HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 01-09-2001City Council Meeting
January 23, 2001
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes Dot
Study Session jjjj""
January 9, 2001- 4:00 p.m. INDEX
Present: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams
Absent: Heffernan (excused), O'Neil (excused)
CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
Council Member Glover stated that at the regular meeting, she would be
asking for direction on a policy that deals with how to address legislative
issues.
Mayor Adams stated his understanding that Item #15, Sale of Ackerman
Property, would be pulled from the agenda and directed staff to include
additional information in the subsequent staff report. Specifically, he
requested that the staff report address the change in who the recipients of
the scholarship fund would be and how they would be selected.
Mayor Adams stated that he would be pulling Item #3, Summary of City's
Legislative Efforts, for discussion at the regular meeting.
Council Member Proctor stated his understanding that Item #4, Award of
Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Collection Franchise, would be pulled from the
agenda. He stated his concern for the City being in compliance with the
State - mandated recycling rate of 50% and asked if the franchisees could be
held responsible.
Mayor Adams suggested that the City Council might want to revisit how the
recycling issue is being addressed. He mentioned that Council Member
Glover had recommended that it be discussed at a future Study Session.
2. ORAL REPORT FROM CITY'S SACRAMENTO LEGI
ADVOCATE KEN EMANUELS.
Deputy City Manager Kiff introduced Ken Emanuels and stated that he
would be discussing some of the items listed in Item #3 of the regular
meeting agenda. Deputy City Manager Kiff added that Mr. Emanuels has
been working with the City since 1997 to lobby issues along the lines of the
Legislative Platform, particularly in Newport Bay.
Mr. Emanuels stated that the proposed 2001 Legislative Platform is quite
comprehensive and extremely helpful, as it allows staff to immediately
prepare a letter from the Mayor when bills affect the City. He stated that
the quick response can be very important with some issues.
Volume 54 - Page 1
Oral Report Only.
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
Mr. Emanuels stated that, currently, the general topic of conversation in
Sacramento is electricity. He stated that he has worked in Sacramento for
three decades and has never seen such panic, and added that the issue will
consume a lot of political energy, anxiety and grief in the coming year.
Mr. Emanuels stated that the coming year is also the time for
reapportionment to take place, with district boundaries being affected. He
stated that this will also take a lot of time and divert a lot of attention. He
stated that the third priority continues to be education funding.
Mr. Emanuels stated that these priorities mean that the cities in the State
are an afterthought. He stated that this isn't new, but any attention on the
property tax shift has been reduced to about zero. He added that the
interest of the administration in State and local fiscal reform is also about
zero.
Mr. Emanuels announced that the State budget would be unveiled the
following day and he did expect some good news. He explained that the
Governor has indicated that money will be spent on urban storm runoff
issues. Mr. Emanuels stated that he and the Deputy City Manager would be
reviewing the proposal to make sure that the criteria for funding fits the
City's needs. He stated that he expects the budget to include a proposal from
the Coastal Conservancy for the restoration of Upper Newport Bay.
Mr. Emanuels also expected the budget to include significant monies for
cities for law enforcement equipment.
Mr. Emanuels stated that in the previous budget year, legislation was
passed that would provide for compulsory and binding arbitration for police
and fire in local government. He added that the measure became effective
January 1, 2001, and the California League of Cities immediately filed a
lawsuit, based on the unconstitutional delegation of authority and
infringement upon charter city personnel authority. He stated that the
lawsuit has been moved to the California Supreme Court and their response
is expected soon.
Mr. Emanuels stated that he expects a great deal of attention for Newport
Beach to be directed at Back Bay funding, as well as bills that prohibit cities
from levying business license taxes on home -based businesses. He further
expected the City to be deeply involved with the urban runoff issue and some
coastal legislation. Mr. Emanuels concluded by stating that he
communicates with City staff at least once per week and is always available
to respond to issues as they arise.
Mayor Adams asked if Mr. Emanuels was comfortable with the proposed
Legislative Platform. Mr. Emanuels stated that he has reviewed the items
and feels they are specific enough to fit most issues that can be anticipated.
He additionally confirmed for Mayor Adams that they provide adequate
guidance.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked when the last day would be for the
introduction of bills in the current session. Mr. Emanuels stated that it is
February 24, 2001, but that any bill would have to be drafted by the
i
Volume 54 - Page 2
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
legislative council thirty days prior, which would set the deadline as
January 24, 2001.
INDEX
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway referred to the violation of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in Las Angeles County and the problems with
wastewater operations in Huntington Beach, and asked if Mr. Emanuels
expected State money to be spent on rehabilitation of wastewater operations
in Newport Beach. Mr. Emanuels stated that he would know in three days,
once the budget is provided.
City Manager Bludau asked Mr. Emanuels to speak briefly about the
California League of Cities' proposal to become a grassroots lobbying effort.
Mr. Emanuels stated that the League is being honest and candid in regards
to its political situation. He stated that in the 1960s and 1970s, the League
was one of the most influential groups in Sacramento. He added, however,
that with the growing importance of campaign funding, the League has
found that their interests have been marginalized. He stated that cities
aren't able to raise the private funds needed, but the League does have a
network of political influence that money can't buy. He stated that the
League is proposing a significant increase in dues that will be used to hire
grassroot organizers for the different divisions throughout the State.
Mr. Emanuels stated that it is a dramatic effort, but could begin to balance
the interests of public agencies with private interests.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he felt that raising the dues wouldn't
help. He cited the ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) shift as
an example of something that cities attempted to stop, and couldn't.
Mr. Emanuels agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway that the cities had the
support of the legislature but not the Governor, and the ERAF shift will
probably continue to always cause problems. He added, however, that other
issues could benefit from the League being more politically organized.
Council Member Glover asked what would be accomplished by the raising of
the dues, since it wouldn't give money to the legislators. Mr. Emanuels
admitted that nothing would be accomplished for Newport Beach because
the City already knows its legislators and probably has as great an influence
on them as possible. He explained that the problem is that of the 485 cities
in the State, only a dozen or two are as active. Further, most cities don't
have contact with their legislators or track their votes. He stated that the
proposal by the League will attempt to raise the level of effort and
sophistication in other parts of the State.
Council Member Glover stated that the City has to be careful with regards to
ERAF. She stated that a further shift could be more punitive than it
currently is. Mr. Emanuels expressed his opinion that the ERAF issue is
over and that the money that was shifted has already been spent. Council
Member Glover stated that she saw a plan to take all of the sales tax from
the cities and send it to the Board of Equalization to be distributed per
capita through the counties. Mr. Emanuels stated that this would ruin the
economy in California and that the plan was widely opposed.
Per Council Member Bromberg's request, Mr. Emanuels explained that in
Volume 54 - Page 3
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
11017 D/V
1991, the legislature shifted approximately 25% of the property tax from
cities and counties to the State's general fund via a special County account
called ERAF. He stated that, in effect, the money was shifted to the schools.
He stated that it could be shifted back by an act of the legislature.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway confirmed with Administrative Services Director
Danner that the City loses approximately $4 million per year due to the
ERAF shift.
3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MEASURE S GUIDELINES AND
REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.
City Attorney Burnham stated that the purpose of the discussion is to review
possible Measure S guidelines. He stated that the measure encourages the
City Council to adopt guidelines to implement the measure, and requires
that the guidelines be consistent with the measure's purpose and intent.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, City Attorney Burnham stated that
Measure S only applies to General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and requires
majority voter approval if the proposed GPA substantially increases traffic,
density or intensity. He added that "substantial increases" means more than
100 peak hour trips, more than 100 dwelling units or more than 40,000
square feet of floor area.
City Attorney Burnham stated that there are several ways to define "peak
hour trips" and they include using the peak hour of the adjacent street, using
the peak hour of the proposed land use or selecting the higher of the
morning and evening peak hour. He stated that the measure also requires
that the "maximum" amount of traffic be evaluated, but stated that this is
difficult.
City Attorney Burnham displayed a page from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. He added that Measure S requires
that the ITE Manual be used to determine trip generation rates. He stated
that the page illustrates how the average trip rate and the best -fit curve
were determined for an office building.
City Attorney Burnham then displayed a table showing sample peak hour
trip rates, as prepared by Transportation/Development Services Manager
Edmonston. The table showed that medical offices are fairly high in the
amount of traffic they generate during peak hours, while hotels are fairly
low generators of peak hour trips.
City Attorney Burnham stated that a determination also needs to be made in
regards to the definition of "floor area ". He stated that the options include
using the definition in the ITE Manual, which lists four options depending
on the type of non - residential use, using the definition of "gross floor area"
from the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) or using the definition of
"net floor area" from the NBMC. He added that both of the definitions from
the NBMC would exclude parking structures.
City Attorney Burnham displayed another, table prepared by Manager
Edmonston that illustrated projects that would generate 100 peak hour
Volume 54 -'Page 4
Measure S
Guidelines
(68)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
trips. He stated that the table shows that medical office projects of a smaller
size generate more peak hour trips than general office and hotel projects of a
larger size.
City Attorney Burnham stated that the "look back provision" of Measure S
has produced the most interest and is possibly the most difficult to define.
He explained that Measure S requires that 80% of the increases resulting
from other CPAs affecting the same statistical area and adopted within the
preceding ten years, be added to the traffic, density or intensity of the
proposed GPA.
City Attorney Burnham displayed two options that might be available to the
City Council for determining the guidelines of the look back provision. He
stated that one option would be to begin the look back period on
December 15, 2000. He stated that this is staffs recommended guideline
because it supports the measure's intention to prevent piecemealing of CPAs
and future growth in the City. He pointed out that the City Council
approved CPAs in the 1990s that actually reduced peak hour trips.
City Attorney Burnham stated that a second option would be to go back ten
years from the date on which the GPA was adopted. He stated that this also
prevents piecemealing and would be the most conservative approach. He
stated that this option would mean that several statistical areas in the City
are already maxed out and would require voter approval for nearly any GPA.
