Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 02-08-2000February 25, 2000 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes DRAFT Study Session February 8, 2000 - 4:00 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, Mayor Noyes Absent: Debay (excused), Thomson (excused), O'Neil (excused/late - arrived at 5:45 p.m.) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In reference to Item # 5 (Proposed Amendments to Garbage and Refuse Container Requirements), Council Member Glover asked if the changes to the ordinance were only applicable to purchases of new garbage containers. City Manager Bludau responded by stating that the ordinance would not go into effect until September 1, 2000, and that the City is expecting everyone to be in compliance with the new regulations by that date. Council Member Glover stated that she would be pulling the item for discussion at the evening meeting. 2. REVISION OF COUNCIL G -1 TREE POLICY. General Services Director Niederhaus introduced Marcy Lomeli, Park & Tree Superintendent, and John Conway, Urban Forester. He stated that the two manage the City's urban forest, which consists of approximately 30,000 trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that two unusual tree removal cases that came before the City Council approximately ten months prior illustrated the types of issues that staff deals with on a daily basis. He stated that the first incident involved an individual that illegally removed and replaced trees in front of his home. The individual stated that he did it as a result of the frustration he had in dealing with the current policy as well as with staff having no flexibility in the removal and replacement of trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the second case involved an individual who went through the process with staff and the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, and eventually appealed to the City Council. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that staff took the direction from the City Council decisions made on the two items, and began to analyze the G -1 Policy. He said that a report was prepared for the June 28, 1999, City Council meeting on what was wrong with the current policy. He said that staff also began to work with all interested parties (approximately 100 individuals). He said that the majority of these individuals are interested in single tree removal and replacements in front of their homes. General Volume 53 - Page 176 Council Policy G -1 City Trees (69) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February S, 2000 INDEX Services Director Niederhaus stated that there are currently 72 pending tree removal and retention requests that staff is delaying action on until the policy is amended by the City Council. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that some individuals are not waiting for the amendment to be approved, and that there is increased frustration in dealing with a policy that has little flexibility. In rewriting the policy, he said that staff has attempted to come to a fair balance between the small minority of individuals that insist on all trees being retained and the majority that would like to see some type of flexibility in the removal and replacement of trees. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the new policy better defines the tree removal criteria. He said that the second part of the policy deals with reforestation and has some flexibility built into it. He described tree removals as the removals of trees only, and reforestation as the removal and replacement of trees. He stated that reforestation is done at the individual's expense. He added that the replacement tree must be the largest tree possible, which can cost between $800 and $1,000. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the proposed policy also sets a better and clearer review process. He said that certain steps are set for individuals and associations. He said the new policy also allows staff to go to the City Manager, at the advice of the Risk Manager and Traffic Engineer, to authorize tree removals that deal with safety issues. General Services Director Niederhaus said the appeal process was also equalized. He said there used to be no appeal process for reforestation. He concluded by stating that the new policy also requires the individual to attempt to resolve the matter by paying for two supplemental trims first. Council Member Glover stated that when she was with the Planning Commission, the City did not protect private views. She stated that this was the policy because the City recognized that it couldn't make such a guarantee. She said that she now sees the City topping trees to preserve views, which she stated has been an evolvement, over the years, towards protecting private views. She voiced her disagreement with this new unwritten policy. Mayor Noyes and General Services Director Niederhaus both indicated that private homeowners have had trees topped by private firms. General Services Director Niederhaus stated that the current policy does allow a supplemental trim using other than the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) standards, but only as an alternative. Council Member Glover again stated her concern that the apparent unwritten policy that has evolved over the years could cause a problem for the City in the future. She added that throughout her district there is no undergrounding and that through her meetings with Edison, she has learned that they would prefer that all trees in Newport Heights be shrubs. She stated that she has also learned that topping a tree can cause it to die within Volume 53 - Page 177 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 ten years. INDEX Council Member Glover stated that she would like to see every tree preserved, however believes she is in the minority of the residents in Newport Beach. She also stated her disagreement with reforestation. Council Member Glover related a conversation she had with Rob Elliott, the head landscape architect for The Irvine Company, and a committee that was formed to look at how to retain trees in the City of Irvine. Council Member Glover stated that after the three years of study, the committee determined that the only way to retain trees is through preservation. She stated her concern that staff may consider the removal of 72 trees in the City. Mayor Noyes confirmed with General Services Director Niederhaus that the City does top trees and that it is allowed in the reforestation section of the current G -1 Policy when normal trimming does not solve a view issue. Staff is recommending that this alternative to reforestation remain in the policy. General Services Director Niederhaus added that a change to the G -3 Policy will be suggested for the preservation of views which will prohibit trees in the 200 block of Ocean Boulevard. Council Member Ridgeway referred to the pending 72 tree decisions mentioned earlier and pointed out that 72 trees represent .0024% of the current 30,000 City trees. He stated his support for a reasonable control on the removal of trees, or individuals will be out of control. He stated his support for addressing the issue in a policy, as is being suggested by staff. Debra Allen, 1021 White Sails Way, stated that she is happy with the language in the revised policy and the work of General Services Director Niederhaus. She stated that there is a concern among her neighbors regarding the cost of reforestation with the 36 -inch box tree requirement. She said that if the cost is below $1,000, it shouldn't be a problem. Referring to Council Member Glover's earlier comments, Ms. Allen stated that there is a difference between the City using its regulatory power to govern the height of private development blocking the view of another private landowner and City development blocking the view of another landowner. Council Member Glover informed Ms. Allen that her earlier comments were referring to her district where there are not padded lots like in Ms. Allen's