Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 03-28-2000April 11, 2000 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes ®���� Study Session March 28, 2000 - 4:00 p.nl. INDEX ROLL CALL Present: Thomson, Glover (arrived at 4:25 p.m.), Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Mayor Noyes Absent: O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item No. 5 (Construction Site Fencing and Screening Requirements), Mayor Pro Tem Adams reported that Council received a letter from Bob Yant that indicates that the cost of fencing a 60 ft. x 120 ft. lot for one year is $2,000; however the staff report states that it would cost $800. He requested feedback on the discrepancy by 7:00 p.m. Regarding Item No. 6 (Bayside Drive Parkway Improvements), Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked if Council will be seeing what the project is all about and what it is going to look like. Public Works Director Webb indicated that a set of plans can be provided before the study session is over. Regarding Item No. 7 (Design of the Corona del Mar Water Transmission Main), Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what other firms submitted bids and the price ranges of their bids. Mr. Webb stated that they normally negotiate for these types of designs. Regarding Item No. 14 (Santiago Drive Speed Reduction Program), Mayor Pro Tem Adams reported that the staff report was not sent to the residents. He suggested that this item be continued to the April 11 meeting to give them a chance to review the material. City Manager Bludau concurred with the recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Adams requested to see the speed profiles and how it has been affected by the physical improvements and enforcement, explaining that he is hoping that the reduction in the 85 percentile is fairly modest at 3 mph and that some of the higher speeds have been cut down. In response to Council Member Debay's questions regarding Item No. 17 (Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative - Assumptions and Methodology), Mr. Bludau confirmed that this is part of the report that John Douglas of The Planning Center is conducting and that these are just the issues that require an interpretation or an assumption since there will be some impacts that will be concluded based on the study. He clarified that the study will only look at the 49 statistical areas, determine their capacities, and then the City will move forward based on the impacts to the individual statistical areas. Volume 53 - Page 257 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 F-1 T BAY UPDATE - WATER QUALITY, MORE. Deputy City Manager Kiff indicated that the good news is that Propositions 12 and 13 passed. He reported that Proposition 12 included a $13 million local match to conduct a Federally- funded State dredging project in Upper Newport Bay. He noted that the City completed a 900,000 cubic yard dredging project in the Bay about a year ago. However, he utilized maps to show that the Bay was not fully dredged and was not left in a perfect condition. He pointed out that the light brown area in the maps is a mud flat, not open water; that a channel was cut through the middle; and that Unit I, II, and III Basins were cleared out. He reported that, since then, the Bay has undergone a two -year U.S. Army Corp of Engineers study that is near completion that discusses what the optimal ecosystem of the Bay should look like and provides recommendations. He stated that the Corp recommends more extensive dredging in Unit I and II Basins, that they left the mud flat because it is important to the wildlife, and that they propose to dredge additional channels to increase the flow of the Bay. This project will cost $28 million, take about two years to complete, and is about three times larger than the last dredging project. He reported that the Federal government will pay 65 percent and reiterated that the State, County, and City share (35 percent) is completely covered by Proposition 12. Mr. Kiff added that this project has a 20 -year life, assuming that rainfalls are normal. He indicated that the Corp's recommendation will be in the news within the next month as it is released for public review and comment, and that they will be holding a public hearing in the Chambers. Council Member Ridgeway reported that the 900,000 cubic yards that went offsite was basically silt and dirt, and will play into tonight's discussion. Mr. Kiff indicated that similar dredging will occur. He emphasized that the dumpsite the City uses off of the pier (LA -3) is very important to the project and that, if it is taken away, the City will end up paying a transport cost to take the material to a site off of Long Beach. This would double the cost of the project. He stated that they have been working hard to ensure that they can continue to use LA -3 even though it is a "temporary site." Council Member Debay reported that Congressman Cox indicated that it is a good time to make these types of requests. Mr. Kiff confirmed that the dumpsite is high on Congressman Cox's list and that the City has submitted three requests (completion of the Federal dredging project; continuation of LA -3 as a permanent dumpsite; and a comprehensive study of the watershed to keep sediment from coming down). He reported that the assurance that the City has today is that, if the project can be completed on time, they can still stay within the temporary designation window; however, it closes shortly after the project is done. He emphasized that LA -3 will need to be made permanent and referenced the projects in Attachment A. Regarding the TMDL, Mr. Kiff stated that this is going to be an important issue for Newport Beach. He clarified that the fecal coliform TMDL basically means that water that enters the Bay from any of the storm drains has to be clean enough for swimming. He noted that the Bay is the only area in Southern California that has a TMDL requirement, that it will be difficult for the City to meet the contaminate limit, and that it will be expensive. He reported that there are a few areas in the east coast and very few areas in Volume 53 - Page 258 INDEX Newport Bay Issues (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX west coast that have TMDL requirements. Regarding lower bay general permits, Mr. Kiff reported that the City routinely receives a ten -year permit from the Coastal Commission, supported by the Corp of Engineers, that allows the City to authorize everyone who owns a residential pier in the harbor to dredge their pier. He indicated that the renewal has been challenging this time, explaining that the City submitted the application for the new permit in October, knowing it was going to expire in December, but the Coastal Commission staff did not set the matter for hearing until this month. He stated that, when they set the hearing, they imposed conditions that are difficult for the City and the pier permittees to meet (page 3 of the staff report). This may mean that everyone will have to individually request permits from the Commission to conduct dredging projects. Regarding the eelgrass condition, Council Member Glover indicated that she and City Attorney Burnham have been looking at this issue for three years. She reported that, since eelgrass is unique to its area, no mitigation can take place. She expressed the opinion that the City should not go forward with the program to plant eelgrass offsite and use it to replant in the Bay at a later date. Mr. Kdff reported that only plans and specifications have been looked at, but agreed that the City should not participate in the program if no credit will be received. Regarding the onshore sand content condition, Public Works Director Webb reported that, once the dredging is laid on the beach, the water solution takes a lot of the silts to the bottom. If sand was dredged onto the beach, a dark sand material will be formed that contains a lot of fine silts that are bleached out rapidly. He concluded by emphasizing that such a precise gradation of the material cannot be made until after two or three months. Council Member Ridgeway explained that there are basically two types of dredging (large clam shells dropped down by a hoist and using a pump method) and that the permit generally