He listed these areas as including Old Newport Boulevard, the airport area,
Bonita Canyon, Pacific View, Newport Center and North Ford.
City Attorney Burnham then discussed the procedure for processing a GPA
that might require voter approval. He stated that the process would begin
after the GPA had been approved by the City Council and should not be a
part of the planning process.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the AM and PM peak hours should be
combined to determine if 100 peak hour trips would be generated by a
project. City Attorney Burnham disagreed with the approach and stated
that it would cause the trip threshold to be out of proportion from the floor
area threshold. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that his calculations show
that if the AM and PM peak hours are not combined, an office building of
approximately 67,000 square feet would require voter approval, but if they
were combined, the office building would only need to be approximately
33,000 square feet before it generated 100 peak hour trips. City Attorney
Burnham stated that it depends upon the type of office use.
Mayor Adams stated that the traffic trigger and the density trigger are going
to supercede each other in different cases.
Mayor Adams referred to the slide presented earlier which showed the graph
from the ITE Manual. He stated that the measure requires the use of the
ITE Manual for determining the trips generated from a project, but added
that determining trip generation involves a lot of engineering discretion. He
explained that traffic studies and traffic counts involve various independent
variables. He stated that these independent variables might include square
Volume 54 - Page 5
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
footage or number of employees, and it is important to select the right
variable when determining trip generation for a particular land use. Mayor
Adams stated that Measure S does not specify which variable should be
used.
Using the graph, Mayor Adams explained how an average rate is calculated.
He stated that because the average rate can be relatively meaningless, the
traffic engineering industry developed the best -fit curve. He pointed out
that sometimes the best -fit curves are a better estimate of what the trip
rates will be for a project. Mayor Adams summarized his comments by
stating that a lot of decisions need to be made when determining the ITE
trip rate for any given land use. He agreed that guidelines are needed and
suggested that the process that is decided on be as non - subjective as
possible. He stated that a property owner should be able to understand how
the trip generation rate will be evaluated for their project. Mayor Adams
suggested that the 300 land uses in the ITE Manual be looked at, and an
appropriate trip rate for each be determined and adopted as part of the
City's guidelines.
Mayor Adams stated that another issue that is significant is the
determination of what peak hour to use. He stated that some land uses
generate the most traffic during peak hours and others generate their peak
traffic during non -peak hours. He stated that the measure indicates that the
maximum amount of traffic should be looked at, which would mean that the
project's peak traffic hour should be used. Mayor Adams explained that he
didn't think that the voters wanted CPAs that added excessive traffic to the
fringe of the peak hour. He stated that congestion in Newport Beach doesn't
last much past the fringe of the peak hour, but that as regional traffic
continues to build, the peak hour condition will tend to become longer than
an hour. He pointed out that this is why projects that generate their peak
traffic during the fringes of the peak hour need to have the project's peak
traffic hour used.
In regards to the look back options mentioned earlier, City Attorney
Burnham clarified that although staff is recommending the first option,
either option is consistent with the intent of Measure S. He stated that the
proposed option could also use the date of publication of the Notice of Intent
to Circulate Petition, which was July 30, 1999.
Mayor Adams suggested that all of the issues be listed and a general
consensus from the City Council be determined. He stated that this would
give more time to concentrate on the issues that are more controversial.
Council Member Glover asked how a project's peak hour is determined.
Mayor Adams responded by stating that the ITE Manual provides the data
that has been assembled over time for the AM and PM peak hours of the
adjacent street traffic. He stated that a separate graph is also provided for
the peak hour of the generator, and that this is done for every type of land
use.
Council Member Glover stated her concern that the listed issues would
Volume 54 - Page 6
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
become too specific and too numerous.
INDEX
Mayor Adams stated his belief that most of the issues will be simple to
address. He added, however, that a fundamental question might be to
decide if the City Council should even adopt guidelines.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the City Council is obligated to adopt
guidelines.
Philip Arst, Greenlight spokesperson, stated that there are eight points that
the Greenlight group would like considered. He stated that traffic was one
of them, and was already discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Arst thanked
Mayor Adams for working with the group in developing guidelines, which
the Greenlight group believes will ease implementation problems in the
future. He stated that the title of Measure S is Protection from Traffic and
Density, and targeting major development projects that significantly
increase traffic levels or impact the character of the City was the goal of the
measure.
Mr. Arst stated that the group's eight points include the look back period,
which they feel should be a current date, as it would allow for a consistent
and fair application of the law. He stated that either the July, 1999 date or
the December, 2000 date can be used, as there is not a significant difference
between the two.
Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group recommends that the ITE Manual
definition of floor area not be used, because it is a net floor area and
intended for traffic calculation purposes. He stated that the Greenlight
group also wants to consider the character of the City.
Mayor Adams and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway received clarification from
Mr. Arst that the Greenlight group is recommending that gross floor area,
not net floor area, be used for the purpose of calculating the intensity
trigger.
Mr. Arst added that above -grade parking structures of meaningful mass
detract from the character of the City and should, therefore, be included in
the gross floor area.
Mayor Adams asked if any other aboveground structures should be included,
or if the guidelines should just indicate that all aboveground structures will
be included. City Attorney Burnham stated that the measure uses the term
"floor area ", and that the zoning code doesn't include parking structures in
that definition. He added that the measure deals primarily with traffic and
that parking structures don't have trip generation characteristics. Mayor
Adams wanted to make sure that other structures wouldn't be an issue in
the future. Planning Director Temple confirmed that the City does not count
parking structures against the gross floor area calculations, but that they
are taken into consideration when discussing building bulk issues. She
added that the zoning code has more than one definition for "gross floor
area ", depending upon the purpose for the calculation. She stated that the
zoning code also allows the City to exempt certain types of mechanical
Volume 54 - Page 7
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
spaces from the calculation of gross floor area.
11013
Continuing through his list, Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group
recommends that immediately upon application for a GPA, an applicant be
given a draft analysis of whether Measure S would apply to their project.
Mr. Arst additionally stated that the Greenlight group recommends that the
GPA include the traffic loads generated by the project's permitted maximum
uses.
In regards to linking to the current general plan, Mr. Arst stated that the
Greenlight group requests that wording be added to indicate that the proper
and fair application of Charter Section 423 depends upon the retention of the
current general plan methodology.
Mayor Adams stated that he wasn't sure if the voters, when they voted for
Measure S, meant to retain the specificity of the current general plan.
Mr. Arst stated that it's a tool to keep Measure S operative.
Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight group suggests that the allowable
construction periods for projects be extended beyond what is allowed by the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when the applicant has to wait two years
for a general municipal election before beginning construction.
Lastly, Mr. Arst stated that the group suggests that only CPAs that have
been approved be included when calculating an applicant's Measure S
thresholds, and not those that are pending voter approval.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that parking structures shouldn't be
included in the discussion because the measure's intent is to deal with
traffic. He additionally stated, however, that the City Council might want to
consider determining a factor for parking structures in Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) areas for sizing purposes.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he'd like to review Mr. Arst's
comments further. He suggested that a lot of issues can be dealt with by
using "either /or ... whichever is greater" language. He stated that this might
help to keep the guidelines simple.
In response to Mr. Arst's points, Mayor Adams stated that he hadn't made a
clear decision on the look back period. He stated that he agrees with using
the gross floor area for determining intensity and the inclusion of parking
structures. Mayor Adams stated that he didn't see a problem with making
an immediate analysis upon application or with using traffic calculations for
the maximum uses permitted. He did, however, state that retaining current
general plan methodology and giving relief from the TPO language both
seemed a bit far - reaching. Lastly, he agreed that pending CPAs should not
be included when calculating Measure S. thresholds. Mayor Adams
suggested that a trip generation table also be created that would take the
place of the ITE Manual.
Council Member Glover stated that she wanted to review Mr. Arst's
Volume 54 - Page 8
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
comments further and compare them with staffs recommendations. She
added that she would prefer to use the December 15, 2000 date for the look
back period. She agreed with Mayor Adams' suggestion to look at uses and
the trips they generate rather than peak hour trips. She stated that some of
this specific information should be included in the guidelines.
Council Member Glover asked what "piecemealing" meant. Mr. Arst
explained that it means a single developer evading the intent of the measure
by going over the thresholds in multiple GPAs.
Council Member Bromberg stated that he is basically in agreement with
most of the comments, but would like to review them further. He stated that
he is also having difficulty deciding on the look back provision.
Council Member Bromberg asked if Mr. Arst felt that the Implementation
item in Section 423 was referring to the look back provision. Mr. Arst stated
that the primary thought by the Greenlight group was new construction and
that piecemealing would not have been applicable prior to the filing of the
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition.
Council Member Proctor agreed that issue guidelines are needed. He
suggested that staff present a matrix listing the issues. He stated that the
December 15, 2000 date seems appropriate for the look back provision. He
stated that he does have a problem with including parking structures in the
floor area calculations, since they do not generate additional traffic. He
agreed with the other comments, but didn't understand how changing the
look back period while a project waits for an election would be implemented.
Mr. Arst stated that the provision would no longer be needed if only
approved GPAs are counted toward the Measure S thresholds.
Mayor Adams stated that a list of issues has only been started and that
input from the public is still needed. He suggested that staff prepare a
matrix and be prepared to add issues. He further suggested that the item be
continued to the Study Session of January 23, 2001.
DISCUSSION OF PAST AND PRESENT NEGOTIATION OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
City Manager Bludau stated that at the City Council meeting of October 24,
2000, Council Member Glover requested a report on the way that the City
has negotiated previous development agreements. He stated that Planning
Director Temple prepared the staff report that was provided for the current
meeting.
Council Member Glover confirmed with City Manager Bludau that there is
not a definitive policy on how the agreements are negotiated, and that they
are handled on a case -by -case basis. She stated her understanding that
projects are of different sizes and involve a myriad of activities.
