Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - City Council Minutes - 2-27-2001March 13, 2001 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes ® /` Study Session DRAFT February 27, 2001- 4:00 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Present: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: Heffernan (excused), O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Agenda Item 5 (Janitorial and Related Services for Park and Beach Restroom Facilities), General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the cost of having two part -time employees conduct the janitorial services is $22,200 a year; the cost for a City employee on overtime is $46,000 a year; and the contract with A -1 Spinelli Enterprises would cost $33,400 a year. He indicated that 52 vendors were invited to bid on this and assured Council that staff made sure that the vendors understood their obligations. 2. CITY RECYCLING PROGRAM. General Services Director Niederhaus introduced Management Analyst Eldridge, Refuse Superintendent Russo, and Refuse Supervisor Hinckley and reported that they are currently recruiting for a Recycling Coordinator. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, he reviewed the history of the recycling program. He stated that in the early 1900s, recycling consisted of using burlap sacks for refuse and transporting food waste to agricultural facilities for pig feed. From 1950 to 1990, refuse was hauled to a variety of landfills. He discussed the transfer station that was built in 1988 and how it expanded the City's options for long haul transfers to Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). He reported that the City had a successful newspaper recycling program from 1973 to 1989 which generated between $35,000 to $62,000 a year. The program was stopped when the City began its full recycling program. Mr. Niederhaus reported that Assembly Bill 939, which deals with the national landfill shortage crisis, was adopted in November 1989. He indicated that, since it was predicted that Orange County landfills would be full by the mid- 1990s, cities needed to start conserving the current landfills through recycling programs. He added that some landfills were also built improperly and posed a continued health threat. He stated that California set a 25% recycling rate goal by December 31, 1995 and a 50% goal by December 31, 2000, and requires that cities first reduce solid waste through source reduction. He reported that AB 939 has provisions to fine local governments $10,000 a day for noncompliance, but noted that most of the fines have been issued for failure to submit a recycling plan. He added that Volume 54 - Page 116 Recycling Program (44) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX AB 939 also requires that cities generate a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The City's SRRE includes a composting component, education/public information component, and a household hazardous waste component. He stated that the City also conducted a Waste Characterization Study which broke down the refuse into 14 categories. Mr. Niederhaus reported that businesses generate about 90,000 tons of waste a year and that this was initially managed through a solid waste permit. He indicated that waste is now managed through non - exclusive solid waste franchises in order to keep competition open. He stated that there are nine solid waste haulers and seven demolition haulers that currently operate in the City, and that they provide the City indemnification from environmental liability and the 25% and 50% recycling rate. Mr. Niederhaus reported that the City has a five year contract with CRT to recycle 25% of the residential waste. Further, solid waste permits were issued to all the private haulers with the requirement that they recycle 5% to 25% of the waste. He stated that the Recycling Element was completed in 1991 and that the City required its parks maintenance contractor to recycle all the greenwaste. He added that the City has also had a used oil recycling program since 1997. Mr. Niederhaus explained what happens to residential trash once it is picked up and noted that residents are not required to break down materials since the City ultimately takes the waste to a mixed waste recycling facility that sorts it. He reported that commercial haulers are required to process materials from residents and demolition sites, and added that wood waste is also recycled. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the City's recycling rate was 42% in 1995 and 47% in 1999, and that these figures were generated by a complicated formula that differs from the City's records. He added that the City will not know if it met the 50% diversion rate goal for 2000 until May /June 2001. He reported that, if the City does not reach its 50% diversion rate goal, Senate Bill 1066 allows cities to request a five year extension. Mr. Niederhaus stated that solid waste operation options include converting to an automated collection system, hauling waste by rail to desert area landfills, and using alternate fuel refuse collection vehicles. He reported that AQMD Rule 1193 mandates that any vehicle purchased for refuse collection after July 31, 2001 use alternate fuel. He added that the 10 year review for non - exclusive franchises will occur in 2005 and noted that the City is collecting 16% of the net proceeds ($400,000 a year) from all commercial solid waste operations. Mr. Niederhaus expressed concern with businesses bypassing the recycling requirements and franchise fees. He indicated that the City is working with the County to identify who is doing this and believed that the offenders are mostly demolition contractors, landscapers, and roofers. He stated that they are working with the Building Department on tightening the City's demolition permit process and will also be monitoring the franchise haulers as soon as a Recycling Coordinator is hired. Volume 54 - Page 117 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 27, 2001 In response to Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Niederhaus expressed the opinion that it is impossible to recycle 50% of the waste stream, especially food waste from commercial sites. Regarding education, he indicated that their annual education materials request that residents separate its wet materials (dog droppings and food waste) so the waste is not contaminated. He added that the CRT is required to produce new brochures annually and that they are also sent to new homeowners. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway suggested that the City distribute education material on a quarterly basis. Mr. Niederhaus indicated that he is not aware of a demand for non- consumable food products and confirmed that more than 60% of food waste is not being recycled. He stated that the shortfall in recycled food waste is made up through the recycling of concrete, asphalt, and wood that is crushed to make road base. He reported that, if the City meets the 50% goal, it will look at new programs to educate businesses on separating food waste. Mr. Niederhaus noted that 44% of the properties in the City are rental properties and that it would be difficult to educate them on the City's recycling program. He indicated that it makes sense to convert to an automated trash pickup system because of the savings, but pointed out that this would not work in areas like the Peninsula since the containers are large. City Manager Bludau stated that the large containers are also difficult for the elderly to maneuver. Council Member Glover added that the containers are unattractive. Regarding food waste, Council Member Heffernan stated that the Orange County Food Bank has petitioned for a building with dining accommodations at El Toro in order to put in a recycling kitchen. He indicated that 90% of the restaurant foods could be recycled at the facility and passed out after it is flash - frozen. This would be done under a Federal job training program that is paid for by the Federal government. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Niederhaus stated that cities, like Irvine, that have residents separate its waste into bins have a 10% to 15% lower recycling rate than Newport Beach. He added that he could arrange a tour for Council to the Huntington Beach or Stanton MRF. In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Mr. Niederhaus reported that they relay contamination - related issues via a public service announcement on cable. He also indicated that separating the various types of restaurant waste is done by the individual haulers and that they continually compete for each other's business. He added that the haulers conduct a waste audit to assist the businesses on better recycling practices. 3. PROPOSED HARBOR AND BAY ELEMENT. Senior Planner Alford reported that Council extended the term of the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee to allow them to complete their work on the proposed Harbor and Bay Element. He reviewed the Element's five goals that are outlined in the staff report and added that the Element also includes a number of proposed objectives, policies, and implementing strategies that need to be discussed during a public hearing. Council Member Glover Volume 54 - Page 118 INDEX GPA 2000 -2/ Harbor and Bay Element (45) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX suggested holding Town Hall meetings on this issue, particularly with the Mariner's Mile businesses. Mayor Adams reported that the General Plan Update Committee will be recommending that Council proceed with a visioning process that may take about 12 months and added that a formal update of specific Elements will then be conducted after this. He believed that hearings on the proposed Element can proceed and then be subject to review and refinement into the General Plan Update. He expressed the opinion that this would lose momentum if Council waited for the General Plan Update process. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the Harbor Committee has been meeting for over two years. He believed that the document is a well drafted policy document, not a specific document, and expressed hope that Council moves forward on this as a separate document from the General Plan. He reported that no city in the country has a Harbor Element as part of its General Plan. Council Member Bromberg noted that the Bay is the City's backyard and faces many challenges daily. He stated that he is in favor of moving forward and believed it should be one of the City's highest priorities. He requested that a Town Hall meeting also be conducted on Balboa Island since it is surrounded by the Bay. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the Harbor Committee would like to become a Commission, but believed that they intend to get the Element in place first. He emphasized that he does not want the Committee to disband and noted that language has been prepared for a subsequent Council meeting that would change the Committee into a Commission. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern relative to the Ardell property being on the market and the chance that whoever buys the property may be expecting to use the property for something other than a Harbor use. Council Member Glover believed this is not a concern since the property has been on the market for over 11 years. Mayor Adams stated that there is consensus to move this forward independent of the General Plan process. However, he expressed concern relative to the formation of a Commission due to the relationship it may have to the Planning Commission and since it may add another level of bureaucracy to City government. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway believed that a Harbor Commission could look at issues concerning eel grass, clean water, the Back Bay, bulkhead construction, sand erosion, etc. He stated that Council may not need to engage in these issues and that these issues are beyond the purview of the Planning Commission. Seymour Beek, 528 South Bay Front, Chairman of the Harbor Committee, stated that the composition of the Committee is diverse and all of the major interests around the Bay have been well represented. He believed that the proposed Element is a document that has been worked over thoroughly. Regarding forming a Harbor Commission, he pointed out that the Harbor Committee has already looked at issues concerning moorings, dredging, eel grass, anchorages, Bay access, docks, entertainment and charter boats, Bay Volume 54 - Page 119 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 27, 2001 �Ii�i1 7 animals, marine construction equipment storage, pumpout stations, boater information, and storm clean -ups. John Corrough, 1004 South Bay Front, stated that he is on the Harbor Committee and is a consultant in these types of issues. He referenced the staff report that lists the 13 interests the Committee represents and stated that everyone has overlapped in five or more interests. He reported that Newport Beach is the only city in California with a water resource but no commission, and noted that this poses a disadvantage when the Committee tries to engage other governmental agencies for loans, grants, and other types of support. He added that the City also needs to get back money that is being allocated to other cities, like the pennies on every gallon of gas or diesel that is sold in the Harbor. He concluded by stating that the proposed Harbor and Bay Element is a winner and thanked Senior Planner Alford and City Attorney Burnham for all their assistance. Council Member Glover added that they could really help the City with the Local Coastal Plan. Lee Sutherland, 1401 North Bay Front, stated that there are a lot of issues that only apply to the Bay and noted that they could act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Commission or Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, and help and support the Harbor Resources Division. He reported that the composition of the Committee is broad and included several members from Mariner's Mile. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway added that environmentalists were also involved in this process. He expressed hope that this moves forward to the Planning Commission or Council and agreed that more debate should be conducted so everyone's interests are addressed. Mr. Alford noted that the General Plan Amendment has been initiated by the Planning Commission and Council, and that a proper means of notification and public outreach needs to be determined if something more than public hearings are to be conducted. He stated that the City will probably need to generate a negative declaration. Mayor Adams suggested that the Committee discuss the outreach program process and come back to Council with recommendations at the next regular meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the Harbor Committee is meeting tomorrow morning and expressed hope that the workshops could be conducted concurrently with moving this forward. Mayor Adams congratulated the Committee for producing this document and indicated that they made a good case for the formation of a Commission. Council Member Heffernan asked if the Harbor and Bay Element deals with specific uses and potential changes of uses. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway pointed out that the Element is a strong policy document to maintain the Harbor as it exists and reported that the Committee added language which allows the City to buy a conservation easement, particularly for the boatyards, to prevent the conversion of the entire Harbor into a residential community. John Corrough added that the Element encourages the market place to utilize various techniques for the mixed uses so that the unique waterfront is sustained and enhanced. Mr. Beek noted that a draft Element was reviewed by Council about a year ago and that the current draft has been watered -down because the previous Council had concerns that it was too restrictive and interfered with the Bay Front owners' property rights to Volume 54 - Page 120 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 27, 2001 change the use. Council Member Glover believed that it would be in the best interest of the City to make it a goal to help people understand that Mariner's Mile is a water community. Assistant City Manager Wood believed that one of the keys to the Harbor and Bay Element policies and the City's ability to implement them is making it an Element in the General Plan since State law requires that all the General Plan Elements be consistent with one another. Mr. Alford indicated that there are no apparent inconsistencies between the Harbor and Bay Element and other General Plan Elements. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None. ADJOURNMENT - 5:35 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 21, 2001, at 2:48 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 121 I UN 103 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes %����� Regular Meeting �+ February 27, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. INDEX STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, O'Neil, Heffernan, Mayor Adams Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Proctor. Invocation by Reverend Dr. George Crisp, Christ Church by the Sea, United Methodist. Presentation of National Education Association's Read Across America Proclamation to Julie Ryan, Vice Chair of the Board of Library Trustees, and Patrick Bartolic, Chairman. The proclamation highlighted the "A Library Card for Every Kid" event to take place at Fashion Island on March 1, 2001, and "Read Across America" on March 2, 2001. Ms. Ryan thanked the City for its support of reading. 