utilizes the pump action for dredging. Mr. Kiff reported that the City used clam shells for the Upper Newport Bay project because it was the most feasible method for the area. Regarding providing additional surveys, Mr. Kiff reported that it takes a long time to do a good bio -assay study and that the City may end up incurring the $75,000 cost for the study. Council Member Ridgeway pointed out that the proposed areas make up over 50 percent of the Bay. Mr. Kiff reported that the issue was heard by the Commission about ten days ago at the Monterey meeting that Deputy Fire and Marine Chief Melum attended. He made the arguments that the conditions are too onerous and requested a continuance to their April meeting so that the City could have more time to talk with the Commission. Deputy Fire and Marine Chief Melum stated that the City basically has two permits awaiting approval when normally there is one permit. He reported that one permit is the Federal consistency application in which the State's staff says that the City's Federal request matches State law; and the other is the specific dredging permit. The consistency application will be heard at the April meeting; however, the dredging permit will be placed on a future agenda. Volume 53 - Page 259 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Glover asked if the City would be better off continuing this for awhile until it can work with Commission staff to not impose these conditions. Mr. Melum stated that they are strategizing the best way to bring some pressure on Coastal Commission staff and work towards the hierarchy. He indicated that his impression with dealing with their staff is that they are very reluctant to issue a general permit even though this is the third time the City has applied for it. They believe a general permit gives the City too much latitude, which accounts for their conservative requirements. He reported that there are 1,200 residential/commercial permittees that could be affected by the conditions and that they have not been officially notified of the situation. He indicated that he has been keeping the contractors apprised of the situation and informed them that there is a time consuming and very costly mechanism for which the 1,200 permittees can get their own permit. He noted that the City issues between 45 to 60 permits a year and only about one of them applies for their permit as an individual. Council Member Glover believed that the City should notice the affected permittees because this could be a big policy change. Mr. Bludau emphasized that time is of the essence for the dock owners so that they could use their property. He indicated that the conditions seem to suggest that the Commission wants to force the City to have individual permit applications rather than a master permit. Council Member Debay stated that she would love to see the Council at the Commission's meeting to testify on the issue. Council Member Ridgeway reported that he went out at low tide to do an inspection of the harbor and noticed a lot of expensive damage to piers and boats. He emphasized that property values are decreased if the owners' ability to dredge the private docks is taken away, and that the industry is useless if the docks are useless. He stated that he, the City Manager, and the Deputy Fire and Marine Chief met with Dave Neish of DB Neish, Incorporated, who reported that the Commission consists of 12 members (four are appointed by the Governor; four by the Speaker of the Assembly; and four by the Senate Pro Tem) and that six of them must be elected officials from the coastal communities. With the election of Governor Davis, there is a newly- constituted Commission that is very environmentally sensitive but not sensitive to the City's issues. Regarding Commission staff, Council Member Ridgeway indicated that they are the same staff members that have been there for years; however, he believed that the City has not done an effective job of communicating the problems and, therefore, this has reached a critical timeframe. He reported that Mr. Melum did prepare a list of problems with regard to the Commission's ocean and beach disposal conditions, and added that the Commission did not release their report until just a few days before the hearing. He concluded that $12,000 to $20,000 of studies will need to be conducted if everyone needed individual permits from the Commission for a process that only takes six to twelve months. Mayor Noyes asked what is entailed and the timeframe involved for a private citizen to obtain a permit. Mr. Melum stated that the best case scenario would only entail grain size and chemical analyses ($2,000 to $6,000). However, if the chemical analysis shows that there are heavy metals, a bio -assay study will need to be conducted. He reported that the City conducted chemical analyses in 12 areas within the harbor and that the Volume 53 - Page 260 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX data suggests that only grain size and chemical analyses will need to be done since four of the areas were excluded from having heavy metals and eight areas were considered clean. This would still cost each permittee about $6,000 for a job that really only costs about $1,500. He emphasized how the cost of the permit and the timing is out of proportion to the nature of the job. Tod Johnson, 121 North Bayfront, stated that he and his wife recently moved into their house and purchased a boat. He indicated that Mark Sikes of Intercoastal Dredging has been keeping them apprised of the proposed policy and procedures, and pointed out that they now have to pay for dock space elsewhere because they cannot store their boat at their own property. He urged Council to take a very proactive stand to reach a reasonable solution as this will severely affect real estate values. He pointed out that dredging is only a maintenance issue since the property owners are not displacing tremendous amounts of soil, dredging reinforces the City's bulkheads, and the area is a non -beach area. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the fine is $50,000 if someone took the matter into their own hands. Lisa Miller, dredging contractor and President of Shellmaker Incorporated, reported that there are currently docks that are broken -up, boats that are unable to go into their slips, and fingers of docks that are about ready to break off. She also emphasized the issue of bulkhead reinforcement since it is one of the ways that property owners protect their waterfront structures and homes. She agreed that it would be helpful for the homeowners to receive something from the City that explains what is happening because they are understandably frustrated and irate. Ms. Miller stated that, even though she has consulted for the Coastal Commission, she cannot state that they are a rational organization to work with or that they respond in a timely manner. She reported that, when she sat on the County Oversight Committee for the Bay dredging, the County received a permit for emergency dredging from the Commission and the Corp in record time, and that she asked Supervisor Wilson if there was any possibility that County Coastal Engineer Tom Rossmiller could provide guidance and walk them through the technical issues. She indicated that Supervisor Wilson believes it would not be a problem if Chief of Staff Holly Vail was contacted. Ms. Miller requested that Council look into this. Council Member Ridgeway commented that the County Coastal Coalition may not be a forum that is receptive to the City's cause. Barry O'Neil, 221 East Bayfront, stated that he has owned property on Balboa Island since 1976 and in 1993 moved to the bayfront because it allowed him to purchase a property with a slip so he could maintain his vessel. Since moving there, he has dredged his dock every 18 months at his expense. He noted that dredging also benefits his neighbors both on and off the island because he creates a 30 ft. long x 12 ft. deep beach area for people to sit on and visit during the summer. He reported that he was not granted a permit when he applied for it in September because he was told that the permit already expired. Mr. O'Neil expressed concern that a first class harbor is deteriorating and added that his boat has sustained substantial Volume 53 - Page 261 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX damage as a result of being beached twice in the past few months. He stated that he is ready to take his boat permanently out of the harbor and out of the country because it cannot be maintained, and believed that a lot of people will be having the same problem in a few months. He noted that the assessed value of his property will decrease and that the property owners do not have six months to wait. He stated that the City needs to solicit help from County officials, the Governor, Senators, and Congressmen. He added that East Bayfront does not have a shortage of eelgrass because there is plenty growing near the Little Balboa Island bridge. Council Member Debay hoped that everyone alsospeaks on this issue during the regular meeting because the meeting is televised and press will be in attendance. She apologized that this is the first time she has heard about this issue. Mr. Melum clarified that the application was submitted to the Commission in July because their staff wanted to make sure that the City had all issues resolved with the Corp and the EPA. He reported that the two permits were previously granted within 60 days and that they were fairly certain, based on past history, that this would be the case this time. He indicated that they began working with the Corp two years prior to the permit expiring but the Corp felt it was too soon. The City tried again 13 months prior to the permit expiring and it took until July to resolve all the issues. He stated that the City's permit expired August 31, 1999; however, he indicated that the application that was sent in July was not going to be official for 60 days after that because the Commission requested additional information that they had never requested in the past. In response to Mayor Noyes' question regarding emergency dredging, Mr. Melum stated that this is used only if there is potential eminent damage to the property. This would not be very helpful in these cases, otherwise the City would have already applied for it. Ms. Miller indicated that she submitted an emergency request for one of her clients which did not involve dredging. With an emergency permit, she reported that the owner can only do work that is going to tie them over until the Teal job can be performed. The emergency permit was granted in 20 days, but it took about 18 months to turn the temporary permit into a permanent permit. Council Member Ridgeway noted that no action can be taken on study session items but reminded Council that Item No. 15 will allow Council to take action on these issues. He agreed with Council Member Debay that it would help if someone from the audience spoke at the regular meeting. John Corrough, 1004 South Bayfront and Harbor Committee Member, stated that his family has owned property and boats since the 1930s. He indicated that the net differential between the cost of the dredging and the cost of all the other exercises that receiving an individual permit entails is about 16 times the cost of the dredging, even when a number of people contribute their expertise to the process. He noted that he has been a planner and designer of waterfront facilities for 40 years and has worked with the Commission and other agencies as part of his job. He stated that he is stunned by the amount of difficulty they are now having. Volume 53 - Page 262 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Mr. Corrough noted that safety issues were discussed in a meeting last week with the Chamber of Commerce Marine Committee. He reported that the local Coast Guard Commander commented that the Coast Guard cutter, which services the City's harbor and the outer area, is currently going aground at low tide and that this may require him to do something on an emergency basis through the Federal level. Further, they are limited in their ability to respond to calls because the County rescue boats and harbor patrol boats go aground regularly due to conditions that normally have not occurred. He added that visiting vessels and home ported vessels have also gone aground, causing injury and damage. Mr. Corrough reported that there is a major component of the harbor and the City's economy that is derived from waterfront uses that require docking vessels that carry the general public. This situation is beginning to affect many operators who are now only able to operate in certain tide conditions. He stated that the City needs to seize a proactive, aggressive, focused effort. Patty Pemper, representing the De Anza Bayside Village and Marina, expressed concern that they have been left out of the process because they are located north of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. She stated that the area has historically been dredged near the mouth of the marina by using the general permit and that they are basically being told that they will be forced to spend a great deal of money to do very small dredging jobs. She expressed hope that the City is successful in its efforts with the Commission. Mr. Melum indicated that the City has the only maintenance permit for residential harbors and has one of the only general permits in the State. Mayor Noyes suggested finding out if there are other cities whose permits will be expiring soon so that the City can possibly have an ally to work with in this fight. Mr. Melum indicated that the Commission considers dredging spoils almost as toxic waste and that it has to be proven to them that it is not, regardless if there are 20 cubic yards or 3 million cubic yards of material. Referencing the large amount of waste that was hauled to sea after the Bay dredging project, Ms. Miller indicated that if she did the same job she would have to fill her dump barge everyday (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) and take it out to sea for 11.63 years to meet the same amount of material. Additionally, since the City has the estuary, she indicated that there is a special problem in Newport Harbor that other harbors do not have because sand also drains into the Bay on a constant basis. In response to Mayor Noyes' question, Ms. Miller indicated that she stopped taking dredging applications and stopped sending personnel out to take the soundings because it is costing her money. She stated that she is only keeping a running list and maintaining her equipment. Mr. Bludau stated that Mr. Neish admitted that working with the Commission is laborious and the rules have completely changed. Further, that the City would need to work with Commission staff to get them on the City's side and then work through the State even before reaching the Commission. This means that the City will need to spend some time and make this a high priority. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the City has engaged the legislators (Attachment B). He added that Assemblywoman Volume 53 - Page 263 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 Brewer's husband even contacted him to complain that his boat was hung up on some shoals and that he cannot park his vessel in his dock. He expressed the opinion that the City needs to move forward on two fronts: staff to staff and from a political point. He emphasized that the Commission bureaucratically stopping the Bay dredging is unacceptable and will actually deteriorate the Bay. He noted that this problem arose because of the Federal and State Clean Water Act, but reported that the City's water and sand are cleaner today then they have ever been. He assured everyone that any discussion about economic impacts has no value to the Commission. Mayor Noyes stated that the City will have staff make this a high priority and do everything it can to resolve the issue. He agreed that the owners need to receive an update on where the City is on this so that they can be kept aware and possibly enlist their aid in the fight. Council Member Glover agreed and suggested sending them the staff report. She stated that Mr. Kiff and Mr. Melum should continue to work together and possibly have City Attorney Burnham assist them with negotiations: Council Member Debay asked if there was a legal way to challenge this. City Attorney Burnham indicated that he was not aware of the seriousness but has made notes so that he can check on existing Coastal Commission regulations. He stated that he will talk with Mr. Bludau, Mr. Kiff, and Mr. Melum on some ways to approach the Commission's staff. Council Member Thomson stated that he also spoke with Mr. Brewer, who won last year's Ensenada race for being the first Newport Beach sailor to cross the finish line. He emphasized that his point was not necessarily about his dock but that he cannot sail his boat anymore because of the threat of being hung up inside the Bay. Council Member Thomson believed this is a serious problem as the Bay could eventually turn into "Newport Meadow ". Council Member Ridgeway noted that dredgers Plazi Miller and Mark Sikes did not speak tonight but are in attendance. He indicated that they have been an invaluable source of information and help, and have written numerous letters on this issue. 