Council Member Glover stated that a policy should possibly be developed on
how development agreements are approached. She stated that it could
include some flexibility, by allowing for City Council approval to deviate
Volume 54 - Page 9
Development
Agreements
(68)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
from the policy.
Mayor Adams asked if there was general agreement by the City Council that
such a policy should be drafted.
Council Member Bromberg stated that a policy could certainly be drafted
and looked at, but that each development agreement might have unique
circumstances and might need to be approached differently.
Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the Council Member of the district
in which the project exists should be involved in the negotiations or
discussions.
Mayor Adams concluded the discussion by stating that it might be
worthwhile for staff to draft a proposed policy.
City Manager Bludau confirmed that the upcoming Study Sessions should be
reserved for studying the Greenlight issue.
Mayor Adams suggested that the next Study Session begin at 3:00 p.m.
Council Member Ridgeway added that he would be making a motion at the
evening meeting to request that the sale of the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir
be agendized for an upcoming Study Session. He stated that it will most
likely involve quite a bit of public testimony.
Allan Beek suggested that the public be allowed to submit their comments
on the Greenlight issue prior to the Study Session so that they can be
incorporated into the matrix ahead of time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT - 5:45 pan,
cxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx�
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 3, 2001, at
3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 54 - Page 10
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes DRAFT
Regular Meeting
January 9, 2001- 7:00 p.m. INDEX
STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p-m.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None.
RECESSED & RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance - Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway.
Invocation by Very Reverend Canon David C. Anderson, Saint James
Episcopal Church.
Presentation of $102,100 check from the Newport Beach Public Library
Foundation.
CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM):
• Council Member Heffernan asked that staff look into restricting boat
deliveries on Pacific Coast Highway during peak traffic hours.
• Council Member Heffernan indicated that Council received a sewer report
and asked what types of monitoring devices the City has within the sewer
lines.
• Council Member Heffernan requested information regarding the stop sign at
Sandcastle and Marguerite.
• Council Member Heffernan requested information about replacing the phone
system at City Hall as it has been an ongoing problem.
• Council Member Heffernan asked if there should be a Police Officer present
in the Chambers during meetings. Mayor Adams stated that Council Policy
calls for a Sergeant -at -Arms at the meetings. He indicated that he will
discuss this with the City Manager.
• Council Member Heffernan asked whether Corporate Plaza is a dedicated
street and if the street could be posted with "No Parking" signs since the
streets are already narrow.
Volume 54 - Page 11
Library Foundation
(50)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
Regarding Council Member Heffernan's items, City Manager Bludau stated
that most of the items can be handled by sending a memo to the City
Council. Council Member Heffernan indicated that this would be acceptable.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway requested that an item regarding the sale of the
San Joaquin Reservoir be placed on the next Study Session agenda and that
EQAC members be invited to the meeting. Mayor Adams recommended that
the next Study Session agenda only be limited to two major items (Measure
S Guidelines and San Joaquin Reservoir) to give adequate time for
discussion and suggested that the meeting begin at 3:00 p.m. rather than
4:00 p.m.
Council Member Glover indicated that her issues should probably be
forwarded to an annexation committee. She requested that the annexation
of Santa Ana Heights be considered sooner than some of the other areas and
that the committee look at annexing Sage Hill High School. Mayor Adams
indicated that there is no formal committee for annexations, but requested
information as to whether or not an annexation committee should be formed.
• Council Member Bromberg requested a status memo relative to Upper
Bayview and whether the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission has
looked at this location for a passive park.
• Council Member Bromberg stated that Claudia Roxburgh of The Agency sent
out cards over the holiday which indicated that donations were sent to the
Balboa Theater Arts Foundation in the card recipient's name. The Theater
received about $3,000 as a result of this.
• Mayor Adams noted the length of time it has taken to get landscaping at
One Ford Road. He requested that a report be brought back which gives a
definitive start date.
• Noting that the unlandscaped median in front of Conexant is in the City of
Irvine, Mayor Adams requested that staff enter into discussions with Irvine
about possibly sharing the cost of landscaping that median.
CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2000.
Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed.
2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in
full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City
Clerk to read by title only.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
Removed at the request of Council Member Glover.
4. AWARD OF NON - EXCLUSIVE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
FRANCHISE TO CST ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Continued indefinitely.
Volume 54 - Page 12
INDEX
Solid Waste
Franchise (42)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
5.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -2 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
Res 2001 -2
CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS WITH
Local Assistance
CALTRANS FOR LOCAL ASSISTANCE TRANSPORTATION
Transportation
PROGRAMS. Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -2 delegating authority to the City
Program
Manager to approve program supplements with Caltrans for Local
(28/74)
Assistance Transportation Projects.
6.
Removed at the request of a member from the audience.
7.
Removed at the request of a member from the audience.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
8.
NEWPORT BOULEVARD/WEST COAST HIGHWAY "ARCHES"
C -2886
INTERSECTION DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - AMENDMENT TO
Newport Blvd/
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 12 -335 WITH STATE OF
West Coast Hwy
CALIFORNIA (C- 2886). 1) Approve Amendment A -2 to Cooperative
Arches Intersection
Agreement No. 12 -335 with the State of California; and 2) authorize the
Drainage
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Amendment to the Agreement.
Improvement (38)
9.
NEWPORT BACKBAY SLOPE STABILIZATION - COST SHARING
C -3392
AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY AND RESOLUTION FOR A PORTION
Res 2001 -5
OF BACKBAY DRIVE TO BE A COUNTY HIGHWAY DURING
Newport Backbay
CONSTRUCTION. 1) Approve the agreement with the County of Orange
Slope Stabilization
for the cost sharing of the Upper Newport Bay Slope Stabilization Project;
(38)
and 2) adopt Resolution No. 2001 -5 declaring a portion of Backbay Drive
owned by the City to be a County Highway during construction of the
project.
10.
BALBOA VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (C -3333) - APPROVAL OF
C -3333
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH RON YEO, FAIA
Balboa Village
ARCHITECT, INC., RMS ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC. AND
Improvement
NUVIS. 1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Ron Yeo, FAIA
Plan
Architect, Inc., for design of the Landmark Tower in the amount of $16,800;
(38)
2) approve a Professional Services Agreement with RMS Engineering &
Design, Inc. for a geotechnical investigation and structural analysis of the
Landmark Tower in the amount of $17,400; and 3) approve a Professional
Services Agreement with NUVIS for additional planning and design tasks in
the amount of $16,120.
11.
CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH SEWER FORCE MAIN AND
C -3296
BREAKERS DRIVE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - REJECT ALL
CdM Main Beach
BIDS FOR CONTRACT (C- 3296). 1) Reject all bids; and 2) authorize the
Sewer Force Main &
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Professional
Breakers Drive Water
Services Agreement with The Keith Companies for additional design fee of
Main Replacement
$8,700 to prepare revised plans.
(38)
12.
Removed at the request of a member from the audience.
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
13.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JANUARY 4, 2001. Receive
Planning
and file.
(68)
Volume 54 - Page 13
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
14. BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -022) - DONATION OF $102,100 FROM
THE NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION. Approve
BA -022.
15. SALE OF ACKERMAN PROPERTY (2114 -2122 WEST OCEANFRONT
& 106 -110 22nd STREET). Continue indefinitely.
16. WASTEWATER OPERATIONS REPORT. Receive and file.
17. FY 1999 -2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION
REPORT (CAPER). Approve the FY 1999 -2000 CAPER and direct staff to
submit the documents to all appropriate parties.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to approve the Consent Calendar,
except for those items removed (3, 6, 7 and 12) and noting the items
continued (4 and 15).
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
3. SUMMARY OF CITY'S LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS, ADOPTION OF
2001 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM AND RELATED RESOLUTION.
Council Member Glover stated that, over the years, other cities or bodies
within the State have requested that the City adopt resolutions on issues
that may not directly affect the City or be an ancillary issue. She expressed
the opinion that part of the City's legislative effort should be related to
Newport Beach since the City does not have the staffing or the time to
address some of these issues, like the 57 Freeway issue. She indicated that,
prior to staff taking time to research proposals from a source outside of the
City, she would like to see a policy in which a Council Member or the City
Manager directs staff to do so.
Regarding the aviation component of the legislative platform, Mayor Adams
indicated that it suggests that the City support measures promoting the
ability of local airport operations to impose aircraft noise controls; support
legislation and executive actions that preserve, extend, or recreate the John
Wayne Airport (JWA) Settlement Agreement; and support legislation and
executive actions that promote the use of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
El Toro as Orange County's second commercial airport. He expressed the
opinion that he would like the Aviation Committee to discuss this platform.
Further, he recommended that the City consider amending the aviation
platform to support a smaller airport, similar to JWA, at El Toro and also
include the equity and fairness argument since this is the essence of the
City's argument for the need of a second airport.
Volume 54 - Page 14
110 17:1
BA -022
Library
(40/50)
Ackerman
Property (50/73)
Wastewater (74)
CDBG Annual
Report
(87)
Res 2001 -1
Legislative
Platform
(48)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
Mayor Adams suggested that the City adopt the platform, but task the
Aviation Committee with looking at the aviation component and provide a
recommendation to Council regarding it. He indicated that, if the legislative
platform is approved tonight, it will give the City's lobbyists continued
direction and allow the City to prepare letters on urgent items.
Mayor Adams added that, if Council feels any other element needs further
discussion, Council may want to agendize this for the January 27 retreat.
Council Member Glover indicated that discussing this at the retreat would
take care of her previous concern.