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 suggested that the process for appealing decisions of the Planning Commission be studied. He stated that when a Council Member appeals a project, the other council members, the property owner, staff and the Planning Commission should be notified of the specific issue. He requested that this policy change be studied and brought back to the City Council for further discussion. Council Member Bromberg requested that staff provide the City Council with a report on the status of the Balboa Island Museum and Historical Society's efforts to convert the former fire station site to a historical museum. He requested that the report include an analysis on how the City might be able to assist them. He requested that the item be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of March 27, 2001. • Mayor Adams announced that the City Clerk's office has prepared a Volume 54 - Page 122 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 handout, which provides information on City Council meetings and explains the actions of the City Council, as well as an overview of City government. Additionally, he announced that the City Clerk's office has prepared a summary of the City's boards, commissions and committees. Mayor Adams stated that both items can be received by contacting the City Clerk's office. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2001. 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. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGE. Adopt Ordinance No. 2001 -2 amending Chapter 10.48 of Title 10 of the NBMC pertaining to weed and rubbish abatement. RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF MUNICIPAL REVENUE ADVISORS TO REVIEW STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE AEROSPACE DECISION. Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -11 allowing staff of Municipal Revenue Advisors to review State Board of Equalization confidential materials. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS JANITORIAL AND RELATED SERVICES FOR PARK AND BEACH RESTROOM FACILITIES — AWARD OF CONTRACT. Approve the award of a contract to A -1 Spinelli Enterprises in the amount of $33,400 and authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the contract. 6. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR BIG CANYON RESERVOIR SEDIMENT HAULING AND DISPOSAL. 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract with the hauling firm, Rust & Sons Trucking, for the removal of additional sediment stockpiles from the Big Canyon Reservoir site in the amount of $40,200; 2) approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract with the disposal firm, Sonas Earth Sciences of Arizona, for disposal of the additional sediment at Big Canyon Reservoir in the amount of $17,100; and approve a budget amendment (BA -032) appropriating $57,300 from the Water System Reserve Fund Balance to the Water Fund Account (Repairs and Betterments to Water Facility Sites) 7502 - 05500084. Volume 54 - Page 123 .Ifi�5D7 Ord 2001 -2 Weed and Rubbish Abatement (41) Res 2001 -11 Aerospace Sales Tax (40) C -3399 Restroom Janitorial Services (38) C -3355 BA -032 Big Canyon Reservoir Sediment Disposal (38/40) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 2000 -2001 CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL (C -3351) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 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. 8. 2000 -2001 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT (C -3352) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 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. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 9. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by staff. 10. REVISION TO COUNCIL POLICY A -6, "OPEN MEETING POLICIES" AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS. Approve the revisions to Council Policy A -6. Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Ridgeway to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the item removed (9). The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, O'Neil, Heffernan, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 9. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2001. Planning Director Temple stated that the Planning Commission agenda included seven items and that she would not go into detail regarding Item No's. 1, 2 and 7, since they were limited in nature. Planning Director Temple stated that Item No. 3 resulted in the Planning Commission overturning the denial of the Modifications Committee and approving a five -foot encroachment into the required twenty- five -foot front yard setback at 1933 Port Weybridge Place. She stated that Item No. 4 resulted in the Planning Commission overturning the approval of the Modifications Committee for a modification to signs at Corona del Mar Plaza. Planning Director Temple stated that Item No. 5 involved a complicated lot line adjustment for two lots on Bayside Drive. She stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval, with direction to staff that any remaining issues regarding the encroachment agreements be worked out Volume 54 - Page 124 160 11 C -3351 Citywide Slurry Seal (38) C -3352 Citywide Sidewalk, Curb And Gutter Replacement (38) Council Policy A -6 Open Meetings (69) Planning Commission (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX prior to consideration by the City Council. She stated that Item No. 6 involved a significant code change, with the Planning Commission giving direction to staff to make additional changes and possibly reviewing it with the City Council prior to a hearing. Council Member Heffernan requested that Planning Director Temple have the applicant for the Port Weybridge Place item arrange to meet with him at the site. Additionally, he confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the Riverboat use permit item from the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2001, was appealed and will come before the City Council in March. Chris Taylor, 2706 Bayside Drive, stated that he is an adjacent neighbor to the lot line adjustment discussed in Item No. 5. He informed the City Council that he and some of the other neighbors object to the decision of the Planning Commission, and will appeal until an adequate compromise is accomplished. Planning Director Temple stated that the item will be before the City Council on March 27, 2001, to resolve the encroachment items. Motion by Council Member Glover to receive and file the report. 