of the Inn, which is a Spanish colonial revival building, through the use of similar materials and details. He stated that they are providing a residentially scaled project that consists of two residential buildings (30x40 feet and 330x55 feet) which will be set over a sundeck with a spa, ground floor parking, retail, and an arcade. He pointed out that the City does provide flexibility in its regulations to encourage a better designed project. He added that they chose to set back the mass of the building by 28 feet to provide a landscaped frontage in front of the parking area. Mr. Baers emphasized that the Balboa Inn is a historic treasure in the Village and that the proposed addition reflects the historic values in its design and, therefore, extends the historic character along Main Street and Oceanfront, and when viewed from all sides. The existing Inn, for the last three years, has undergone significant reinvesting (exceeding $250,000) to refurbish and maintain the property, and to bring this historic treasure into a much better condition. He believed that the addition will ensure continued economic success for Balboa and will be a catalyst for revitalization of the Village. Further, the proposed 11 room addition doubles the number of ocean front quality rooms. He added that City policy for design standards in Balboa provide flexibility from the established standards when an innovative design is proposed. He stated that the tradeoff is that they are asking for an additional 755 square feet of FAR, noting that they have a maximum building height of 31 feet which is on the low end for buildings in the area. He believes that they have provided a proposal that is compatible in every way, scale, and character of Balboa. Council Member Heffernan asked Mr. Baers if he is empowered to make some concession relative to the unpaid TOT finding from the Planning Commission. Mr. Baers stated that the next step in the permitting process is to go to the Coastal Commission, which is a six month process and believed that this is one of the reasons why the time trigger was set before receiving Volume 54 - Page 28 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX the building permit. Council Member Heffernan stated that he views this as an existing problem that the applicants should have known about when the property was purchased and that the City is being put -off over a tax that is owed. He emphasized that the redevelopment of the site does not change its current use and the fact that the tax is due. He stated that, by the City putting this off, it is almost as if the City is a partner in the project. In response to Mayor Adams' question, Mr. Baers confirmed that the applicant agrees with all the conditions that were set by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked the City Attorney if the City can enforce that type of condition and noted that the City is within its right to enforce payment of the TOT right now. He stated that the issue is not conditioning this project but is a matter of having the Revenue Director seek payment. Tod White, 1120 East Balboa Boulevard, representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association which consists of about 500 families as members, stated that he is president of the Association and, as a general principal, they are opposed to construction of new buildings on the ocean side of the boardwalk; however, the Board voted to support this proposal since it is an existing structure and it would be a significant improvement, considering what they are legally entitled to build. Speaking for himself and noting that the City is committing about $7.5 million for major improvements in the area, he encouraged Council to be very supportive of private capital being invested to improve the Balboa Village, especially since the owners are actually running the business. He believed that this complements what the City is already proposing to do in the area. Dona Colombero, 1002 East Ocean Front, believed that the proposal is a marvelous idea. She stated that almost everyone she knows has used the Inn and now it has a chance to be more financially viable by adding rooms. She indicated that everyone is waiting for the renaissance of the Village and that everyone feels that the Inn is a treasure and cornerstone. She stated that they happily support the improvement. Michele Roberge, Executive Director of the Balboa Performing Arts Theater, stated that she is voicing the Theater Foundation's support of the project. She indicated that she understands Mr. Read's concern regarding the view; however, she stated that she is more concerned about the view down Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. She reported that the Theater, the Inn, and all the business owners are trying to upgrade the neighborhood to make it more attractive and exciting, and make it a destination point for many people to enjoy. She noted that it is going to be her job once the Theater is open to attract patrons to drive down that street and find parking to come to an arts event at a small theater, and anything to entice people to come down to that area is welcomed. She stated that the Theater has a wonderful relationship with the Inn since it is her job to find first class hotel rooms for the artists that perform at the Theater. She emphasized that the Pavilion, the Theater, and the Inn are the anchors in Balboa Village and encouraged Council to support all growth to any and all of those entities. Dan Parr, 1585 East Ocean, stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself and his wife, Diana, who support the project. He indicated that they have Volume 54 - Page 29 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX lived there for 24 years and have waited, with great excitement, for some change to the Village because it has been in the process of slow deterioration for a lot of years. He noted that the money the City has committed and the Theater project are very