Motion by Mavor Adams to adopt Resolution No. 2001.1 confirming the
City's Legislative Platform for 2001 and authorizing the Mayor to issue
letters consistent with the Platform; direct the Aviation Committee to review
the aviation component and provide input; and discuss this at the
January 27 retreat.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RELATING TO $80,000 PUMPOUT
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that he found information
regarding the actions of the Department of Harbor Resources difficult to
obtain. He expressed the opinion that this request for a resolution is vague
and leads him to believe that the City will be reimbursed for all work, no
matter the cost. He stated that the City could be charged with
misappropriation of State grant funds and indicated that a more detailed
outline is needed to assure that money is not wasted as it has been in the
renovation of the Balboa Island Ferry Landing public restrooms. He noted
that the residents should be informed of the companies involved with the
construction, as well as the outward appearance of the renovations. He
pointed out that the San Fernando Street pumpout facility grant is for
$36,000 and asked what the cost was for the last facility construction and its
overrun. He also noted that the pumpout facility renovation grant is for
$80,000 and asked if this is to replace old/worn out pumpout pipelines or if it
is for the facilities to take on the same look as the Balboa Island Ferry
Landing restrooms. He expressed hope that operation and maintenance
records are being kept for each facility. Further, he stated that he hopes
that the public and private facilities do not discharge sewage into the Harbor
and that the waters adjacent to the facilities are frequently tested.
Deputy City Manager Kiff reported that the request for the larger grant
includes the pumpout station at Fernando Street, plus the renovation of four
existing pumpouts that have an older style. He added that the City does
actively monitor its contracts to ensure that the costs are not going over and
Volume 54 - Page 15
INDEX
Res 2001 -3
Pumpout
Facility
Improvement
Grant
(28/51)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
that they can be made available to Mr. Hildreth for review. City Manager
Bludau added that the State will also be looking at the contract and
monitoring its costs. He reported that the costs are 1000A reimbursable from
the State, but the State will only be reimbursing the City 75 0h for the annual
maintenance cost.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -3
authorizing the City to apply for and receive a pumpout station renovation
grant of $80,000 from the California Department of Boating and Waterways.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the staff report is very specific as to
the additional moneys being requested for 15th Street, the Balboa Yacht
Basin, the Fun Zone, and Lido Marina Village. Further, he indicated that he
and Mr. Kiff visited 15th Street to determine the obsolete nature of the
pumpout station and to operate it, and reported that it is in dire need of
help. He stated that he is satisfied that this is being used for appropriate
purposes.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ABANDONED WATERCRAFT
ABATEMENT FUND.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that Senate Bill 172 (Rainey)
and the abandoned watercraft abatement fund were formulated to assist
families that have been left with the financial burden of an unwanted vessel.
He expressed the opinion that this should not be viewed as a way for the
City to gain revenue by the acquisition of moorings or through fines,
impounds, and boat sales. He stated that, if the boat is being moored and
the fees for the mooring have not been paid, he is led to believe that the boat
might be abandoned. He indicated that the Harbor Environmental Division
of the Fire and Marine Department is now being called the Division of
Harbor Resources of the Office of the City Manager. He expressed the
opinion that resources are being found within the mariners' wallet and
stated that Assistant City Attorney Ohl admitted that Deputy Chief Melum
has lied to Council in 1999. He believed that incompetence has impounded
his boat and a disregard to personal rights and public safety has resulted in
a City installed ladder. Further, discussions with mariners has revealed
that such treatment is commonplace.
Mr. Hildreth stated that, since utility poles are disappearing, bird perches
seem to be needed. Further, if the City insists that all vessels be cleared of
bird droppings, he believed that a mariners assistance league and a poop -
cleaning patrol should be established. He indicated that Newport Harbor
has a finite number of offshore moorings and that, by using the free pumpout
station service records, the City could determine which boats may need help
from the mariners assistance league.
Volume 54 - Page 16
INDEX
Res 2001 -4
Abandoned
Watercraft
Abatement
Fund
(51)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -4
expressing the City's intent to participate in the Department of Boating and
Waterways' (DBW) Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund (AWAF)
program and authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents
associated with the program.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
12. 1999 -2000 BALBOA ISLAND BAYFRONT REPAIRS (C -3303) -
COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that it used to leak in the corners
but does not leak anymore, and that the repairs were well done. However,
he reported that saltwater is still coming through during high tide at the
section of the Canal by the Little Island Bridge. He indicated that the City
installed a planter and asked a resident to maintain it, but it is difficult to
grow plants because of the saltwater.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to 1) accept the work; 2) authorize
the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to
release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion
has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code;
and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council
acceptance.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that he presented to the previous
Council a document which he asked to have reviewed and signed. He read
the document which basically states that the City installed ladder is a safe
and viable structure; the City is self insured and assumes all liability
associated with the seawall ladder; the ladder has been approved by the
Coastal Commission and complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act;
and that persons associated with RP80100011 can safely transfer items from
the boardwalk to their vessel by using the seawall ladder. He stated that, if
the document is not signed, he cannot see that the structure can be viewed
as a safe structure.
Volume 54 - Page 17
INDEX
C -3303
Balboa Island
Bayfront Repairs
(38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
PUBLIC HEARINGS
18, FLUTER MIXED USE PROJECT (STERNS ARCHITECTURE) -
2410 NEWPORT BOULEVARD - A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A
MIXED USE BUILDING WITH 1,500 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS - SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 79, USE PERMIT NO. 3685 AND VARIANCE NO. 1239
(contd. from 12/12/00).
Mayor Adams opened the public hearing.
Motion by Council Member Glover to refer the item back to the Planning
Commission for further review.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
19. NAVAI RESIDENCE (JIM NAVAI, APPLICANT) - 1201 KINGS ROAD
- REQUEST TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND
STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING,
PORTIONS OF WHICH WILL EXCEED THE 24 FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT RANGING FROM 1 FOOT TO 10 FEET.
Council Member Glover reviewed the number of times this item was brought
to the Planning Commission and Council, noting that it was recently
approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that she received a
petition from surrounding residents of the property who indicated that they
wanted to have the ability to have a public hearing before Council.
Planning Director Temple stated that this item was reviewed by the
Planning Commission a couple of times and that, in their most recent action,
the Commission approved a variance to exceed the basic height limit in an
area along Kings Road on the ocean side of the bluff. She noted that the lots
are extremely steep. She stated that the approval of the Commission was
founded on a couple of critical factors: the addition does not span the full
buildable width of the property; and the ,project did not involve any
construction further down the slope as many other residents have done. She
added that the Commission felt that, as long as the applicant was willing to
commit to maintaining the extra one -story element on the front of the
property, as well as agree not to do any further improvements down slope at
least without further review of a variance by the Commission, the variance
can be supported. She indicated that the Commission made minor
modifications to the roof pitch in order to create a rounded barrel -type of
roof.
Ms. Temple reported that the existing property has sufficient entitlement to
construct a 13,432 square foot home, but the applicant is proposing to
construct a 4,266 square feet foot home instead (852 square feet is a
Volume 54 - Page 18
INDEX
2410 Newport Blvd.
Use Permit 3685
Site Plan Review 79
Variance 1239
(88)
Variance 1237
1201 Kings Road
(91)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
proposed addition, with a small expansion to the garage). She reported that
the Planning Commission thought that the actual design was fundamental
to their being able to make the findings for the variance and emphasized
that one of the added conditions of approval is the commitment to record a
covenant on the property, similar to a deed restriction, that would require
that the variance be amended if any further additions to the property occur.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's questions, Ms. Temple reported
that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is two times the buildable area (6,716
square feet).
Council Member Heffernan stated that it was his understanding that the
deed restriction would encumber the property permanently and that the only
thing that can be built is the 4,266 square foot structure. He indicated that
the opposition he has been receiving deals with whether the City will allow
the property to be open to a variance, noting that they do not want any more
variances on Kings Road. He expressed the opinion that if this is a
restriction, it should be a permanent restriction. Ms. Temple believed that
the Commission's intention was that, as long as the present structure exists,
the restriction would stay in place. Usually in these types of decisions, this
applicant or subsequent owner could have the opportunity to come back to
the City and see whether there are any circumstances for the City to approve
any alterations. She emphasized that this would be the City's decision and
not the owner's decision. Additionally, she noted that this is attached to the
approval and construction of the specific project, and that if someone came
back and tore down the structure to build an entirely new house, there may
be some questions as to the permanence of this. City Attorney Burnham
indicated that it is his understanding that the restrictive covenant would
prevent the property owner from building anything on the property other
than what is being permitted by the variance, unless and until the entire
structure permitted by the variance was removed. The property owner can
then build on the property, subject to the building and zoning codes at that
time. Council Member Heffernan indicated that this means that there is a
new set of circumstances rather than someone having 4,266 square feet and
then wanting to add another 1,000 square feet to the existing structure. He
stated that coming back to the City for a new structure is a whole different
situation, rather than a piece -meal encroachment into the variance issue.
In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Burnham stated that
Council is hearing appeals from the Planning Commission de novo, but can
look at what the Commission did and rely on the documents in the
administrative record. However, Council makes its own decision and does
not have to be influenced or comply with what the Commission did. He
confirmed that the same rules are applicable with regard to making findings
and the type of evidence that is required.
Senior Planner Campbell utilized a full-scale elevation drawing and reported
that the existing house appears single story from Kings Road. He indicated
that the applicant is proposing to construct an addition above the existing
garage that would encompass a master bedroom suite that is about 955
square feet. Further, there will be a second story element with a staircase
which will be part of a new entry. He stated that the width is a little over
2/3 of the overall width of the existing home. Noting that the line on the
Volume 54 - Page 19
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
elevation drawing represents the 24 foot height limit, he reported that the
front of the home complies with the height limitation, but at about midpoint
of the proposed addition, the bayward area would exceed the height
limitation up to about 10 feet.
In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Mr. Campbell indicated
that a portion of the addition would not be permissible if the variance was
not approved since it exceeds the height limitation. He stated that the
applicant could choose to redesign the property and make a wider second
story elevation on Kings Road which would block a portion of the view that is
presently open in the proposed design. He confirmed that the applicant does
have the opportunity to add to the front of the home to meet the minimum
10 foot front yard setback.
Mayor Adams opened the public hearing.