neighborhood. Ms. Allen continued by stating that it is true that one policy for all parts of the City would be difficult. She stated that her area has policies developed to preserve views. Kent Moore stated his support for General Services Director Niederhaus and the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission and their efforts to amend Council Policy G -1. He feels that if the City determines that reforestation is justified, he'd be happy to pay for it. He said that the undergrounding of utilities is also difficult because the utility companies are concerned with the roots. Mr. Moore stated that by adopting the amended policy, the City could save money in repairs, trimming, sidewalk repairs, undergrounding utilities and legal costs due to personal injury cases. He suggested that the City Volume 53 - Page 178 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX Council adopt the amended policy which has been looked at extensively, and then make additional amendments if that is determined necessary in the future. Barry Eaton, President of Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association and Director of Community Associations Alliance (CAA), stated the Association's support for the amendments to the G -1 Policy. He added that they also feel that it is important that appeals can only be brought to the City Council by the City Manager or a Council Member. He added that the CAA, which is comprised of many of the padded -lot associations as well as other associations, is also supportive of the proposed amendments. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 E. Ocean Boulevard, stated that the G -1 Policy was worked out about four years ago, which was a compromise between those who wanted to protect their views and those who wanted to preserve an urban forest in the City. She stated that the policy, at the time, was applauded, but after two people had to appeal to the City Council last year, people suddenly thought that the policy wasn't working. She said that the proposed policy makes it too easy for people to remove trees. She said that the vote of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission on February 1, 2000, on the proposed policy were 3 ayes, 2 noes and 1 abstention. She stated that there needs to be a comprehensive tree policy for the City, rather than several fragments, and she suggested that the City take advantage of the services of a certified arborist available to the City through SPON (Stop Polluting Our Newport) to write such a policy. Ms. Linhoff concluded by stating that the maintenance of trees and sidewalks should be separated. She said that allowing General Services to perform both services creates a bias. Council Member Glover stated that a comprehensive policy does exist but it's true that there are many different parts of the City and possibly there should be different policies for different situations. Council Member Glover referred to the difference between the padded lot areas and the older parts of Newport Beach, such as Newport Heights. Ms. Linhoff agreed that maybe there should be a different policy for the view neighborhoods. John Robertson, 2509 Harbor View Drive, stated that his concern with the G -1 Policy is that it's becoming a "view tax ". He stated that it sounds like a compromise by having the people that want to remove trees, pay for them, but he stated his concern that there could be lawsuits filed against the City by frustrated homeowners who want numerous mature trees cut back. Pat Beek, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, stated that the proposed G -1 Policy is much more liberal in regard to the removal of trees. She added that she was the abstention vote because she felt that the policy should better clarify definitions, procedures and limits to making requests. Ms. Beek stated that when discussing views, everyone should keep in mind that this would not be exclusively blue water views. She stated that the change in the removal of trees due to hardscape damage is not new. Ms. Beek stated that another concern that should be considered is how much Volume 53 - Page 179 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX staff time will be needed to handle the reforestation requests. She said that the Commission knows of no changes to the G -3 Policy. She concluded by stating that the Commission deferred the Eastbluff item to allow staff to report on the possibility of replanting the trees in another part of the City. Bud Rasner stated his concern for the liability that the City faces by leaving large trees, such as eucalyptus, standing and then risking the possibility of damage from drippings or personal injuries from uneven sidewalks. Mr. Rasner stated his concern that he, as a property owner, could be named in such lawsuits. He stated his understanding that the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission vote would be counted as a 4 ayes, 2 noes vote because the abstention would be recorded as a vote with the prevailing side. Mr. Rasner stated that the policy will not allow all trees to be cut down in the City, and he supports the thought that trees should occasionally be replaced, especially as they get older. Val Skoro, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, stated that he voted in support of the new policy but also wants to see more trees in the City, such as on MacArthur Boulevard. He stated his feeling that not everyone in the City will ever be satisfied with one tree policy, and maybe separate policies for different parts of the City might work better. Mr. Skoro stated that he wanted to make it clear that although he supported the new policy, he does not feel that it is a way to get more trees removed. He said there needs to be common sense and flexibility. Tom Tobin, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, referred to Item #18 on the evening agenda (Appeal of Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission decision) and the removal of a tree at Vista del Oro and Eastbluff Drive. After discussion between the Mayor and the City Attorney, it was decided that the specifics of the item should take place at the evening meeting. Mr. Tobin concluded by stating that he voted in favor of the proposed G -1 policy. Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the item be forwarded to a regular meeting of the City Council. He said the intent of the revised policy is to add some flexibility, which would allow for more common sense. He agreed with Mr. Skoro's comment that support of the proposed policy does not indicate that one is not in support of maintaining and adding trees in the City. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the City has 2,000 more trees than it had a couple years ago, and he knows of no one that just wants to cut down trees. He stated his disagreement with Ms. Linhoffs belief that the policy is not comprehensive. He feels that the policy is comprehensive and was written responsibly by many citizens. He feels that the proposed policy responds to safety and risk, and gives the City the ability to weigh safety and risk against long -term cost. He commended all those who contributed to the proposed policy. Council Member Glover stated her agreement with Council Member Ridgeway that the policy needs to address people illegally and hazardously cutting down or trimming trees on their own. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked about the provision related to damage to Volume 53 - Page 180 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 A ad utilities and if there was any discussion related to efforts to relocate a utility rather than removing a tree. General Services Director Niederhaus cited a recent incident on Tradewinds Lane where a utility was moved, as part of an encroachment agreement, in order to save a tree. Mayor Pro Tem Adams referred to an issue in Eastbluff recently where a tree was determined to be interfering with a sewer line and the sewer line was not relocated. Public Works Director Webb stated that it is not always possible to relocate utilities and gave the example of a ficus tree, located fifty feet from a sewer lateral, still being able to cause roots in the lateral. He added that waterline relocations can be very expensive relocations. Mayor Noyes stated that the item will be brought back to the City Council at a regular meeting for action. In reference to Ms. Allen's previous comments about the cost to replace a tree, General Services Director Niederhaus stated that a 24 -inch box tree could be planted at a cost of approximately $195. He stated that the cost of a 36 -inch box tree is more because a crane is required to put the tree into place, which costs approximately $100, plus an additional cost due to the 36- inch box tree being approximately five to ten years older. He said that by utilizing a tree contractor the cost would definitely stay below $1,000, with a range of $600 to $800. ORANGE COUNTY CITIES - REVENUE/EXPENDITURE COMPARI- SON. Administrative Services Director Danner introduced Deputy Administrative Services Director Dick Kurth, Revenue Manager Glen Everroad and Management Analyst Craig Bluell. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that on November 9, 1999, the City Council directed staff to look at all of the cities in Orange County to compare revenues and expenditures. He explained that the first step was to decide on how to gather the information. He said that, from his experience, a phone survey to the various cities would not ensure reliable data. He said that sending a City employee to each of the cities to look through their ledgers would not be a good use of staff time. He said that it would also be too time consuming to receive and review a copy of each City's budget. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that it was decided to collect the data electronically through the State Controller's Office. He said the problems with this method are that the information is old, the information received is only as good as the information provided to the State and that different cities may use different classifications for the various revenues and expenditures. Administrative Services Director Danner said that once the information was received from the State, the City then had to reformat it, and analyze and sort it using various Excel spreadsheets. He said this analysis was completed about a month ago but upon review, staff questioned the City being #1 in property tax revenues. He stated that the City tried to determine the reason for this and found that many cities in the County have Volume 53 - Page 181 INDEX Revenue /Expenditure City Comparison (40) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX redevelopment agencies, which means that the property taxes go to the redevelopment agency and not to their general fund. He stated that staff then went back to the State Controller's Office to obtain redevelopment agency information. Administrative Services Director Danner added that it is important to know that the State Controller classifies revenues into two categories: general revenues and functional revenues. He said general revenues are defined as those revenues available to any general fund activity, and functional revenues are defined as those revenues that are for a specific purpose. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that staff concentrated on certain revenues and expenditures, although information for all revenues and expenditures was included in the analysis. He referred to the chart on page two of the staff report that shows Newport Beach as being sixth among the 31 Orange County cities in total revenue during the 1996 -97 fiscal year, but number three in per capita ranking. He added that general revenues and functional revenues were split almost 50/50 in the City, which is the norm throughout the County. Administrative Services Director Danner explained that functional revenues, as determined by the State, don't necessarily equate to what the City would consider as encumbered. Council Member Glover asked if tidelands revenue would fall into the functional revenue category. Administrative Services Director Danner responded that it would, but added that tidelands revenue is not included in the report since only general fund revenues were looked at. Administrative Services Director Danner continued through the Comparison of Selected Revenues chart in the staff report and mentioned the City's rankings for property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). He then moved on to the next chart, Comparison of Selected Expenditures, and stated that the City ranked fourth overall and second per capita. He also mentioned the City's rankings in public safety, culture and leisure, general government and community development. In response to Council Member Glover's question, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that community development primarily includes planning and building. Council Member Glover stated that, with the City's per capita ranking at number eight, this may indicate that the City is not committing enough revenue to community development and planning. City Manager Bludau agreed and pointed out that community development was one of two categories where the City ranked lower in per capita than it did in the overall ranking. He stated that the other category was TOT. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that most of the expenditures in the Community Development category are supported by functional revenues. Council Member Ridgeway confirmed that transportation fees are not included in the report because they are not general fund revenues. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that staff came to three conclusions. He listed the first observation as being that staff realized that Volume 53 - Page 182 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX the data is not exact. He stated that secondly, staff observed that the City's sales tax ranking should be higher. He added that there should be more sales tax from the tourism industry. Mayor Noyes clarified that TOT is also low, when looking at the per capita ranking versus the overall ranking. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the third observation made by staff was that some cities have as much as 85% functional revenues and, as mentioned earlier, the City is split about 50/50 between functional revenues and general revenues. He added that general revenues are subject to tampering with by the State. Administrative Services Director Danner concluded by stating that he recently received a publication from the Public Policy Institute of California that included a review of local government revenue data in California. He read from the review which began by stating that many policymakers and analysts throughout the State have hesitated to use the State Controller's data on local public revenues because it does not capture all public entities in the State, does not accurately reflect the fiscal activity of those it does capture and the data is not produced in a timely manner. Council Member Glover pointed out that the per capita ranking of the City in the public safety expenditure category is #1 in the County, and she pointed out that her district, which is surrounded on three sides by commercial areas, still feels safe to many of its residents. She said that the City should take a great deal of pride in that fact. Council Member Glover stated that she wasn't too surprised by the sales tax. She added that she understands that the State could take the sales tax from all cities and redistribute it to the cities within each County, on a per capita basis. She felt that this would, in essence, be a no growth overlay on the entire state, since cities would not want development in their city if it didn't produce direct revenue. She asked for more information regarding this proposal. Ken Emanuels, Kenneth Emanuels and Associates, stated that the senator who introduced the proposal does not like sales tax because it is not a federal income tax allowable