exciting, and reiterated that the Inn is an anchor in the Village. He reported that he and his wife looked at the plans and drawings, and stated that the arcade along Main Street is a nice entry to the Balboa Pier. He stated that it is something that is offered in many pier communities and would offer a great improvement to the downtown shopping area. He pointed out that one of the reasons the Village is not more successful is because there is no close parking, but stated that this project is thoughtful in that the applicant will be creating 20 parking spaces devoted to the hotel. He added that the landscaping is also nice and fits with the Village they want to live in and enjoy. Bill Malcomb stated that most of the speakers have already given the same opinions that he has regarding support of the project. He reported that he is an architect, but has no relationship with the project or the architect who did the design, and has looked at the drawings very carefully and feels that the project is an extraordinarily sensitive solution to a very difficult problem. Further, he expressed the opinion that the Inn has bent over backwards to provide something that is consistent with the existing Inn and very sensitive in its detail and relationship to its neighbors. He added that this is a real opportunity for the Peninsula and expressed hope that Council will support the project. Rod E. Harter, 105 Main Street, stated that he is the Manager of Balboa Inn and believed that tonight is a wonderful example of democracy at work since everyone has had the opportunity to voice problems and issues. He noted that the Inn has been sensitively designed and will be an anchor for the Village. He thanked Council for listening to everyone. Gay Wassall - Kelly, 409 East Edgewater, President of the Balboa Merchant Owners Association (BMOA), stated that the Board agrees, with one abstention, to support the revitalization of downtown Balboa. She stated that, with the City's commitment of $7.5 million, it is a plus that the Balboa Inn, a private establishment, is willing to reinvest in Balboa. She noted that the project is a much needed improvement on the corner which is the main entrance to Balboa. She added that the plans are compatible with the historic Spanish flavor of the Inn and the expansion has the possibility of benefiting other businesses. Regarding parking and traffic, she stated that the Inn will provide 22 parking stalls which is almost impossible to have built. She indicated that the BMOA hopes that owners of other buildings and businesses will also invest in the future of Balboa. Bob Black indicated that everything he was going to say has basically been stated, but emphasized that the property owner is willing to put money back into his business to enhance it and hopefully start complementing what the City is going to be putting into the area. He expressed hope that other property owners will do the same. He added that the area is happy to see that the Inn will be creating more parking since it is very hard to come by. Dave Bejoc, 600 East Oceanfront, stated that he is not aware of anyone on the Planning Commission actually standing on his balcony or sitting in his Volume 54 - Page 30 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX den to see how this project would impact his property and the 23 others that reside at Rendezvous Condominiums. He indicated that no one who lives in the Village is going to argue that any improvement would be great compared to what is there now and asked why the Inn cannot be improved within the allowable limits. Further, he expressed the opinion that, as you walk down the boardwalk there are views of palm trees and skies, but to put three stories of concrete, no matter how it is dressed up, is not the best possible use for that area. He noted that there was a lot of positive support for the project, but believed that a majority of those in favor are not personally impacted. Mayor Adams reported that some of the Planning Commissioners did view the site from balconies. He added that Mr. Bejoc is probably mischaracterizing the view of the building that he will be getting, noting that it is not a sheer wall, is set back, and a lot of care has been taken with regard to residents' views. He stated that the Inn is a relatively minor part of the view. He took issue with a previous comment, clarifying that the proposal is already at allowable limits, which is the point of the use permit process. Regarding the exception, Mayor Adams indicated that it is something that is allowed with low intensity uses and is done to encourage low traffic generated development. Ms. Temple added that the word "exception" is a misnomer since the code simply requires the review and approval of a use permit to make use of the maximum FAR. Further, there are certain findings that need to be made. She explained that the reason the provision exists is so the City can impose specific conditions that will limit the use and prevent its conversion to some other use that is not in the traffic generated characteristics of the proposal. In response to Mr. Bejoc's concerns, Mayor Adams reported that the Inn will mostly be two stories high and that the allowable uses for this site have been in place for quite some time. He added that Mr. Bejoc probably purchased his property knowing that something like this could be built under a conditional use permit. Mr. Bejoc indicated that he did not know about this when he bought his property and that he found out about this just last February. Mayor Adams stated that property owners need to do their due diligence and understand what the entitlements are around their property, especially with regard to the view corridor. Regarding a comparison between this project and the Kings Road issue, he emphasized that there is no parallel because that was a variance and this is a conditional use permit, and the processes are quite different. Mr. Read suggested paving Balboa Boulevard