Jim Navai, 1201 Kings Road, indicated that he obtained 39 signatures from
his neighbors on his letter of support. He stated that his neighbors asked
him to inform Council that a majority of them would like to see homeowners
have a voice and be able to express those views to the Planning Commission.
He added that the Planning Commission should have the final word since
this is their area of expertise, noting that they worked with him and his
architect for over a year on this project and visited him at his home.
Mr. Navai reported that the front of the proposed property will be about 20
feet high, but noted that he is allowed to go as high as 29 feet. He pointed
out that the east part of the property will be left open so there is a view
corridor. He stated that he is currently permitted to add another 9,000
square feet, but will be giving that up to build the 10 foot high area. He
reiterated that, as long as he owns the property and the variance is in effect,
he cannot build on the property. However, if someone bulldozes the
property, that person will have to go before the City to check the codes at
that time. He emphasized that he is agreeing not to build more onto his
property after this project.
Mr. Navai believed that the Planning Commission also approved this plan
because he will be able to do a lot of architectural detailing, which adds to
his and his neighbors' property values and makes the property more in tune
with the rest of Kings Road. He noted that the Planning Commission
approved this plan 6 to 1.
Robert Whitney stated that he is Mr. Navai's neighbor, but opposes any
height variance except when he does his remodel. He asked what is the
sense of having a height code if everyone that applies for a variance is
granted one. He requested that Council deny this variance and suggested
that Mr. Navai build wider instead of higher.
Dr. Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Road, stated that he attended the Planning
Commission meetings and the one Council meeting a year ago and that he,
his wife, and neighbors decided to start a petition after going to those
meetings. He indicated that they obtained 31 signatures from concerned
citizens that live on Kings Road and that they thanked them profusely for
doing this because they do not want any variances approved. He stated that
Volume 54 - Page 20
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
(10111
the petition basically states their concern over Mr. Navai's request for
Variance No. 1237, noting that a similar variance was already denied on this
property last August. Further, it expressed the homeowners' concern about
the request to exceed the 24 foot height limit which would negatively impact
other homeowners' use and property values, He indicated that, after Mr.
Navai found out that they started a petition, he tried to go around to the
neighbors to negate their petition. Since then, he stated that they received
eight more signatures on their petition. He stated that they understand that
Mr. Navai has submitted slight revisions to his original plan and that the
roofline has changed to mimic the property line with the higher roof
elevation at the street.
Dr. Yaru indicated that he also asked the Planning Commission at the last
meeting why anyone would not come to the City and ask for a variance if the
rules and regulations are not obeyed. He stated that the neighbors feel that
the request for a height variance up to 9 feet is totally unacceptable, noting
that the rear of Mr. Navai's property from Pacific Coast Highway is not one
story, but is three stories with two balconies on the lower levels that could be
extended into any room without requiring any variances. Regarding the
terrain, he stated that it has been there for decades and everyone else who
bought property on Kings Road knew the terrain and was still able to build
in accordance with the code. He asked what the logic is behind stating that
the City will let him go high since the terrain is tough.
Mayor Adams noted the guarantee that Mr. Navai's home, in its proposed
configuration, will never get larger than a little over 4,000 square feet versus
an entitled 13,000 square feet. Further, that its height from the street would
be less than its entitled height. He stated that the neighborhood would also
be guaranteed that the house would not be built further down the slope and
affect the view of the slope from Coast Highway.
Regarding the question of why the City should consider the variance, Mayor
Adams expressed the opinion that Mr. Navai's lot is an unusual lot compared
to the others and the variance comes with a guarantee to the City that he
will not build beyond the proposed plan. He indicated that this may be a
tradeoff worth considering since the neighborhood would be getting a lot less
than what is permitted to be built and gives a long term stay as to what the
house could look like in 10 to 20 years when this house is demolished and a
new house is built per current entitlement. He stated that he is unsure of
where he is on this issue, but noted that, if the neighbors are concerned
about the present times, this gives a guarantee.
Barret Weekes, 709 Kings Road, stated that he met Mr. Navai 10 days ago
and then visited his property. He believed that the plan would add value to
the street and for Mr. Navai, and indicated that he was pleased with the
improvements and progress that has happened on the street. He stated that
Mr. Navai's suggestion for home improvement is a good compromise.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions regarding where the
house will exceed the height limits, Ms. Temple clarified that the house
would be 20 feet high from the street view where an average roof can be 24
feet and a ridge can be as high as 29 feet. She reported that the location of
the variance is down slope and is essentially behind the proposed second
Volume 54 - Page 21
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
story element. ZShe stated that it is essentially a down slope encroachment
which comes about because the roof goes out in a somewhat straight line as
the grade drops at a rapid rate. She indicated that views would only be
impacted to horizontal neighbors to the extent that it would encroach at or
beyond their residences.
Burt Yeager, 1401 Kings Road, stated that his view is not affected by the
property and thanked Council Member Glover for appealing this to Council
and letting the issue be aired out and the neighbor's concerns be heard. He
stated that the real issue is what is Kings Road going to look like and
whether or not the variance process is the right place to address this. He
noted that the lots are all odd and different on Kings Road, and all of the
topography varies. He believed that the variance process is a peak at how
colossal and massive a person with unlimited resources can build and then
compare that to what is proposed. He stated that the City will receive
variances all the time because the properties on low lots are also on large 114
acre lots. He noted that, if height is negotiable, the face of Kings Road will
be changed because people on the bluff side will try to go higher since this
adds value, even though at the expense of the neighbors. He expressed
concern that the variance process is not the way to address this since
variances are there to alleviate unreasonable burdens on the fair use of a
person's property. He believed that the neighbors are trying to realize their
expectations of what they can do and what their neighbors could do, and
added that his concerns deal with meeting the expectations of the property
owners on the street. He indicated that the City could have a rule that is
similar to Laguna Beach's in which impacting a neighbor's view requires a
special permit from the city and then people negotiate. He stated that, if
this is approved, the height is in play for every low lot on the bluff side. He
expressed the opinion that this is bad policy and would create taller houses
on the bluff side of Kings Road.
Mayor Adams noted that in exchange for the little wedge that exceeds the
height limit down slope, the community is getting a radically downsized
home over the entitlement and a home that is guaranteed to be far lower
than the entitlement from the street. He indicated that he is having a hard
time making a connection between Mr. Yeager's argument about colossal
homes and the expectation of property owners from the street, and what is
being talked about in this case. Mr. Yeager stated that he does not oppose
colossal houses; however, he has an issue with height. He reiterated that a
variance is supposed to alleviate an unreasonable burden on the fair use of
property by a property owner. He added that this does not mean that it is
fair if Mr. Navai builds a 12,000 square foot house that spills all over the lot.
Mayor Adams indicated that the Planning Commission agreed 6 to 1 and
made the finding that this was the case. He reported that he was on the
Planning Commission for five years and that, from time -to -time, variances
came before the Commission and these exceptions are considered. He stated
that there is always the concern that this would set precedence and be a
misuse of the variance process; however, he does not see this running
rampant. Mr. Yeager pointed out that Council approved a height variance
on the bluff side about three years ago and there has now been two variance
applications since then.
Volume 54 - Page 22
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
Council Member Glover believed that there has been an inordinate amount
of variances on Kings Road and knows which house Mr. Yeager is talking
about that ran amuck. Mr. Yeager believed that the variance process is not
pursuant to any principals that are part of the zoning code and expressed
concern that, for a low lot, people will continually try to build up and gladly
give up lots of things to do this. He stated that this moves money from
residents who live inland to the people on the bluff side because they now
have this understanding that, if the house is designed tastefully and a few
view corridors are left, they can build higher. He believed that this creates a
bad process if these types of things are going to be bargained, especially if
the standard will be to compare it to what they can build if they max out.
Council Member Glover stated that, by State law, the City is allowed to issue
variances.
Council Member Heffernan emphasized that the variance is down slope. He
noted that Mr. Navai is permitted to cover the front of the lot up to 29 feet,
but is willing to give that up and provide a view corridor. He stated that it
does not make sense that the neighbors are saying they would rather have
him build on the street side to the maximum height than intrude down slope.
He reiterated that the restriction is permanent on the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the latest house that was approved on
Kings Road is opposite of this project since they built a garage at level, was
within the height limitation, and covered the entire frontage of the property.
However, Mr. Navai is proposing to build a garage at street level, build
above the garage, and then build down the hill, which is a very standard
architectural design.
Kathy Schuler, 900 Kings Road, stated that the height limit when she moved
into her house was 16 feet. She indicated that the history of Kings Road's
height limit dates back to 1959 and has continually increased. She indicated
that she sees the compromise that is being offered with this plan; however,
she expressed concern with variances since every lot does have a special
circumstance. She noted that Dr. Yaru's property is at street level and her
lot is about seven feet above the curb on the inland side. She indicated that
Dr. Yaru may be able to ask for a variance to go higher because of his special
circumstance that his lot is not equal to everyone else's lot. She referenced
the side profile of Mr. Navai's home (page 45) and pointed out that the
existing structure already extends past the maximum height limit. She
believed that codes need be adhered to if the City is going to have them,
otherwise they do not mean anything.
Gary Hill, 503 Kings Road, expressed the opinion that a variance approval is
not a good thing for Kings Road and will start a precedence. Further, he
believed that there are a lot of neighbors who are not present tonight who
are very worried about that. He requested that Council deny this variance.
Mayor Adams closed the public hearing.
Council Member Bromberg stated that he met with Mr. Navai twice and
visited the property, and that he was impressed with the plan he wants to
accomplish. He indicated that the City does have rules, but the City also
uses variances and modifications to take care of those rules, and that this is
Volume 54 - Page 23
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
nothing new. He stated that he does not think that Mr. Navai's proposal is
really going to hurt anyone, in fact he believed that the property will benefit
the community where he lives. He indicated that he saw an alternative
project that Mr. Navai could build, which entails taking out all the trees, and
reported that he could build something that was the size of a barn and had
the same height throughout. He added that Mr. Navai could build that
without coming before the Planning Commission or Council. He indicated
that he is going to support the variance.