deduction. The senator, instead, feels that only state taxes should be paid since they are deductible. Mr. Emanuels stated that the proposal is not in print and shouldn't advance very far. He added that the chances of even a swap between the City's property tax and sales tax are zero. He said the cities would oppose it almost uniformly, and legislators wouldn't support it, since it would require constitutional protection. He stated that even the governor has stated his opposition. Council Member Glover asked which of the revenues is the most endangered. Mr. Emanuels responded by stating that he didn't foresee any changes in property tax, sales tax or transient occupancy tax in the next couple of years. He stated that if there is a downturn in the economy, the State then might come to the cities for more property tax. Volume 53 - Page 183 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8,2000 INDEX Council Member Ridgeway asked how a constitutional amendment to protect the City's property tax could be initiated. Mr. Emanuels stated that it would be impossible to accomplish, politically. He understands that it would require an initiative, which the League of Cities has determined would cost approximately $1 million. Council Member Glover stated her feeling that the two best ways to protect property tax in the City are to make sure an airport is built at El Toro and to make sure the schools are improved. She stated that the City also needs to look at ways to increase its sales tax. She added that the transient occupancy tax revenue could also be increased. Council Member Glover stated that the City should encourage The Irvine Company to continue with their plans for Macy's and Neiman Marcus. Per Council Member Glover's request, Planning Director Temple reported that Fashion Island is allowed a total development of 1,588,850 square feet, plus 1750 theater seats. She stated that of the 1,588,850 square feet, there remains 250,000 square feet of retail development that could occur in the future. Planning Director Temple stated that the 250,000 would not be subject to a vote by the citizens if the Greenlight Initiative was in effect, but would be included in the tabulations. Council Member Glover asked for the status on Macy's and Neiman Marcus. Planning Director Temple stated that any improvements to the existing buildings, which added additional floor area, would draw down the remaining 250,000. Planning Director Temple added that 200,000 square feet of retail space was effected by The Irvine Company's recent action to not continue with the developments at Fashion Island. Council Member Glover stated that the City should talk to The Irvine Company about continuing with their plans. She stated that the City needs to capitalize on the sales tax it receives from Fashion Island. Mayor Noyes confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the 45,000 square feet that was recently moved from Fashion Island is not included in the 250,000 figure. He said that with the 250,000 square feet available and the entitlement to the hotel tower next to the Four Seasons, The Irvine Company could develop without too much trouble. He asked how long the entitlement for the hotel tower would be effective. Planning Director Temple stated that the entitlement does not disappear except through an amendment to the General Plan, but that the hotel requires traffic phasing approval, which is only allowable for a couple of years. Council Member Ridgeway agreed with Council Member Glover's comments and assured everyone that the City would not do anything until it weighs out and balances the traffic impacts. He believed that the financial implications of a Fashion Island expansion are very important to evaluate. He encouraged The Irvine Company to develop, but stated that he understands that there are market considerations that dictate what they do. Regarding the property tax ranking, Barry Eaton expressed the opinion that it is not fair to include redevelopment area funding in the report since that money cannot be used toward General Fund revenue. He stated that it Volume 53 - Page 184 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX might not be bad that the City does not rate as high in terms of sales tax since the State Controller may reallocate sales tax partially on a per capita basis. This will more strongly affect Irvine and Costa Mesa. He also expressed concern relative to e- commerce and its affects on State and local sales tax. Council Member Glover agreed with Mr. Eaton and added that the City should be concentrating more strongly on transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the event the City loses its sales tax. Mr. Eaton concurred, believing that the City's TOT is poised to grow. Council Member Glover expressed her appreciation to staff for doing this report. She stated that it gives her a strong sense of the direction Council should take in order to achieve increased revenue. Administrative Services Director Danner reported that next year's fiscal information will come out in March. He indicated that it took a lot of staff time to generate this report, but confirmed that they could continue using this format for future analysis. Phil Arst stated that he talked with a planner in Irvine last week who also expressed concern relative to e- commerce. He believed that the plan should incorporate and look into this concept as it can have a major impact on the City. Regarding TOT, Administrative Services Director Danner clarified for Mr. Arst that the City's TOT is higher than the adjacent cities. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the City does have to be concerned about e- commerce since six to seven percent of the City's sales tax base will be going this way in a few years. He added that most economists feel that a six to seven percent reduction in sales tax equates to a moderate recession. Council Member Ridgeway expressed the opinion that Congressman Chris Cox's comment that e- commerce should not be taxed is irresponsible. Regarding Mr. Arst's question relative to Proposition 13, Administrative Services Director Danner stated that data is difficult to obtain and comes from the County. He indicated that, up until a couple of years ago, the City had the highest number of pre- Proposition 13 assessments, but now the City is second highest. Mayor Pro Tem Adams thanked Council Member Glover for requesting this report and agreed that it would be a good idea to keep it up to date. He asked if any consideration was made of sharing this with the other Orange County cities. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the City has not formally done this, but that the City Clerk has received many requests from other cities to receive it and noted that the report is also on the City's website. City Manager Bludau stated that he was pleased with what he heard from Council, specifically about the TOT because it is an opportunity for the greatest growth with the least impact on the community. Volume 53 - Page 185 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 8, 2000 PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 5:47 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 2, 2000, at 3:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 53 - Page 186 INDEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting DRAFT February 8, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. INDEX STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. [Refer to separate minutes] CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Absent: Thomson and Debay (excused) Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Glover. Invocation by Reverend Tim McCalmont, Presbyterian Church of the Covenant. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Mayor Noyes announced that the Library Bookstore still needs more donated books. The books can be picked up by calling 759 -9667 or dropped off at the library. • Mayor Noyes announced that, if anyone needs to send a fax to Council on meeting days, they can fax the item to the City Clerk's office at 644 -3039. • Mayor Noyes requested that a future study session be held to answer general questions regarding traffic phasing, lighting, etc. • Noting that the supplemental agenda item appoints Council Member Ridgeway to the Orange County Coastal Coalition, Mayor Noyes commended and thanked the newest Council Members, Mayor Pro Tem. Adams and Council Member Ridgeway, for shouldering their share. • Mayor Noyes announced that the Secretary of States provided cassette tapes to assist the blind and visually impaired that outline the propositions on the March ballot. He stated that individuals can contact the City Clerk's office at 644 -3005 regarding the tapes. Volume 53 - Page 187 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR INDEX Volume 53 - Page 188 MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 2000 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 2000. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 3. Removed at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Adams. 4. Removed at the request of Council Member O'Neil. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 5. Removed at the request of Council Member Glover. 6. AMENDMENT TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON ALVARADO PLACE Ord 2000 -4 (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 896) - AN PCA 896/ AMENDMENT TO DISTRICTING MAP NO. 11 TO ESTABLISH AN 301 Alvarado Place 8 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON ALVARADO PLACE AND (94) DELETE THE ESTABLISHED 8 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON EAST BAY AVENUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 301 ALVARADO PLACE. Adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -4. 7. 407 BOLSA AVENUE (APPLICANTS - VANCE COLLINS AND IAN Ord 2000 -5 FETTES) - A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GPA 91 -2 LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RETAIL AND SERVICE 407 Bolsa Avenue COMMERCIAL TO TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW FOR (45) THE CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. Adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -5. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 8. LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY CONTRACT WITH KENNETH C -3083 EMANUELS AND ASSOCIATES. Authorize Mayor Noyes to execute the Legislative agreement for professional services with Kenneth Emanuels and Associates. Advocacy (38) 9. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE NEWPORT C -3235 DUNES RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (contd. from Newport Dunes 1/25/00). Continued at the request of the consultant. Resort EIR (38) 10. DOVER DRIVE, WESTCLIFF AND DOVER SHORES STREET C -3317 REHABILITATION (C- 3317). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; BA -036 2) award C -3317 to Ruiz Engineering Company for the total bid price of Dover Drive/ Volume 53 - Page 188 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 $458,082.50 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; 3) establish an amount of $45,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work; and 4) authorize a budget amendment (BA -036) to transfer $283,082.50 from the Gas Tax appropriated surplus fund balance to Account No. 7181- C5100537, Dover Drive Pavement Overlay. 11. Removed at the request of Council Member Glover. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 12. PLANNING C Receive and file. AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2000. 13. Removed at the request of Council Member Glover. 14. RESUBDIVISION NO. 978 AT BIRCH STREET AND DOVE STREET. 1) Approve the improvement plans and specifications and accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 978; and 2) authorize the City Clerk to release the faithful performance bond and labor and materials bond (Bond No. 11- 91 -90). 15. DONATION OF CITY PROPERTY. Approve the donation of the property as listed in the staff report to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. 16. TRUCK PURCHASE FOR PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION. 1) Approve an additional vehicle for the Public Works Utilities Division and authorize the purchase of a 1 -ton truck with utility body; and 2) approve a budget amendment (BA -035) to transfer $25,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund Utilities Account (5500 -8110) to the Equipment Replacement Account (5500 -8024) for the purchase of the truck and a transfer of $18,000 from the Special Departmental Supplies Account (5500 -8200) to the Equipment N.O.C. Account (5500-9300). 17. NOTICE OF INTENT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE METRO CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY; AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CONDUCT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF MERGING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE AND MARINE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY DISPATCH, TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SUPPORT SYSTEMS. 1) Approve recommendation to give notice of the City's intent to withdraw as a member of the Metro Cities Fire Authority pending a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of merging the Police Department and Fire and Marine Department Emergency Dispatch, Technology and Management Information support systems; and 2) approve a budget amendment (BA -038) reallocating existing funds and authorizing staff to send out a Request for Proposals to conduct said study, in an amount not to exceed $75,000. 18. Removed at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Adams. S21. APPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY COASTAL COALITION. Confirm Mayor Noyes' appointment of Council Member Ridgeway as the Volume 53 - Page 189 INDEX Westcliff/ Dover Shores Street Rehabilitation (38/40) Planning (68) Resub 978 Birch Street and Dove Street (84) City Property (73) BA -035 Truck Purchase/ Public Works Utilities Division (40/74) BA -038 Metro Cities Fire Authority/ Emergency Dispatch, Technology and Management Information Support Systems RFP (40/41/70) Orange County Coastal Coalition City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 City's representative to the Orange County Coastal Coalition. Public Works Director Webb announced that the Bonita Canyon Park negative declaration had an error relative to the publication of the document. The hearing will not be conducted tonight, but is scheduled for March 8. He reported that they are preparing responses to comments and that those letters should be received prior to March 8. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 18) and continued (9). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OPPOSING MEASURE F. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that this is an important Countywide vote that could affect the development of an airport at El Toro and proceeded to read the resolution. Council Member Glover believed that the local newspaper, some residents, Supervisor Tom Wilson, and the proponents of the Millennium Plan are trying to convince the public that there is nothing to worry about relative to the John Wayne Airport (JWA) being expanded if El Toro does not happen. She noted that there will be a need for additional air passenger use in the County and, if El Toro is not built, they will naturally expand JWA. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that the two - thirds provision in Measure F would ensure that El Toro would not be built. And if El Toro is not built, he believed that getting a two - thirds vote to expand JWA five to fifteen years from now will be one of the easiest things to do since the County will be suffering from a lack of air service and the economy will be suffering. He indicated that the cities that are directly in the JWA corridor (Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Tustin) will easily be outvoted by the remainder of the County to expand JWA. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -14 Mayor Noyes stated that these types of initiatives are not in the best interest of the County and believed that the decisions are made based on prejudice, self interest, and propaganda. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Volume 53 - Page 190 (54) Res 2000 -14 Measure F (54) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay 4. BANKRUPTCY RECOVERY. Res 2000 -15 Bankruptcy Council Member O'Neil stated that this issue was brought forward at the Recovery Transportation Corridor meeting last week. He reported that Supervisor (40) Todd Spitzer indicated that this type of resolution waives and releases any claims to any additional funds that may be discovered. He believed it would not be in the City's best interest to waive any rights in order to receive the fair share. Council Member Ridgeway reported that the City's loss was $17.3 million and the recovery will be 94 percent of that amount. Administrative Services Director Danner confirmed that the City is required to sign a release for any additional money that may be found. He stated that the City has been encouraged by Orange County Investment Pool (OCIP) Counsel Patrick Shea to sign the document in order to receive the proceeds. It is his opinion that it is unlikely that any additional funds will be found since it has been five years since the bankruptcy and the County's auditors have been through the books. He reported that the funds will be available on February 24. Indicating that he is satisfied that this has been reviewed by the bankruptcy counsel, Council Member O'Neil moved to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -15 appointing the Administrative Services Director as the designated person from the City to receive all bankruptcy proceeds and adopt the Settlement Agreement between the County, Pool Committee, and each Option A participant. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay 5. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 6.040.090 OF THE NBMC Ord 2000 -1 (GARBAGE AND REFUSE CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS). Garbage & Refuse Containers (44) General Services Director Niederhaus reported that about 11 percent of the population has containers that do not meet the new requirements. He stated that a public outreach program has been set up which will notify the residents that they have until September 1 to change out the nonconforming containers; and provide them with the store locations where they can purchase the proper containers. He provided an overview of the new requirements and indicated that, even though they have the authority to cite and fine residents, they always find them cooperative. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Niederhaus reported that the City services 26,320 units, and that 1,743 are affected by the Volume 53 - Page 191 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 ordinance. He reiterated that the residents always tend to cooperate with the refuse department and that the refuse department expects there will be compliance prior to September. He reported that the containers can cost between $8 to $17 each, with each unit using two to three containers. He stated that they have contacted the local hardware stores relative to the container change and that the stores will also have flyers that outline the new requirements. Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -1. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay 11. PLANNING ANALYSIS OF THE "PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC AND DENSITY" INITIATIVE. Assistant City Manager Wood noted that the Protection from Traffic and Density initiative (Greenlight initiative) will be on the November ballot. She stated that the initiative is a very complex piece of potential legislation and the impacts on future development are unclear. Additionally, because of its retrospective nature to look back at General Plan Amendments (GPA) from the past 10 years, a fair amount of research needs to be done to gain that understanding. She indicated that the City does not have the staffing to do the analysis in -house and is proposing to contract with John Douglas of The Planning Center. She reported that Mr. Douglas is a former City employee and that the advantages of him conducting the analysis is that he worked on some of the GPAs and knows the City's system and General Plan. She noted that Council Policy requires Council approval whenever it is proposed to retain the services of a former employee. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Ms. Wood reported that Mr. Douglas will be contracted to review all of the GPAs that have been approved in the last 10 years by statistical area and will track the amount of square footage, number of residential units approved, and the amount of traffic generated by those developments. The City will then know what the future impacts will be for each statistical area, i.e. the amount of capacity that remains in each area before another GPA would require a vote of the people. Ms. Wood stated that this information is needed in order to understand what the City is dealing with and to respond to property owner questions. Believing that this is the beginning point, Council Member Glover stated that the long term economic impacts, the number of elections, and the election costs will need to be determined in order to properly inform the residents of the initiative's implications. Mayor Pro Tem Adams requested that the following questions also be answered: how many elections will the City need to hold; what will the cost be to the taxpayers to hold the elections; what is the expected cost for administrating the change to the City charter; Volume 53 - Page 192 INDEX C -3328 BA -037 Planning Analysis of Initiative (38/40/68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX and does the initiative cover large and small development proposals that do not require GPAs. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to approve a budget amendment (BA -037) in the amount of $11,500 and authorize the City Manager to retain the services of a firm employing a former City employee, and to execute a professional services agreement with The Planning Center for the preparation of a planning analysis of the initiative. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland, believed that Council is opposed to the Greenlight initiative and hopes it fails. Further, that the money might be regarded as a campaign expenditure to try to produce something to be used against the initiative. He stated that an easy way to avoid this appearance of evil is to put off this study until after the election. Mr. Beek stated that the answers to the three concerns are already in hand. Regarding staffing, he believed that there will be a trivial amount of extra time involved and that the GPA reports will, thereafter, have to show the increase in peak hour trips, square feet, and dwelling units. He believed that this data should already be included in the staff report. He indicated that staff reports are good at telling what the situation will be after adoption, but does not report on what the situation was before adoption. Regarding how many elections the initiative would cause to be held, Mr. Beek indicated that they have analyzed this and posted the information on their website. He reported that they analyzed the 55 GPAs that were made over the last 11 years and that there were about 2,000 projects a year. Of those 2,000 projects, about 5 projects required GPAs and, of those 5 projects, only 1 was major enough to call for a vote under the Greenlight initiative. He indicated that he gave his analysis to the Economic Development Committee and the Planning Department so they could check it and find any errors, and so far no one has offered any corrections. He stated that they welcome the production of information, but that it does not take $11,500 to do this. Regarding determining what the initiative means to the economic development and future of the City, Mr. Beek