and stated that this is the single most important thing for the Peninsula. Public Works Director Webb reported that this will be done; however, it is too expensive to do the repaving and undergrounding all at once. He reported that it will be done over the next four years and that the first piece has already been awarded that will go from Adams to Medina. He added that the second piece will be from Medina to about 12th Street and the third piece will be in the MacFadden Square area. Council Member Heffernan asked how this piece of real estate got on the ocean side of the boardwalk. Mr. Burnham stated that the size and ownership of the parcel was established pursuant to litigation. Ms. Temple Volume 54 - Page 31 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 added that there are very small lots bayward of the boardwalk that were in the original 1907 subdivision. She indicated that this lot, for some unknown reason, was litigated through a Superior Court action and was established by ruling in 1961 or 1962. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 3683. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question of whether the City can impose a requirement on Use Permit No. 3683 that they pay the delinquent TOT, Mr. Burnham stated that one of the findings that Council has to make to grant the use permit is that the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code. To make that finding, the City is free to impose a payment of delinquent TOT because that is apparently necessary to comply with the provisions of the code. He indicated that the timing of the payment is up to Council's discretion. Noting the time involved with a Coastal Commission approval, Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway indicated that he is going to uphold the provision that the Planning Commission imposed, adding that he is hopeful that the applicant will pay the TOT sooner than later. Council Member Heffernan expressed the opinion that, if there is going to be a contingency, it should be with the Coastal Commission approval. He stated that, once this is approved by the Coastal Commission, the applicant will spend a lot of money for other consultants and will then have approval from both the City and the Coastal Commission. He emphasized that, at that point, they should be paying the delinquent tax. He requested that the maker of the motion amend his motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the owner paying the delinquent hotel tax within 30 days of approval of the project by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Burnham indicated that this was something Council could do. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway's question, Mr. Baers stated that the condition to pay the unpaid TOT 30 days after Coastal Commission approval was an acceptable condition. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway agreed to amend the motion. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: Bromberg Absent: None 21. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S USE PERMIT NO. 69, ACCESSORY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 76 - EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE SMALL SCALE EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT INTO A NEIGHBORING TENANT SPACE, INCREASING THE INTERIOR SEATING FROM 12 SEATS TO 21 SEATS, INCREASING THE EXTERIOR SEATING FROM 8 TO 12 SEATS AND PROVIDING SEPARATE GENDER RESTROOMS. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. Volume 54 - Page 32 INDEX Planning Director's Use Permit 69/ Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit 76 (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue this item to January 23, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 22. APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR TO THE COUNCIL /CITIZENS AD HOC COMMITTEES, THE JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES, AND THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to confirm the following appointments as recommended and announced by the Mayor: I. COUNCIL /CITIZENS AD HOC COMMITTEES A. Aviation Committee 1. Council Member Proctor 2. Council Member Glover 3. City Manager or designee 4. City Attorney or designee 5. Current president or designee of Airport Working Group Chairman Proctor Vice Chair To Be Determined (either Council Member or resident) B. Ad Hoc Committee to Promote the Revitalization of the Balboa Peninsula (PROP) 1. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway (District 1 - Chair) 2. Council Member Proctor (District 2) 3. Council Member Bromberg (District 5) C. City School Ad Hoc Committee 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway 2. Council Member Proctor 3. Council Member Glover 4. City Manager D. Economic Development Committee 1. Mayor Adams 2. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway 3. Council Member Bromberg Volume 54 - Page 33 INDEX Appointments to Council/Citizens Ad Hoc Committees, Joint Governmental Committees, and Citizens Advisory Committees (24) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 E. F G. H. I. J K. 4. Planning Commissioner Selich 5. EQAC Chairman 6. Chairman Selich Oil and Gas Field Operations Committee 1. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway 2. Council Member Proctor 3. Public Works Director 4. Public Works Dept. Utilities Division Manager Ad Hoc City Council Airport Issues Committee 1. Council Member Proctor (Chair) 2. Council Member Glover 3. Council Member Heffernan Councilmanic Redistricting Committee 1. Council Member Proctor 2. Council Member Bromberg 3. Council Member Heffernan Affordable Housing Task Force 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Chair) 2. Council Member Bromberg 3. Council Member O'Neil Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee 1. Mayor Adams (Chair) 2. Council Member Glover 3. Council Member Heffernan 4. Planning Commissioners (3) 5. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Committee designee 6. Economic Development Committee designee 7. Aviation Committee designee S. Harbor Committee designee 9. Greenlight designee Ad Hoc Airport Area Development Committee 1. Mayor Adams 2. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway 3. Planning Commissioner Selich 4. Planning Commissioner Tucker Advisory Ad Hoc Committee for an Arts & Education Center 1. Council Member Bromberg (Chair) 2. Council Member Heffernan Volume 54 - Page 34 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX 3. City Arts Commissioner Gregory 4. Board of Library Trustee Saar - Kranzley 5. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner Allen L. Web Site Review Ad Hoc Committee 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway 2. Mayor Adams 3. Council Member O'Neil M. John Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Extension Ad Hoc Committee 1. Council Member Glover (Chair) 2. Council Member Proctor 3. Council Member O'Neil N. Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee 1. Council Member O'Neil 2. Council Member Heffernan 3. Community Member To Be Determined 4. Community Member To Be Determined 5. Community Member To Be Determined II. COUNCIL COMMITTEE A. Finance Conunittee 1. Council Member Heffernan (Chair) 2. Council Member Bromberg 3. Council Member Glover III. REPRESENTATIVES TO JOINT GOVERNMENTAL A. Growth Management Area 8 Representative 1. Council Member O'Neil B. Hazardous Waste Material - Joint Powers Authority 1. Mayor Adams C. Inter -City Liaison Committee 1. Council Member O'Neil 2. Council Member Heffernan (Alt.) 3. City Manager D. Joint Committee for the Evaluation and Implementation of the Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Agreement Volume 54 - Page 35 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX 1. Council Member Glover 2. Mayor Adams (Alt.) E. League of California Cities /Orange County Division 1. Mayor Adams 2. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Alt.) F. Orange County Coastal Coalition 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway G. Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)* 1. Council Member Glover *Glover is a member by virtue of her position on AQMD H. Orange County Homeless Coalition (Affordable Housing) 1. Mayor Adams 2. Planning Staff Member I. Orange County Housing Commission - Advisory Committee 1. Planning Staff Robert Kam 2. Planning Staff Patricia Temple (Alt.) J. Orange County Regional Airport Authority (OCRAA) 1. Council Member Proctor 2. Council Member Glover (Alt.) K. Consolidated Sanitation District of Orange County CS1 DOC) 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway 2. Mayor Adams (Alt.) L. Orange County Transportation Authority O_{ CTA) Corridor Elected Officials Committee 1. Council Member O'Neil 2. Mayor Adams (Alt.) M. Orange County Vector Control District Board of Trustees 1. Council Member To Be Determined Volume 54 - Page 36 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX N. Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) Study Policy Advisory Committee 1. Council Member Proctor 2. Mayor Adams (Alt.) O. Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency 1. Council Member Proctor 2. Council Member Glover P. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Joint Powers Agency Board of Directors 1. Council Member O'Neil 2. Council Member Heffernan (Alt.) Q. Southern California Association of Governments S( CAG) Appointed by Orange County Division of the League of California Cities R. SR73/SR551I -405 Freeways Confluence Policy Committee 1. Mayor Adams IV. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES A. Environmental Quality Affairs 1. Council Member Bromberg 2. Council Member Heffernan 3. Chairman or designee of EDC 4. Chairman Hawkins [citizen (at large)] B. Harbor Quality 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway 2. Council Member Bromberg Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Chair) Vice Chair To Be Determined (either Council Member or resident) C. Youth Council 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Liaison) 2. Recreation Manager (Community Services Staff) In response to Tom Hyans' question, Mayor Adams explained that the Harbor Committee is not on this list since those appointments will be made at the January 23 meeting, along with the other Council appointments. Volume 54 - Page 37 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway clarified that the Harbor Committee will continue until the Harbor Element is voted on. Mayor Adams stated that it is his intention to reappoint the existing members unless they do not want to be reappointed. Tom Naughton stated that former Council Member Jan Debay was appointed to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and emphasized the importance of having someone from this Council be a part of that body. Mayor Adams agreed and stated that someone will run for that. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 23. JIFFY LUBE SIGN PROGRAM - 1520 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (CHRISTIAN FANTICOLA, APPLICANT). Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue to January 23, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 24. FINANCING OF MARINER'S MILE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN Council Member Glover stated that she called the Mayor and the City Manager to ask that this item be continued to January 23. Motion by Council Member Glover to continue this item to January 23, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. ADJOURNMENT - at 9:55 p.m., in memory of Jean Morris, to a 3:00 p.m. Study Session on January 23, 2001. Volume 54 - Page 38 INDEX 1520 West Coast Hwy Use Permit 3647 (88) BA -023 Mariner's Mile Public Improvement Plan (40/68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 3, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk . D Pry Recording Secr ary OOSSWWW-�O( Mayor Volume 54 - Page 39 INDEX