Council Member Proctor stated that he met with Mr. Navai and encouraged
him to speak with his neighbors. He also reviewed the plans that Mr. Navai
could implement without any approval and believed that the building would
be a serious detriment to Kings Road. He stated that he was impressed by
Chairman Selich's comment that a variance is a technique whereby the
Planning Commission is able to use independent judgment to deal with a
difficult site. He added that he does not think a variance sets precedence but
is used as an exception to precedence. Additionally, because of the steep
topography, it is virtually impossible to have a'standardized set of rules that
can apply to every site. He believed that the variance is a tradeoff for what
could happen and what would happen, versus what is being proposed. He
indicated that he will be supporting Mr. Navai's request for the variance.
Council Member Glover stated that the applicant has been very reasonable
in trying to work this out. She indicated that she understands about
findings and conditions since she served on the Planning Commission for five
years and the City Council for six years. She noted that the applicant can
build without a variance, but has chosen to apply for one. She reported that
Kings Road has had a history of unhappiness because of the heights on the
bluff side. She added that, in the 1970s, Council decided to address this
issue and mansionization, and imposed certain rules. The homeowners sued
the City and the City backed off. She stated that the City has made a couple
of bad mistakes over there and that the residents never forget a mistake.
She indicated that she is going to vote against the variance, even though she
feels the variance and the applicant have been reasonable.
Motion by Council Member Glover to deny the decision and findings of
the Planning Commission regarding Variance No. 1237.
Mayor Adams believed that Council Member Glover's opposition to this is a
significant factor in his decision since she is probably more in touch with the
residents and issues in her district. He indicated that this is a reasonable
tradeoff and valid variance, and that he does not lightly overturn the work of
the Planning Commission because they did exhaustive work on this
application. However, the fact that there is a significant number of
neighbors that are opposed to this, especially the abutting neighbor, he will
be supporting the motion. He reported that people are not legally entitled to
views, but there is an expectation that their views will not be impacted due
to variances.
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he served six years on the Planning
Commission and two years on Council, and that mistakes were made on
Kings Road. He disagreed with some of the. comments that the City is not
playing within the rules, noting that a variance is written to be within the
Volume 54 - Page 24
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
rules. He indicated that he respects district boundaries and Council Member
Glover's opinion; however, he expressed the opinion that Mr. Navai has been
very reasonable and has agreed to an extraordinary condition that he would
not agree to under any circumstance. Further, there had been a number of
variances granted, some of them wrong, but he does not feel this is wrong.
He reported that the Planning Commission worked hard to carve out an
exception. He stated that the variance does not establish heights on Kings
Road and does agree with the principle of not allowing additional heights.
He reported that he would not approve this if this was brought before
Council with a height variance for a 13,000 square foot structure. He
reiterated that Mr. Navai can build 13,000 square feet of house on this
property with two stories facing onto Kings Road with a 24 foot roof height
and a 29 foot ridge height. He stated that he cannot undo some of the
variances that have been approved, but this is a reasonable variance and he
will not go against his conscience. He stated that there was a period of time
on the Planning Commission when, if there had been precedence set, this
would be an easy issue. However, he stated that the only place the City
made an exception on Kings Road is where it faces onto Dover. He expressed
the opinion that this variance is not inappropriate and to deny it would be
treating Mr. Navai differently.
Council Member Heffernan stated that, given the fact that the City is
dealing with massing on Kings Road, he believed an exchange for reduction
of the mass from the sidewalk and adding a view corridor is a good
compromise. He stated that he does not view this as setting a precedence,
but views this as setting a precedence that someone is going to have to
reduce the massing from the street in exchange for getting the extension of
the height limit down slope and the long term restriction on the total
building envelope. He indicated that he would support the variance and
explained that he only seconded the motion so that Council can vote on this.
Mayor Adams stated that he is going to stick with his decision, but indicated
that he is perplexed by the residents and their rejection of this reasonable
compromise.
The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Glover, Mayor Adams
Noes: Heffernan, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Proctor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Motion by Council Member Proctor to uphold the decision and findings
of the Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 1237.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Proctor
Noes: Glover, Mayor Adams
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Volume 54 - Page 25
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
20. BALBOA INN & EXPANSION - 105 MAIN STREET & 707 OCEAN
FRONT - A USE PERMIT FOR THE BALBOA INN LOCATED AT 105
MAIN STREET ITS PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE 707 OCEAN
FRONT PROPERTY. THE EXPANSION PROJECT INVOLVES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND THREE STORY STRUCTURE
CONSISTING OF 11 NEW GUEST SUITES, GUEST SPA AREA,
APPROXIMATELY 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, AND A
PARTIALLY COVERED 20 SPACE, TANDEM PARKING AREA. IT
WILL ALSO INVOLVE THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING ONE -
STORY RETAIL BUILDING AND POOL AREA THAT CURRENTLY
SERVES THE EXISTING BALBOA INN. THE USE PERMIT
APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF AN
EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA
RATIO, BUILDING BULK AND BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISHED
BY TITLE 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE EXPANSION.
Council Member Bromberg announced that he must recuse himself due to a
possible conflict of interest. He reported that the applicant's representative
is a director with the Balboa Performing Arts Theater Foundation; he is an
officer, director, and legal counsel for the Theater Foundation; and the
Theater Foundation has taken a formal position on this issue, which creates
an automatic bias.
Planning Director Temple noted that this project does not include any
significant alterations to the existing Balboa Inn at this time; however,
construction will take place on the parcel of land across from the oceanfront
boardwalk which is currently occupied by a small retail kiosk and a pool area
that serves the Balboa Inn. She reported that the project includes
construction of both retail and hotel facilities, and a partially covered
parking area since the Inn currently has no parking of its own. She added
that the project includes using the flexibility contained in the General Plan
and zoning code to allow more floor area for low traffic generating land uses,
which hotels are, and it also includes a request to exceed the basic height
limit to a secondary height limit allowed by the code through the approval of
a use permit.
James W. Read, Jr., P.O. Box 780, appellant, stated that he found it
interesting that the people speaking on the last issue were discussing
essentially what he, his neighbors, and the Central Newport Association
oppose. He stated that they understand that they cannot totally oppose a
building there since they are already entitled -to build a smaller, less dense
project. He reported that this project exceeds floor ratio and height, and that
a 55 x 32 foot wall would block the view from, his porch. He indicated that
the Central Newport Association's policy states that they oppose the increase
of hotel capacities, new hotel construction, and the licensing of additional
take -out food service establishments within the boundaries of this
Association, the beach, or the recreation area of the Peninsula. He stated
that a neighbor east of the Inn submitted a petition containing about 63
names in opposition to this project and that there is no petition supporting
the project. He expressed the opinion that the Balboa Inn, the Performing
Arts Theater, and the Balboa parking lot should be considered together since
traffic has always been bad in the area. He also reported that about $55,000
in bed tax has not been paid and finds it disingenuous that the applicant
Volume 54 - Page 26
INDEX
105 Main Street &
707 Ocean Front
Use Permit 3683
(88)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
said he was not aware of this. He also asked about the Greenlight provisions
since this is an excessive project.
Mayor Adams stated that the Planning Commission has required that the
bed tax be paid before the applicant can receive a building permit. He noted
that no one has entitlement to views; however, it appears that the view
impact from Mr. Read's porch is relatively insignificant compared to the total
view. Mr. Read stated that he would not be able to see all of the pier and the
ocean to the east after construction, which is a loss of about 30 degrees of his
view. Mayor Adams stated that, by looking at Mr. Read's photos, it appears
that his view is already significantly blocked by palm trees. He noted that
the staff report finds that the appeal packet does not present compelling new
information that would render the Planning Commission's decision invalid.
Mr. Read believed that Council is having a de novo hearing, adding that this
would be an excessive building by way of use permit.
In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Ms. Temple clarified that the use
permit is for the height limit and to allow the project to make use of the
maximum floor area ratio (FAR) provided in the General Plan and the
zoning code which allows low traffic generating land uses to go to a higher
1.0 FAR. She stated that the use permit is still part of the approval and is a
permitted level of development, not a variance level of development. With
regard to the number of rooms, she indicated that this is a matter of design.
Mayor Adams stated that Mr. Read contends that there is some similarity
between this and the previous hearing; however, the last hearing was a
variance. Further, Mr. Read suggests that Council is starting fresh, but the
City Attorney pointed out that Council can take everything that the
Planning Commission did into consideration. In response to Council
Member Proctor's question, Mr. Read stated that there is no new or different
circumstances that exist regarding his opposition.
Regarding the unpaid hotel tax, Council Member Heffernan stated that it
seems like the applicant is coming before Council owing $50,000 to the City
and asking for a favor. He asked why the amount has accumulated for so
long and why it is not a condition for him to pay this up front before he does
anything. City Attorney Burnham stated that he cannot state why the
amount has accumulated to the extent that it has, but the issuance of a
building permit is the firmest evidence that the proponent is taking
advantage of a use permit that may be granted. Council Member Heffernan
expressed the opinion that the City should receive the money sooner rather
than wait for the applicant to get a building permit since the money is
already owed. Mr. Burnham stated that Council can set a different
timeframe for collection of the amount. He indicated that it was his
understanding that the applicant was not the individual who was
responsible for payment of the taxes before they accrued to the amount that
they have. He stated that the condition has been placed, but Council can set
a trigger of 90 days after this decision becomes final. Council Member
Heffernan stated that, considering the size of the project, the applicant is
going to be spending a lot more than $50,000 on architects and engineers to
put together a construction drawing. Mr. Burnham suggested that Council
ask whether the applicant consents to the condition.
Volume 54 - Page 27
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
Ron Baers, representing the applicants/owners of the Balboa Inn (Raymond
and Michelle Pourmussa), stated that the unpaid Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) was an inherited problem that the owners have been working with the
City on for a year.