3. LOW POWER FM RADIO SYSTEM. General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the Low Power FM (LPFM) Radio System is undergoing rapid Federal regulation changes. He indicated that, during the Boat Parade, the City erects special 6 ft. x 4 ft. signs at all City entrances to tell visitors to tune to 95.7 for local boating and parking information. He reported that this staff report deals with a dedicated City service that can only be owned and operated by a non -profit organization. He stated that the special regulations will be ready next month and that they began preparing a list of possible uses and items for broadcast. Referencing a coverage map, he noted that these types of stations have a maximum range of 3.5 miles at 100 watts, which would at best only cover 80 to 85 percent of the City even from the proposed sites (Police Department, Balboa Island Fire Station, and either pier). Volume 53 - Page 264 `li�l17s►:4 Low Power FM Radio System (44) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Thomson stated that this is new and that there is a limit to the number of systems that will be available. He believed that visitor services and public safety can be enhanced by using LPFM since it will only deal with Newport Beach. He indicated that LPFM could be an advantage for the City if it does not cost too much. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that only one eight -year permit will be allowed per entity during the first two -year period. However, more LPFMs can be garnered after that time. He believed that other entities, like the Chamber of Commerce or Visitor's Bureau, may want to use this for specialized purposes rather than the City undertaking this entirely on its own. He stated that they have not explored all the possibilities but can provide Council with an update in about 90 -days. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None. ADJOURNMENT — 5:35 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 22, 2000, at 3:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 53 - Page 265 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes ��� Regular Meeting March 28, 2000 - 7:00 p.m INDEX STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m [Refer to separate minutes] CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - Nor RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. F \ ROLL CALL Present: Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Th Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Debay. Invocation by Pastor Kevin Querry, Living Waters Christian Fellowship; Chaplain, Newport Beach Police Department. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Council Member O'Neil requested that staff provide information on the construction status of a sidewalk on Coast Highway from Morning Canyon to the entrance of Cameo Shores. He stated that the Cameo Shores Community Association has asked about the prioritization of the project in the City's Capital Improvement Program He added that the information could be provided during the review of the 2000/2001 budget. • Council Member Glover requested that the. City Manager, when preparing the 2000/2001 budget, also prepare a fixed income budget. She stated that the no growth initiative should be taken into consideration and the City should be prepared to operate with no increases in revenues. • Council Member Thomson repeated Council Member O'Neil's request and stated that there is a need for recommendations from staff. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES/ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2000 AND THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF Volume 53 - Page 266 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX MARCH 14, 2000. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION S. ADOPT RESOLUTION REQUESTING A GRANT FROM BOATING Res 2000 -28 AND WATERWAYS TO REBUILD AN EXISTING PUMPOUT C -3335 FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Adopt Vessel Pumpout Resolution No. 2000 -28 approving the Vessel Pumpout Facility Installation Facility Contracts as provided in the staff report to receive grants from State Boating (38) and Waterways totaling $36,000. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 4. ORDINANCE DELETING CONSTRUCTION SITE CLEANUP Ord 2000 -6 DEPOSIT SCHEDULE FROM CHAPTER 15.60 OF THE NEWPORT Construction BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -6 approving Site Cleanup amendments to Sections 15.60.010 and 15.60.020 of the NBMC deleting (26) schedules of construction site cleanup deposit amounts and make reference to schedules adopted by resolution of City Council. 5. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Pro Tern Adams. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Pro Tern Adams. 7. PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN C -3332 OF THE CORONA DEL MAR WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN Corona del Mar (C- 3332). Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Water Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, to Transmission complete a preliminary design study and prepare plans and specifications for Main the construction of a 9,000 -foot long water transmission main to improve (38) water service in Corona del Mar. 8. REQUEST FOR CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR FORMER CITY Employment EMPLOYEE. Approve the contract agreement with Marilyn Fisher in the Contract amount of $6,500 for the period of April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000. (66) MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 9. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MARCH 23, 2000. Receive Planning and file. (68) 10. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -049) TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS BA -049 AND REVENUES BY $3,975 RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF Literacy CALIFORNIA FAMILIES FOR LITERACY CAMPAIGN. Approve Campaign BA -049. (40/50) Volume 53 - Page 267 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 11. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -050) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,200 TO TRANSFER THE REIBER TRUST FUNDS, GIVEN AS A BEQUEST FOR PROMOTING CHILDREN'S SERVICES AT THE BALBOA BRANCH, FOR COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT. Approve BA -050. 12. REQUEST TO ALLOW IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (IRWD) TO SERVE RECLAIMED WATER TO HARBOR RIDGE. Direct staff to work with the Harbor Ridge Association and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) to come up with a proposal that will allow Harbor Ridge to be served with reclaimed water. 13. SPONSORSHIP OF INTERACTIVE CHILDREN'S WATER DISPLAY AT THE DISCOVERY MUSEUM OF ORANGE COUNTY. 1) Approve participation in the Blue Planet Foundation Project's development and sponsorship of a "hands -on, interactive, water model and educational display" to be located at the Discovery Museum of Orange County; and 2) authorize a sponsorship contribution of $2,500. 14. STATUS REPORT ON SANTIAGO DRIVE SPEED REDUCTION PROGRAM. Item continued due to lack of notice. 15. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Ridgeway. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (5, 6 and 15) and the item continued (14). The motion carried by the following roll call vote:' Ayes: Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, Thomson, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING CONSTRUCTION SITE FENCING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he sees some value to having construction sites screened off, but he cited an example of a large project taking place near his office on Von Karmen where the developer voluntarily screened a chain link fence. Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that if many developers are already screening their construction sites voluntarily, it didn't make much sense to require it when considering the financial impact, as mentioned in Bob Yant's letter of March 17, 2000. He added that the screening can restrict vehicular sight lines and suggested that if the City does require the screening, traffic engineering should look at the implementation to make sure they're erected safely. Volume 53 - Page 268 `1N 11sll BA -050 Balboa Branch Children's Services (40/50) Harbor Ridge Reclaimed Water Service (89) Discovery Museum Water Display (89) Santiago Drive Speed Reduction (85) Ord 2000 -7 Construction Site Fencing (26) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Ridgeway responded to Mayor Pro Tem Adams' comments by stating that commercial sites are required to fence, but not to screen. He pointed out that the ordinance under discussion is for residential fencing and screening only. Building Director Elbettar clarified the comments by stating that the screening and fencing applies to all construction sites, and that screening is currently not required but it is done at many large projects as a measure of erosion control. He added that fencing is often a requirement of the insurance carrier. Council Member Ridgeway recalled that at previous construction projects, he was required to fence but not to screen. Council Member Glover stated that her intent in initiating the screening requirement was to have it apply to residential areas only. She cited examples in her neighborhood where green vinyl screening reduced construction noise. She added that she is constantly getting calls from residents about construction in the neighborhood and that screening makes a tremendous amount of difference. Council Member Glover stated that it is a quality of life issue. Max Morgan, 480 Old Newport Blvd., stated that he has construction currently taking place on a three -lot subdivision. He said that the curb and gutter have to be removed so that the various work projects can be done. He stated that he does projects simultaneously and that a fence won't give him the room he needs to work or bring the materials on site. He said the site currently has a fence for the purpose of protecting the grading work, and he thinks his construction site might possibly be grandfathered into any new requirements. He said he won't replace the sidewalk until after all the work is done because it would be broken by the equipment that needs to enter the property. Mr. Morgan added that fencing would encourage construction sites to be cleaned less often, that it wouldn't allow people to view a site under construction for possible purchase consideration, there's the possibility of graffiti and the problem with the screening blowing in the wind. He concluded by stating that no other cities in Orange County have such an ordinance. He said it would be better to look at each job separately. Council Member Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Morgan that he has fencing at his current construction site, but no screening. Council Member Debay asked if lot size affected the ability to install a fence. Mr. Morgan stated that a standard -sized lot in the Newport Heights area is 50' x 127', and a single lot like he is currently working on is 70' x 85'. He added that a gate is needed to get equipment onto the site. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Mr. Morgan stated that he prefers to place dumpsters on the site rather than in the street. Mayor Pro Tem Adams pointed out the exception clause in the proposed ordinance and felt that it would take care of the issues discussed. Additionally, he wondered how reasonable it is to require the fence at the commencement of grading and excavation. He thought a fence could hinder Volume 53 - Page 269 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX those processes. Building Director Elbettar agreed that fencing at the time of grading and excavation may be a problem. He said that the Building Department would address each site depending on its own merit, and could decide that the screening can be postponed until after the grading. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that screening is probably not necessary in the commercial areas, even though these are the properties that can probably most easily afford it. On the other hand, he said that a $2,000 fencing requirement to a single - family dwelling unit is a fairly significant percentage of a home remodel or construction. Mayor Pro Tem Adams referred to the staff report that provided the approximate costs of fencing and screening. Council Member Ridgeway asked if the cost estimates were for the frontage of a property only. Building Director Elbettar stated that the estimates in the staff report were for an average size lot of 60'.x 120'. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he opposed the proposed ordinance when it was introduced at the City Council meeting of March 14, 2000. He stated that he supports the fencing, but not the screening. He stated his belief that screening is an unnecessary added expense because it can't reduce noise and makes construction loans even more difficult to get. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -7, with a modification to delete the screening requirements. Per the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Adams, Council Member Ridgeway amended his motion to include wording in the ordinance that would encourage the use of screening. The amended motion failed for lack of a second. Council Member Thomson asked for which projects the fencing or screening would be required. Building Director Elbettar stated that it is required for major remodels only. Mayor Pro Tem Adams added that the information is contained on page 5 of the proposed ordinance in proposed section 15.60.080. Council Member Debay stated her understanding that Council Member Glover's purpose for initiating the proposed ordinance was to add the screening requirement. She also stated that a fence can get in the way and isn't required in any other city. Motion by Council Member Debay to not adopt Ordinance No. 2000 -7. Council Member Glover confirmed that the motion continues the present policy and does not require fencing or screening: She stated that she can't support the motion and doesn't care if other cities aren't doing it. She stated her belief that fencing and screening would provide an added benefit to the quality of life in Newport Beach. Council Member O'Neil stated that he has no compelling reason to vote for or Volume 53 - Page 270 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 against the fencing and screening requirements, so will support the motion and maintain the status quo. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: Glover Abstain: None Absent: None 6. BAYSIDE DRIVE PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3320). Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that, at his request, the plans for the project were on display at the current meeting. He suggested that when the City Council is asked to approve a project of such prominence, that they should see the plans so they know what they're approving. He added that he understood a rendering was also done, and should have been seen by the City Council also. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his support for the project and acknowledged that many people have worked for several years on the improvements. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to approve the plans and specifications; award contract to Green Giant Landscape, Inc. for the total bid price of $70,593 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; establish an amount of $6,500 to cover the cost of unforeseen work; and approve a budget amendment (BA -051) to transfer a total of $45,413 from various accounts listed in the staff report to the Bayside Beautification Fund Account No. 7015- C3170510. Council Member Thomson stated that the project is long overdue, and has been worked on for a number of years. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 15. NEWPORT BAY UPDATE - DREDGING, WATER QUALITY, MORE. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he wanted to specifically address the Lower Newport Bay general dredging permit situation. He said the permit has not been approved by the Coastal Commission and it was recommended by Council Member Glover at the earlier Study Session that the 1,200 private permit holders in the harbor be notified. He said that by pulling the item, he is beginning the notification process and wants those who are watching the current meeting to know that no dredge material can be taken out from under docks because the City does not have a general permit. He said the dock owners can obtain a separate permit on their own, but it would probably cost about $20,000 for a $1,500 job. He stated his support for the Volume 53 - Page 271 INDEX C -3320 BA -051 Bayside Drive Parkway Improvements (38140) Newport Bay Dredging and Water Quality (51) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 recommended action. INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the speakers at the earlier Study Session made some statements regarding emergency boat access and other problems caused by lack of dredging. He stated that the Coastal Commission is doing the City a great disservice. Barry O'Neil, 221 East Bayfront, who also spoke at the earlier Study Session, stated that he learned at the Study Session that the problem will become much larger in the very near future. He said that his dock and pier are being damaged, and he can't get the needed dredging permits. He stated that the public needs to be aware of this problem. He added that boats will have to be taken out of the harbor if the condition gets worse. He said business owners, the reputation of the City and property owners will also be affected. He concluded by stating that he doesn't know the answer, but he feels that the Coastal Commission is allowing the destruction and deterioration of the harbor. He encouraged the City Council to find a strategy to deal with the problem. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the reason the Coastal Commission is supporting a hard -line position is because they, are supporting the Water Quality Act of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He added, however, that the City's water and sand is cleaner than it has ever been. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to direct City staff to pursue changes to the proposed General Dredging Permit for Newport Bay that are appropriate for full use and enjoyment of the Harbor; and approve recommended strategy for accomplishing these changes with a not -to- exceed cap of $8,000 for Coastal Commission advocacy services. Mayor Noyes stated that it was also recommended at the Study Session to notify and enlist the help of the dock owners in Newport Harbor. Mayor Noyes added that the newspaper could also provide assistance in getting the word out. Council Member Ridgeway amended his motion to include notification to the dock owners. Council Member Debay reflected that the City, used to be able to speak directly to the Coastal Commissioners, but now the City has to work through Commission staff and it has the potential to impede the process. She stated that the conditions placed on the permit renewal by the Coastal Commission are very difficult and expensive. She recommended that the information be provided to the dock owners in the notification process so that they have a full understanding of the situation. She suggested that the dock owners and the public write letters to the Coastal Commission. Mayor Noyes suggested that a progress report be provided at the next City Council meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 53 - Page 272 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor 1` Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Winship announced a new television talk show that he is working on called The Cutting Edge. He said the website for the new show can be accessed at www.cuttingedge- atalkshow.com. He stated that the new show will be different, and discuss local and national politics. He proceeded to make some personal comments about the appearance of the council members. Mr. Winship then made some brief comments about the Dunes project and his feeling that the Planning Commission is out of control. In closing, Mr. Winship requested that the City Council address the slumlords and the problems with rentals in the City. Robert Hanley, 1601 Indies Street, Santa Ana Heights, stated that he attended the Open House for the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed El Toro airport on March 20, 2000. He stated that at that meeting, he read that the night ban at John Wayne will be lifted in 2005. He has since gone to a City of Irvine meeting and asked why South County won't take any of the responsibility for air service. He said the response was that they have shared in the responsibility of landfills and jails. Mr. Hanley concluded by stating that he is appalled by their attitude. Russell Niewiarowski, 20102 Kline, Santa Ana Heights, stated that it is important for the City to include West Santa Ana Heights in the annexation of the Santa Ana Heights area in order to completely shore up the southwest border of John Wayne Airport. He stated that Alternative G includes a runway over the West Santa Ana Heights area. He said his community's greatest defense against the expansion of John Wayne Airport is incorporation into Newport Beach, not Costa Mesa. Mr. Niewiarowski stated that there is a lot of propaganda and fear being spread throughout the County about the airport issue. He concluded that it is reasonable to support a reasonable airport at El Toro and that a second airport will be needed. Julie Ryan, Library Board of Trustee, stated that the Library Board has decided to provide regular updates at City Council meetings to let the community know who the Library Board is, what they do and what is happening at the library. She stated that the Library Board is comprised of five trustees appointed by the City Council to administer the library. Ms. Ryan stated that one of the most exciting projects currently going on at the library is Commitment to Excellence. She stated that fifty members of the community are involved in a planning process to create a vision for the library in the year 2010 and decide how to reach the objective. Ms. Ryan went on to list the many programs taking place at the library. She stated that recent gifts received through the Friends of the Library and the Library Foundation totaled approximately $125,000. She said that commercial and residential members of the community have funded the Distinguished Speakers Lecture Series. Ms. Ryan listed some of the acknowledgments the library has recently received. She concluded by stating that the community Volume 53 - Page 273 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 should be proud of the achievements and accomplishments of the library. PUBLIC HEARING 16. BALBOA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL PUBLIC HEARING AND LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR 2000 -2001 FISCAL YEAR. Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2000 -29 confirming the levying of the assessments, since protests represented less than 50 percent of the total assessment amount. . The motion carried by the following roll call vote:, Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 17. PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC AND DENSITY INITIATIVE - ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING PREVIOUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS. City Manager Bludau stated that the City Council previously approved a study to help make a determination on how the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative ( Greenlight) would affect the 49 statistical areas in the City if approved by the voters in November, 2000. He stated that in order to proceed with the study, some assumptions need to be made and staff felt it was best to discuss those in a public meeting, and receive recommendations from the City Council. Planning Director Temple stated that making recommendations on the assumptions is an important first step in analyzing the potential consequences of the initiative. She stated, however, that the study is not intended to analyze what may occur with the future planning process in the City or to assess any legal issues associated with the initiative. It is only to collect past data in terms of the City's general plan activity in the various statistical areas in the City. Planning Director Temple stated that in looking at the terms of the initiative, staff felt that there were several areas where staff would have to make a judgement call on how to collect the data. Referring to the staff report, which lists the issues along with staffs recommendations for assumptions and methodology, Planning Director Temple discussed "peak hour trips ". She stated that staff is recommending that the existing Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual be used to accumulate Volume 53 - Page 274 INDEX Res 2000 -29 Balboa Village Business Improvement District (27) General Plan Amendment Evaluation/ Greenlight Initiative (39/68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX peak hour traffic data. She said it could be different than the original traffic assumptions used because some projects may have required special trip generation studies. She stated, however, that Greenlight requires that the most recent ITE manual be used, so the study will need to reaccumulate the data for some projects. City Manager Bludau confirmed with Planning Director Temple that when the manual is updated and it affects the land use for any data collected, the data would need to be updated. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how the ITE manual would be used, and added that there is a lot of discretion in its use. He stated that when the manual was first published, it was simple and stipulated trip rates based on various independent variables associated with land use. He stated that it has since evolved to be much more complex and requires a great deal of judgement to use. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that a decision needs to be made by someone on how the manual will be used. He provided some examples of decisions that need to be made and stated that many professional traffic engineers don't even understand how to use the manual. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his concern for how the manual will be applied from the simplistic language in Greenlight. He stated that he didn't believe that the people that drafted Greenlight understood the ramifications of the initiative. He feels that for the study to be done properly or for the initiative to be implemented, the list of issues in the staff report was incomplete. He stated that there are many more assumptions that need to be made. City Manager Bludau stated that the study is expected to accumulate the most basic data on what the capacities of the 49 statistical areas are. He agreed that the implementation of Greenlight would require many more assumptions. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked how the number of trips would be estimated in the statistical areas. He suggested that the trip estimates that were done in the original studies for the general plan amendments should be used, even though this is inconsistent with the language in Greenlight. He stated that trip generation estimates need to be done in the context of an entire traffic study. City Manager Bludau stated that Mayor Pro Tem Adams' suggestion would be the simplest way to proceed. Council Member Glover confirmed with City Manager Bludau that the study could use what the general plan allowed and what is projected at full build - out for a statistical area. Planning Director Temple stated that staff makes estimates for build -out of an entitlement under the existing general plan, with trip rates done for all the various land uses that are accommodated by the general plan. She stated that the study will look at all the general plan amendments that have been approved by the City Council over the past ten years and, depending upon the decision made at the current meeting, will either use the ITE manual or the original traffic information from when the amendments were approved. She stated that the historic data will show where each statistical area stands in relationship to the various thresholds required for voter approval if Greenlight is implemented. Volume 53 - Page 275 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX Council Member Glover confirmed with Planning Director Temple that each amendment will need to be analyzed, and asked how long this process will take and how the statistical areas were set up. Planning Director Temple responded by stating that the statistical areas were primarily set up to gather and tabulate data. Council Member Glover referred to the assumptions and methodology chart in the staff report, and confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the maximum would automatically be applied for the calculation of trips when a project does not use the full development entitlement approved in an amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what the basis for the entitled use will be when calculating the difference between trips for the amendment and entitled use. Planning Director Temple stated that the maximum would be used and, for the larger projects the standard commercial mix rate would be used. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the issue again illustrates a discretionary decision that needs to be made and could make a big difference in the results of the study. He stated his belief that the authors probably want the land use that is assumed in the model to be used. He stated his concern for a developer questioning why the maximum entitlement trip generation wasn't assumed when it is what the impact of the general plan amendment is. Mayor Pro Tem Adams added that entitled land uses that can be built without a general plan amendment are also discretionary. Planning Director Temple referred to the last two issues listed in the chart in the staff report and said they address circumstances where the amendment is not just a simple intensification of entitlement, but circumstances where the actual land use is changing. She stated that the initiative doesn't include language that provides clear guidance on how to treat this backward accumulation. Planning Director Temple stated that the first issue is how to accumulate the peak hour traffic trips. She said that staff is recommending that when the actual trip rate goes up, a deduction would be made to the existing entitlement from the accumulation totals so that only the change to the peak hour trip rate would be added. On the other hand, if the new project has the same or fewer peak hour trip rates, staff would recommend that a credit not be granted. She explained that the reason for the recommendation is that the initiative doesn't address the issue of credits, so staff decided to take a conservative approach. Planning Director Temple stated that staff is recommending a similar approach for the issue of how to account for dwelling unit and floor area counts. She said, again, a change would be made for new land use categories but no credits would be granted for numbers that have been removed. She cited an example of a project that involved a conversion of land use that didn't affect peak hour traffic trips but added 400 dwelling units. Council Member Ridgeway referred to the chart in the staff report and the Volume 53 - Page 276 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX last issue and assumptions in the chart. He confirmed with Planning Director Temple that when the original general plan was done, certain traffic generations were assumed for land uses and that arterial highways were sized accordingly. He asked why credits wouldn't be given when there is an overall reduction in the generation of traffic, since the system would still be sized for more traffic. Planning Director Temple explained that the study that is being done will only determine when a project will need to go to voter approval and will not determine the adequacy of the circulation system. Planning Director Temple further explained that if