expressed the opinion that the analysis is an inappropriate thing to be spending money on. He stated that, when a GPA comes up, its impact on the economic future of the City is one of the things that is taken into consideration. He indicated that it might be necessary to look at some of the past GPAs and clarify what was done only when a new GPA comes up. Phil Arst, 2601 Lighthouse Lane, stated that he supports any and all analysis of the work they did in formulating the Greenlight initiative so that the public may form an opinion for themselves. He noted that major builders have seen the data and believed that, if The Irvine Company found serious flaws, they would not have withdrawn their project. Mr. Arst asked if Council is the initiative opponent since Council is interjecting into a separate political process by subsidizing work that more properly should be done by their commercial opponents. He stated that they strongly object to the City using taxpayer dollars for an analysis. However, if Council does award this contract, they should then award an equal amount to the proponents. Referencing Agenda Item 15 on the January 11 agenda, Volume 53 - Page 193 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX he expressed the opinion that this is the second time Council has interjected itself into the process. He stated that, if there was something wrong with the initiative, their opponents will bring lawsuits against it and that the City does not need to be involved. Mr. Arst requested that Council leave this political study to their opponents since this information is not needed until after the election. He announced that information regarding the Greenlight initiative can be accessed at www.newportgreenlight.com. Mayor Noyes stated that Council works for the citizens of Newport Beach and that their goal is to educate the citizens. He noted that doing the analysis after the election has been conducted is not right because that would mean that the citizens would find out what they voted on after they have already voted. City Attorney Burnham stated that Council can and has the obligation to educate its citizens on any ballot measure. He indicated that it is his understanding that this agenda item was something that was suggested by Mr. Beek a few months ago after his GPA analysis. Mr. Beek suggested that the City check his work, determine what prior GPAs might have been subject to the initiative, and determine the affects of prior GPAs in terms of the aggregation provision. He believed that this is precisely what Mr. Beek asked the City to do and added that the study is completely legal. In keeping the analysis in line with Mr. Beek's request, Mayor Pro Tem Adams withdrew his suggested additions to the study. Council Member Glover stated that Council's responsibilities are to every resident in the City and that they will live with whatever decision the voters make. Further, it is also Council's responsibility to inform the citizens on what the initiative will do to their quality of life. She stated that Council will be remiss in their responsibility if they do not get information to the citizens. Jennifer Frutig, 1715 Marlin Way, stated that she was surprised to read in the Daily Pilot about how the initiative would handcuff Council and eliminate the review process, believing that giving voters oversight over major amendments would not handcuff Council. Regarding the independent analysis, Dr. Frutig pointed out that the cost was one of the reasons Council did not want to hold a special election and noted that Council did not feel the initiative would pass anyway. However, Council is now willing to spend $11,500 on an independent analysis whose data could easily be manipulated. Mayor Noyes clarified that the reason Council did not hold a special election for the initiative was because they wanted time for the public to be well educated on the subject and not have it rushed. Council Member Ridgeway emphasized that everyone is working towards the same goal of determining a vision of what the City is all about. He indicated that Council is trying to create solutions and noted that Council made a motion for a GPA, Land Use update, and Circulation update that will have a vision. He expressed the opinion that doing this is more important and will Volume 53 - Page 194 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 13. also allow the City to revisit fair share fees and transient occupancy tax fees. He reported that there is a project near the airport that would only pay the City $1 million, but would pay $6 million if it were in Irvine. He believed that $11,500 is money well-spent to evaluate if the City is losing $5 million and to create solutions. Mayor Noyes emphasized that Council is not the opponent and noted that Council makes daily decisions based on the same things Greenlight is talking about. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he is an opponent of the initiative, but is a proponent of stopping too much traffic in the City. He clarified that The Irvine Company did not back out from their project because of the initiative. The Irvine Company knew it did not have enough votes because Council cares enough about the City to keep traffic from growing too much. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNAGE. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that one of the Economic Development Committee's (EDC) focus was on image enhancement, specifically signage. She indicated that EDC is recommending that Council include funding for a comprehensive review of the commercial sign code and development of a coordinated Citywide signage program in next year's capital budget. She reported that the cost would be similar to the Balboa Peninsula signage program ($50,000), but that an actual estimate will be conducted if Council wants to include it in the budget. Regarding simple coordinated signs, Ms. Wood indicated that the idea is to replace some of the existing signs with new ones and reduce the number of signs throughout the City. This would simplify and clean -up the entire look. Mayor Pro Tem Adams expressed his support, believing that this is the direction the City should be headed. Don Glasgow, 2620 East Coast Highway, business owner, Chairman of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, member of the Economic Development Committee, stated that the recommendation is a way to get started on a sign program. He reported that the current signage ordinances are cumbersome and old, and that time is needed to figure out where the City wants to go, where it should be, and how it wants to look. He stated that everyone in the community agrees that the City has a sign problem. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to direct staff to include the following two projects in the 2000 -01 Capital Budget: 1) comprehensive review of commercial sign code; and 2) development of simple, coordinated Volume 53 - Page 195 INDEX Economic Development Committee/ Signage (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 public and visitor signage throughout the City of Newport Beach. Council Member Glover believed that the City needs better sign restrictions. She indicated that Mariner's Mile will be coming to the City with a sign program that was put together by the businesses in which they discipline themselves. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay 18. APPEAL OF PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION COMMISSION DECISION. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that he tries to oppose tree removals; however, in this case, the City needs to remove two parkway trees to preserve the sight lines to a stop sign that is in a school area. He noted that he would love to see the trees remain, but believed this is one case in which the City cannot compromise safety and the safety of school children. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to 1) overturn the decision of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission of 211/2000 to continue a tree removal request by the Traffic Engineer; and 2) approve the removal of two city parkway trees located at Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Oro. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. 19. COAST HIGHWAY RELINQUISHMENT IN CORONA DEL MAR. City Manager Bludau cautioned Council that this would be difficult to back out of once the City secures a legislator to sponsor legislation for the relinquishment without losing favor of that legislator. He believed that the process should begin but just wanted to make Council aware that relinquishment from Caltrans is an unusual process to undertake. Public Works Director Webb stated that the City and the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (CdM BID) have had many meetings with Caltrans. He reported that it is Caltrans District 12's preference that the City request a relinquishment for either all of Coast Highway or the portion from the easterly City limits to Newport Boulevard, and not just a small piece. He indicated that Corona del Mar may have some differences in Volume 53 - Page 196 INDEX Tree Removal/ Eastbluff Drive and Vista del Oro (62) Coast Highway Relinquishment (74) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 INDEX which a case can be built that the section through the business district is different from the roadway on either side. Mr. Webb reported that it is Caltrans' policy that local agency relinquishment requests be done through the legislature. As part of a relinquishment, Caltrans agrees to bring the roadway section up to a state of good repair (having a ten year life). He reported that Caltrans has recently done a major overlay and reconstruction project, so there may or may not be the ability to receive large sums of money for improvements. He indicated that negotiations will still be needed after the legislative process to define "state of good repair ". Mr. Webb reported that the relinquishment will be good for the Corona del Mar area because everything requires a Caltrans permit that is currently done to the storefronts of the entire right -of -way. If the City were controlling that area, the permit process would hopefully be quicker. He stated that Caltrans does not allow certain activities, like sidewalk sales or outside dining; and are reluctant to allow extensive improvements in median landscaping and paving. The community indicated that they would like the ability to conduct upgrades that are not normally allowed by Caltrans. Council Member O'Neil reported that there is a phenomenon in old Corona del Mar in which both the business and residential communities are in total agreement on one thing, and that this motivates him to do whatever he can to support it. He believed that, if the City accomplishes the relinquishment, it will create a lot of landscaping possibilities, a more village -like character, a more pedestrian- friendly area, and more parking opportunities. He noted that the CdM BID has been working on this and will continue to work on this, and has looked at the maintenance issues and liability exposure. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to propose a relinquishment to Caltrans of the one mile stretch through the Corona del Mar business district; authorize the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District representatives to meet with Caltrans officials and staff to discuss all the issues (i.e. long term maintenance and liability) and come back to Council with their findings; Council reserves the right to secure legislator to sponsor legislation to accomplish the relinquishment; and direct staff to negotiate with Caltrans a "state of good repair" settlement. Don Glasgow, 2620 East Coast Highway, business owner, Chairman of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, stated that he has been working with some incredible volunteers on this project for about three years. He stated that the CdM BID hopes to move ahead with the relinquishment at the same time their Corona del Mar plans move ahead, so that momentum is not lost. He emphasized that they do have momentum, cohesiveness, and ideas for the area. He reported that they need to get Caltrans out of the way if they want to add more trees, improve pedestrian circulation, improve parking management, add more medians, fix sidewalks, add more landscaping and paving, add street enhancements, add more and better park benches, add bike racks and water fountains, improve building facades, improve signage, clean up alleys, improve lighting, add more planter boxes and flower pots, add hanging plants, add more decorations, Volume 53 - Page 197 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 and add more monuments at the City's entrance. He emphasized that they need to deal with one agency, the City, and then they can work with the City to figure out how to get everything done to make Corona del Mar one of the most special places in Southern California. Mr. Glasgow stated that they understand that things cost money but that they are getting creative and researching funding sources. Council Member Ridgeway applauded the CdM BID on all their goals, but cautioned them of the downsides to relinquishment (long term maintenance costs after ten years and the liability risks). He stated that Council needs to evaluate the cost and tort risks to the City prior to proceeding forward. Council Member Glover stated that there will be a cost to the City because it will be handling all the lawsuits that occur there, but noted that the City always ends up being one of the parties affected anyway. She pointed out that, although the cost will be spread throughout the City, this is a real positive thing for the City. She indicated that the City needs to concentrate on improving all the older areas and agreed with Mr. Glasgow that Corona del Mar can be taken to another level. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay 20. BALBOA PENINSULA PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN. Council Member Ridgeway reported that this item has been reviewed both by Council and by Promote Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP). Tom Hyans, President of the Central Newport Beach Community Association, stated that they have done considerable work with Council Member Ridgeway on the peninsula parking plan and that this plan deals entirely with commercial areas. He believed that the determination of what will work best for the businesses is for the businesses to explore and that options can be tried at relatively little expense to the City. Regarding residential areas, the Association does not feel there should be meters in these areas. Additionally, they are also not supportive of higher fees or raising the parking permit program in the residential areas. Mr. Hyans indicated that he reviewed the Balboa Inn plans but expressed concern relative to parking buses near this business. Council Member Ridgeway reported that the Balboa Parking lot will be reviewed at a later date. Regarding Option 4 (implement Business Parking Permit Program), he indicated that the City will be watching very closely as to whether businesses impact residential areas. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to approve the following options and direct staff to implement as soon as possible: Volume 53 - Page 198 INDEX Balboa Peninsula Parking Management (85) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 8, 2000 Option 1 - Increase Meter Fees Option 2 - Modify Meter Time Limits Option 5 - Create Visitor Parking Guide Option 9 - Implement Bus Layover Area Option 15 - Improve Red Curb and Intersection Visibility Option 16 - Develop Pier Lot Validation Program Option 17 - Implement Electronic Meter Pilot Program The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Thomson, Debay - None. ADJOURNMENT - 8:35 p.m. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 2, 2000, at 3:15 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 February 4, 2000, at 2:10 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 53 - Page 199 11011 D/:/