Mr. Baers reported that the Balboa Village and Balboa Inn are within
residential neighborhoods. He utilized illustrations to show that the
proposed addition is to be constructed where the retail, storage building, and
pool are currently located. He stated that the parcel and the Inn are part of
Balboa's street grid and is part of the Village. He reported that the Inn has
two story front wings, three story back wings, and is about 40 feet high. He
added that many of the commercial buildings, including the Pavilion, are
three stories high. He stated that Balboa Village is changing due to the
City's reinvestment to beautify public streets and spaces, and to improve
infrastructure. He believed that the proposed changes to the Inn will
implement many of these improvements, particularly around the parcel. He
added that the proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian environment
by providing a street level, covered arcade along Main Street and by
installing and maintaining about 3,000 square. feet of landscape around the
property at the owners' expense. He stated that other improvements include
the provisions for a garden court and water feature. He indicated that they
also propose to extend the historic attributes of the Inn, which is a Spanish
colonial revival building, through the use of similar materials and details.
He stated that they are providing a residentially scaled project that consists
of two residential buildings (30x40 feet and 330x55 feet) which will be set
over a sundeck with a spa, ground floor parking, retail, and an arcade. He
pointed out that the City does provide flexibility in its regulations to
encourage a better designed project. He added that they chose to set back
the mass of the building by 28 feet to provide a landscaped frontage in front
of the parking area.
Mr. Baers emphasized that the Balboa Inn is a historic treasure in the
Village and that the proposed addition reflects the historic values in its
design and, therefore, extends the historic character along Main Street and
Oceanfront, and when viewed from all sides. The existing Inn, for the last
three years, has undergone significant reinvesting (exceeding $250,000) to
refurbish and maintain the property, and to bring this historic treasure into
a much better condition. He believed that the laddition will ensure continued
economic success for Balboa and will be a catalyst for revitalization of the
Village. Further, the proposed 11 room addition doubles the number of
ocean front quality rooms. He added that City policy for design standards in
Balboa provide flexibility from the established'standards when an innovative
design is proposed. He stated that the tradeoff is that they are asking for an
additional 755 square feet of FAR, noting that they have a maximum
building height of 31 feet which is on the low end for buildings in the area.
He believes that they have provided a proposal that is compatible in every
way, scale, and character of Balboa.
Council Member Heffernan asked Mr. Baers if he is empowered to make
some concession relative to the unpaid TOT finding from the Planning
Commission. Mr. Baers stated that the next step in the permitting process is
to go to the Coastal Commission, which is a six month process and believed
that this is one of the reasons why the time trigger was set before receiving
i
Volume 54 - Page 28
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
UN IT5.9
the building permit. Council Member Heffernan stated that he views this as
an existing problem that the applicants should have known about when the
property was purchased and that the City is being put -off over a tax that is
owed. He emphasized that the redevelopment of the site does not change its
current use and the fact that the tax is due. He stated that, by the City
putting this off, it is almost as if the City is a partner in the project.
In response to Mayor Adams' question, Mr. Baers confirmed that the
applicant agrees with all the conditions that were set by the Planning
Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked the City Attorney if the City
can enforce that type of condition and noted that the City is within its right
to enforce payment of the TOT right now. He stated that the issue is not
conditioning this project but is a matter of having the Revenue Director seek
payment.
Tod White, 1120 East Balboa Boulevard, representing the Balboa Peninsula
Point Association which consists of about 500 families as members, stated
that he is president of the Association and, as a general principal, they are
opposed to construction of new buildings on the ocean side of the boardwalk;
however, the Board voted to support this proposal since it is an existing
structure and it would be a significant improvement, considering what they
are legally entitled to build. Speaking for himself and noting that the City is
committing about $7.5 million for major improvements in the area, he
encouraged Council to be very supportive of private capital being invested to
improve the Balboa Village, especially since the owners are actually running
the business. He believed that this complements what the City is already
proposing to do in the area.
Dona Colombero, 1002 East Ocean Front, believed that the proposal is a
marvelous idea. She stated that almost everyone she knows has used the
Inn and now it has a chance to be more financially viable by adding rooms.
She indicated that everyone is waiting for the renaissance of the Village and
that everyone feels that the Inn is a treasure and cornerstone. She stated
that they happily support the improvement.
Michele Roberge, Executive Director of the Balboa Performing Arts Theater,
stated that she is voicing the Theater Foundation's support of the project.
She indicated that she understands Mr. Read's concern regarding the view;
however, she stated that she is more concerned about the view down Balboa
Boulevard and Main Street. She reported that the Theater, the Inn, and all
the business owners are trying to upgrade the neighborhood to make it more
attractive and exciting, and make it a destination point for many people to
enjoy. She noted that it is going to be her job once the Theater is open to
attract patrons to drive down that street and find parking to come to an arts
event at a small theater, and anything to entice people to come down to that
area is welcomed. She stated that the Theater has a wonderful relationship
with the Inn since it is her job to find first class hotel rooms for the artists
that perform at the Theater. She emphasized that the Pavilion, the Theater,
and the Inn are the anchors in Balboa Village and encouraged Council to
support all growth to any and all of those entities.
Dan Parr, 1585 East Ocean, stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself
and his wife, Diana, who support the project. He indicated that they have
Volume 54 - Page 29
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
lived there for 24 years and have waited, with great excitement, for some
change to the Village because it has been in the process of slow deterioration
for a lot of years. He noted that the money the City has committed and the
Theater project are very exciting, and reiterated that the Inn is an anchor in
the Village. He reported that he and his wife looked at the plans and
drawings, and stated that the arcade along Main Street is a nice entry to the
Balboa Pier. He stated that it is something that is offered in many pier
communities and would offer a great improvement to the downtown
shopping area. He pointed out that one of the reasons the Village is not
more successful is because there is no close parking, but stated that this
project is thoughtful in that the applicant will be creating 20 parking spaces
devoted to the hotel. He added that the landscaping is also nice and fits with
the Village they want to live in and enjoy.
Bill Malcomb stated that most of the speakers have already given the same
opinions that he has regarding support of the project. He reported that he is
an architect, but has no relationship with the project or the architect who did
the design, and has looked at the drawings very carefully and feels that the
project is an extraordinarily sensitive solution to a very difficult problem.
Further, he expressed the opinion that the Inn has bent over backwards to
provide something that is consistent with the existing Inn and very sensitive
in its detail and relationship to its neighbors. He added that this is a real
opportunity for the Peninsula and expressed hope that Council will support
the project.
Rod E. Harter, 105 Main Street, stated that he is the Manager of Balboa Inn
and believed that tonight is a wonderful example of democracy at work since
everyone has had the opportunity to voice problems and issues. He noted
that the Inn has been sensitively designed and will be an anchor for the
Village. He thanked Council for listening to everyone.
Gay Wassall - Kelly, 409 East Edgewater, President of the Balboa Merchant
Owners Association (BMOA), stated that the Board agrees, with one
abstention, to support the revitalization of downtown Balboa. She stated
that, with the City's commitment of $7.5 million, it is a plus that the Balboa
Inn, a private establishment, is willing to reinvest in Balboa. She noted that
the project is a much needed improvement on the corner which is the main
entrance to Balboa. She added that the plans are compatible with the
historic Spanish flavor of the Inn and the expansion has the possibility of
benefiting other businesses. Regarding parking and traffic, she stated that
the Inn will provide 22 parking stalls which . is almost impossible to have
built. She indicated that the BMOA hopes that owners of other buildings
and businesses will also invest in the future of Balboa.
Bob Black indicated that everything he was going to say has basically been
stated, but emphasized that the property owner is willing to put money back
into his business to enhance it and hopefully istart complementing what the
City is going to be putting into the area. He expressed hope that other
property owners will do the same. He added that the area is happy to see
that the Inn will be creating more parking since it is very hard to come by.
Dave Bejoc, 600 East Oceanfront, stated that he is not aware of anyone on
the Planning Commission actually standing on his balcony or sitting in his
Volume 54 - Page 30
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
den to see how tnis project would impact his property and the z;s others that
reside at Rendezvous Condominiums. He indicated that no one who lives in
the Village is going to argue that any improvement would be great compared
to what is there now and asked why the Inn cannot be improved within the
allowable limits. Further, he expressed the opinion that, as you walk down
the boardwalk there are views of palm trees and skies, but to put three
stories of concrete, no matter how it is dressed up, is not the best possible
use for that area. He noted that there was a lot of positive support for the
project, but believed that a majority of those in favor are not personally
impacted.
Mayor Adams reported that some of the Planning Commissioners did view
the site from balconies. He added that Mr. Bejoc is probably
mischaracterizing the view of the building that he will be getting, noting
that it is not a sheer wall, is set back, and a lot of care has been taken with
regard to residents' views. He stated that the Inn is a relatively minor part
of the view. He took issue with a previous comment, clarifying that the
proposal is already at allowable limits, which is the point of the use permit
process. Regarding the exception, Mayor Adams indicated that it is
something that is allowed with low intensity uses and is done to encourage
low traffic generated development. Ms. Temple added that the word
"exception" is a misnomer since the code simply requires the review and
approval of a use permit to make use of the maximum FAR. Further, there
are certain findings that need to be made. She explained that the reason the
provision exists is so the City can impose specific conditions that will limit
the use and prevent its conversion to some other use that is not in the traffic
generated characteristics of the proposal.
In response to Mr. Bejoc's concerns, Mayor Adams reported that the Inn will
mostly be two stories high and that the allowable uses for this site have been
in place for quite some time. He added that Mr. Bejoc probably purchased
his property knowing that something like this could be built under a
conditional use permit. Mr. Bejoc indicated that he did not know about this
when he bought his property and that he found out about this just last
February. Mayor Adams stated that property owners need to do their due
diligence and understand what the entitlements are around their property,
especially with regard to the view corridor. Regarding a comparison
between this project and the I{ings Road issue, he emphasized that there is
no parallel because that was a variance and this is a conditional use permit,
and the processes are quite different.