the credits were given, fewer projects would be subjected to voter approval but it shouldn't change the actual analysis of the amendment itself. Council Member Debay stated that any approved project will most likely have conditions placed on it by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. She asked how long it would take to get a project before the voters, if required, once approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. City Attorney Burnham stated that it could take as long as two years but could be reduced to 120 days if a special election is called. Council Member Debay asked about the cost of a special election. City Clerk Harkless stated that the cost is between $1.50 and $2.00 per registered voter and that there are approximately 46,000 registered voters currently in the City. Council Member Glover stated that it would be interesting if an overlay was done for the amendments done over the last ten years to see which areas have a plus and which might have a minus. City Manager Bludau reminded the City Council that three calculations are being made for each statistical area and he listed these as being peak hour trips, square footage and housing units. Council Member O'Neil stated that the purpose of retaining a consultant to analyze the data and some of the provisions within the initiative was to provide the City Council and the public with a better understanding of the effects of the initiative. He stated his reluctance for making recommendations on assumptions when he has had no input on the drafting of the initiative. He is concerned that if the City Council directs the study to be done in one way, but the authors of the initiative wouldn't agree with the assumptions, that a problem is being created. He stated that he personally would rather the voters just vote on the initiative. Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that the consultant should possibly just use his judgement when making assumptions and to clearly state these assumptions in his findings. He agreed with Council Member O'Neil that it is possibly inappropriate for the City Council to recommend the assumptions that should be used. Council Member Ridgeway stated his agreement for the suggestion. Council Member Thomson asked who would determine if an approved project would go to the voters and whose assumptions would be used in the determination. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council would Volume 53 - Page 277 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 INDEX decide if a project needed voter approval and that the assumptions used would be the guidelines that will need to be adopted if the initiative passes. He added that the guidelines require six affirmative votes to be adopted. Council Member Thomson asked for clarification on the reason for making recommendations on assumptions at the current meeting. City Attorney Burnham stated that staff was trying to get some direction from the City Council and to talk about some of the issues. He added that staff also wanted to inform the City Council that, in some cases, two assumptions were used when looking at past general plan amendments. Referring to Planning Director Temple's earlier comments, he stated that the study may provide analyses using different assumptions, since the initiative doesn't make it clear. City Manager Bludau added that he felt it was worthwhile to have some public dialogue on the assumptions and interpretations. He stated that he also wanted to increase the credibility of the study by having agreement on the assumptions. Dan Purcell, 600 Acacia Avenue, stated that it appears that a defense is being built against Greenlight. He stated that many of the people that signed Greenlight don't feel that it is the solution, but it sends a message to the City that they'd like to see more outreach on where the City is going. He thinks the message should be addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his disagreement that a legal defense is being built. He stated that the City is just trying to understand the implications of some of the elements of the initiative. He also mentioned the project cited earlier and the potential for projects approved to generate fewer peak hour trips. He stated that similar misperceptions probably exist. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the assumptions and methodology outlined by staff to be used in evaluating previous General Plan Amendments to determine impacts of the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative; that the assumptions be clearly articulated in the findings so that the basis of the analysis is understood; and that the range of the results that can be expected from alternative assumptions also be discussed in the findings. The motion failed for lack of a second. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the observations made by Dan Purcell earlier were good. He stated that the message he hears from Greenlight is for the City to find a solution and be inclusive of the entire community. He referred to the next item on the agenda which discusses the update of the generalplan. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to receive and file the staff report, and make no suggestions regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used in the study. Council Member O'Neil asked if the study would still be done. Volume 53 - Page 278 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 Council Member Ridgeway stated that the study would still be done but that the consultant doing the study would use his own assumptions and methodology. Council Member O'Neil stated that if the initiative passes, some guidelines will need to be adopted and that's when he thinks the time and money should be spent on implementation. He stated that if people don't understand the initiative, they shouldn't vote for it. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the use of statistical areas and the implications of going back ten years to analyze capacity is confusing, but he still feels the exercise can be valuable. Council Member Ridgeway agreed that the report can be valuable, but he just doesn't want the City Council to endorse the assumptions. City Manager Bludau confirmed that the study will continue with the recommended assumptions, which were arrived at through deliberations by the consultant and staff. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 18. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - DISCUSSION OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN. Planning Director Temple stated that the staff report outlines all of the elements in the general plan. She stated that the report includes when the elements were adopted, when they were most recently amended, some of the issues with each and some ideas on what advantages there are to including the element in a comprehensive general plan update. Council Member Debay complimented the report and felt that it was a good review. Mayor Pro Tem Adams complimented the report and stated that he was also hoping for a more detailed look at each element. He suggested that maybe a page by page discussion of each element could be done at future study sessions. He stated that this would also provide an opportunity for public comment. Mayor Pro Tem Adams agreed with Mr. Purcell's earlier comments and felt that this could provide a starting point and a good opportunity for the public to get involved. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to receive and file the report, and direct staff to bring each element back for more detailed discussions at future study sessions. Volume 53 - Page 279 INDEX General Plan Update (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes March 28, 2000 City Manager bludau noted that the next two or three study sessions are already booked. Mayor Noyes stated that it might be too long to wait and he'd look at the schedule with the City Manager. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Thomson, Adams, Debay, Glover, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. ADJOURNMENT - 8:53 p.m. in the memory of Rex Brandt and Clement Hirsch. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on March 22, 2000, at 3:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 53 - Page 280 INDEX