Mr. Read suggested paving Balboa Boulevard and stated that this is the
single most important thing for the Peninsula. Public Works Director Webb
reported that this will be done; however, it is too expensive to do the
repaving and undergrounding all at once. He reported that it will be done
over the next four years and that the first piece has already been awarded
that will go from Adams to Medina. He added that the second piece will be
from Medina to about 12th Street and the third piece will be in the
MacFadden Square area.
Council Member Heffernan asked how this piece of real estate got on the
ocean side of the boardwalk. Mr. Burnham stated that the size and
ownership of the parcel was established pursuant to litigation. Ms. Temple
Volume 54 - Page 31
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
added that there are very small lots bayward of the boardwalk that were in
the original 1907 subdivision. She indicated that this lot, for some unknown
reason, was litigated through a Superior Court action and was established by
ruling in 1961 or 1962.
Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Rideewav to uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 3683.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question of whether the City can
impose a requirement on Use Permit No. 3683 that they pay the delinquent
TOT, Mr. Burnham stated that one of the findings that Council has to make
to grant the use permit is that the proposed use will comply with the
provisions of this code. To make that finding, the City is free to impose a
payment of delinquent TOT because that is apparently necessary to comply
with the provisions of the code. He indicated that the timing of the payment
is up to Council's discretion.
Noting the time involved with a Coastal Commission approval, Mayor Pro
Tem Ridgeway indicated that he is going to uphold the provision that the
Planning Commission imposed, adding that he is hopeful that the applicant
will pay the TOT sooner than later. Council Member Heffernan expressed
the opinion that, if there is going to be a contingency, it should be with the
Coastal Commission approval. He stated that, once this is approved by the
Coastal Commission, the applicant will spend a lot of money for other
consultants and will then have approval from both the City and the Coastal
Commission. He emphasized that, at that point, they should be paying the
delinquent tax. He requested that the maker of the motion amend his
motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the
owner paying the delinquent hotel tax within 30 days of approval of the
project by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Burnham indicated that this was
something Council could do.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question, Mr. Baers stated that
the condition to pay the unpaid TOT 30 days after Coastal Commission
approval was an acceptable condition. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed to
amend the motion.
The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Proctor, Mayor Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: Bromberg
Absent: None
21. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S USE PERMIT NO. 69, ACCESSORY
OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT NO. 76 - EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING
FULL SERVICE SMALL SCALE EATING AND DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENT INTO A NEIGHBORING TENANT SPACE,
INCREASING THE INTERIOR SEATING FROM 12 SEATS TO 21
SEATS, INCREASING THE EXTERIOR SEATING FROM 8 TO 12
SEATS AND PROVIDING SEPARATE GENDER RESTROOMS.
Mayor Adams opened the public hearing.
Volume 54 - Page 32
INDEX
Planning
Director's
Use Permit 691
Accessory Outdoor
Dining Permit 76
(68)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue this item to January 23,
2001.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
CURRENT BUSINESS
22. APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR TO THE COUNCIL /CITIZENS AD
HOC COMMITTEES, THE JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES,
AND THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to confirm the following appointments
as recommended and announced by the Mayor:
I. COUNCIL /CITIZENS AD HOC COMMITTEES
A. Aviation Committee
L Council Member Proctor
2. Council Member Glover
3. City Manager or designee
4. City Attorney or designee
5. Current president or designee of Airport Working
Group
Chairman Proctor
Vice Chair To Be Determined (either Council
Member or resident)
B. Ad Hoc Committee to Promote the Revitalization of
the Balboa Peninsula (PROP)
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (District 1 - Chair)
2. Council Member Proctor (District 2)
3. Council Member Bromberg (District 5)
C. City- School Ad Hoc Committee
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
2. Council Member Proctor
3. Council Member Glover
4. City Manager
D. Economic Develooment Committee
1. Mayor Adams
2. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
3. Council Member Bromberg
Volume 54 - Page 33
INDEX
Appointments to
Council/Citizens
Ad Hoc Committees,
Joint Governmental
Committees, and
Citizens Advisory
Committees (24)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
4. Planning Commissioner Selich
5. EQAC Chairman
6. Chairman Selich
E. Oil and Gas Field Operations Committee
1. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway
2. Council Member Proctor
3. Public Works Director
4. Public Works Dept. Utilities Division Manager
F. Ad Hoc Citv Council Airport Issues Committee
1. Council Member Proctor (Chair)
2. Council Member Glover
3. Council Member Heffernan
G. Councilmanic Redistricting Committee
1. Council Member Proctor
2. Council Member Bromberg
3. Council Member Heffernan
H. Affordable Housing Task Force
1. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway (Chair)
2. Council Member Bromberg
3. Council Member O'Neil .
I. Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee
J.
A
1. Mayor Adams (Chair)
2. Council Member Glover
3. Council Member Heffernan
4. Planning Commissioners (3)
5. Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens
Committee designee
6. Economic Development Committee designee
7. Aviation Committee designee
8. Harbor Committee designee
9. Greenlight designee
Ad Hoc Airport Area Development Committee
1. Mayor Adams
2. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway
3. Planning Commissioner Selich
4. Planning Commissioner Tucker
Advisory
Ad Hoc Committee for an Arts & Education Center
1. Council Member Bromberg (Chair)
2. Council Member Heffernan
Volume 54 - Page 34
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
3. City Arts Commissioner Gregory
4. Board of Library Trustee Saar- I{ranzley
5. Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commissioner Allen
L. Web Site Review Ad Hoc Committee
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
2. Mayor Adams
3. Council Member O'Neil
M. John Wayne Airport IJWA) Settlement Extension Ad
Hoc Committee
1. Council Member Glover (Chair)
2. Council Member Proctor
3. Council Member O'Neil
N. Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee
1. Council Member O'Neil
2. Council Member Heffernan
3. Community Member To Be Determined
4. Community Member To Be Determined
5. Community Member To Be Determined
II. COUNCIL COMMITTEE
A. Finance Committee
1. Council Member Heffernan (Chair)
2. Council Member Bromberg
3. Council Member Glover
III. REPRESENTATIVES TO JOINT GOVERNMENTAL
A. Growth Management Area S Representative
1. Council Member O'Neil
B. Hazardous Waste Material - Joint Powers Authority
1. Mayor Adams
C. Inter -City Liaison Committee
1. Council Member O'Neil
2. Council Member Heffernan (Alt.)
3. City Manager
D. Joint Committee for the Evaluation and
Implementation of the Upper Newport Bav
Cooperative Agreement
Volume 54 - Page 35
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
INDEX
1. Council Member Glover
2. Mayor Adams (Alt.)
E. League of California Cities /Orange County Division
1. Mayor Adams
2. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Alt.)
F. Orange County Coastal Coalition
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
G. Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)*
1. Council Member Glover
*Glover is a member by virtue of her position on AQMD
H. Orange County Homeless Coalition (Affordable
Housing)
1. Mayor Adams
2. Planning Staff Member
I. Orange County Housing Commission - Advisory
Committee
1. Planning Staff Robert Bain
2. Planning Staff Patricia Temple (Alt.)
J. Orange Countv Regional Airport Authority (OCRAA)
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
2. Council Member Glover (Alt.)
K. Consolidated Sanitation District of Orange County
(CSDOC)
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
2. Mayor Adams (Alt.)
L. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Corridor Elected Officials Committee
1. Council Member O'Neil
2. Mayor Adams (Alt.)
M. Orange Countv Vector Control District Board of
Trustees
1. Council Member To Be Determined
Volume 54 - Page 36
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
La
INDEX
Advisory Committee
1. Council Member Proctor
2. Mayor Adams (Alt.)
O. Santa Ana River Flood Protection Aeency
1. Council Member Proctor
2. Council Member Glover
P. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Joint
Powers A¢encv Board of Directors
1. Council Member O'Neil
2. Council Member Heffernan (Alt.)
Q. Southern California Association of Governments
S( CAG)
Appointed by Orange County Division of the League of
California Cities
R. SR73 /SR55/I -405 Freeways Confluence Policy
Committee
1. Mayor Adams
IV. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES
A. Environmental Quality Affairs
1. Council Member Bromberg
2. Council Member Heffernan
3. Chairman or designee ofEDC
4. Chairman Hawkins [citizen (at large)]
B. Harbor Qualitv
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway
2. Council Member Bromberg
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Chair)
Vice Chair To Be Determined (either Council
Member or resident)
C. Youth Council
1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway (Liaison)
2. Recreation Manager (Community Services Staff)
In response to Tom Hyans' question, Mayor Adams explained that the
Harbor Committee is not on this list since those appointments will be made
at the January 23 meeting, along with the other Council appointments.
Volume 54 - Page 37
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway clarified that the Harbor Committee will continue
until the Harbor Element is voted on. Mayor Adams stated that it is his
intention to reappoint the existing members unless they do not want to be
reappointed.
Tom Naughton stated that former Council Member Jan Debay was
appointed to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
emphasized the importance of having someone from this Council be a part of
that body. Mayor Adams agreed and stated that someone will run for that.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
23. JIFFY LUBE SIGN PROGRAM - 1520 WEST COAST HIGHWAY
(CHRISTIAN FANTICOLA, APPLICANT).
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue to January 23, 2001.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
24. FINANCING OF MARINER'S MILE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Council Member Glover stated that she called the Mayor and the City
Manager to ask that this item be continued to January 23,
Motion-by Council Member Glover to continue this item to January 23,
2001.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor
Adams i
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None.
ADJOURNMENT — at 9:55 p.m , in memory of Jean Morris, to a 3:00 p.m.
Study Session on January 23, 2001.
Volume 54 - Page 38
11017 DA/
1520 West Coast Hwy
Use Permit 3647
(88)
BA -023
Mariner's Mile
Public
Improvement
Plan
(40/68)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
January 9, 2001
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 3, 2001, at
3:45 p.rrL on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 54 - Page 39
INDEX