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 Robert Hanley, Santa Ana Heights resident, stated that the Newport Bay Ridge Ad Hoc Committees feels that something needs to be done about the name of their area. He explained that "Santa Ana" connotes an inland area with an entirely different environment. He presented the City Council with a proposal, which addressed a new name for the area and the mail situation. Mr. Hanley asked that the City include the proposal in the notification to the area regarding annexation. Mayor Adams suggested that Mr. Hanley meet with the City Manager, although he admitted that he wasn't quite sure what the City could do prior to annexation. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, read from his letter dated February 27, 2001, regarding residential pier 801 -00011 and the south end of the Grand Canal. He requested a copy of the letter signed by his father, Jack Hildreth, on June 24, 1976. He further requested that the City Council not deny him the right to discuss the issue further with the City Manager. Mayor Adams stated that Mr. Hildreth was tying up City staff time and resources over an issue that the City believes is closed. Volume 54 - Page 125 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX • Linda Safran announced the formation of the Newport Beach Theater Company, a new musical theater group for the youth of the City. She provided a video to introduce the group to the City Council. Sara Lloyd Truax stated that her kids are interested in the theater and have enjoyed it for years. She expressed her concern for the limited theater space in Newport Beach and Orange County. She requested that the City Council keep in mind how important it is to have theater space available to all members of the community, particularly when entering into leases with the various facilities in the City. Elizabeth Truax, an actor, stated that she should be able to have the same opportunity to perform in the City as any other child. Claire Ratfield, 3205 Michigan, a teacher at Lincoln Elementary School, stated that the community needs to provide equal access to all children to experience the arts. The 3- minute video presented earlier by Ms. Safran was shown. It included some performances, and several people speaking about the benefit of having a musical theater for the children in the community. Michael Safran, Officer and Board Member of the Newport Beach Theater Company, requested that the City Council allow his group to use the Newport Theater Arts Center for its childrens performances. He stated that it would be on a temporary basis until the group can relocate to the renovated Balboa Theater. He stated that the request is feasible and in keeping with City policies, but has been refused by the Friends of the Newport Theater Arts Center. Mr. Safran stated that members of his group can't understand why the City entered into an exclusive long -term lease for the sole benefit of the Friends of the Newport Theater Arts Center. He stated that the City should welcome the childrens theater as a community resource. Russell Niewiarowski, Santa Ana Heights resident, discussed a recent meeting of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority ( ETRPA) and the withdrawal of their offer to assist with the extension of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. He added that all of the County supervisors should support quality of life in Orange County, citing lack of attendance at the meeting by Supervisors Wilson and Spitzer. Mr. Niewiarowski stated that ETRPA attacks the core values of Orange County. He encouraged the City Council to continue to support efforts for an airport at El Toro. • Tom Markel, 2601 Bunyon, stated his support for the Newport Beach Theater Company and the impact it has on his child and the community. Council Member Heffernan stated that the lease, mentioned earlier by Mr. Safran, was not drafted at the direction of the City Council. Council Member Proctor also pointed out that the council members do listen and are impacted by what is being said. He stated that he would like the dialogue to continue when the City Council has the opportunity to take action on the item. Volume 54 - Page 126 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Council Member Bromberg as a Board of Director for the Balboa Theater, informed those in the audience that the Balboa Theater is very excited to have the childrens theater using their facility. Greg Shaver, 127 Via Nice, stated his understanding that the City Council would be looking at the change of traffic flow onto Lido Isle at its next meeting. He informed the City Council that there is strong opposition to the plan. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to take Item No. 19 out of sequence. 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 19. REQUEST FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN ARTS & EDUCATION CENTER AND A CENTRAL PARK. Council Member Bromberg, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Arts & Education Center, stated that Council Member Heffernan is also on the committee. He provided some background by stating that a parcel of land, known as Newport Village and situated above the Central Library, has been discussed for quite some time regarding its use. He stated that the options include leaving it as is, using it for a passive park, or using it for a combination of a passive park and an arts & education center. Council Member Bromberg stated that the current issue is the offer of money by a private party to the arts & education center to conduct a feasibility study. He stated that the center wants to give the money to the City's Arts Commission to complete the study. Council Member Bromberg reported that the Ad Hoc Committee met the day prior and decided that parameters should be set for the feasibility study, since the City would be accepting the donation and approving a six-month hold on the parcel while the study is being done. He stated that there was quite a bit of distrust at the meeting and opposing viewpoints. He stated that many parameters were suggested but since that time, he has decided that there isn't enough time for the parameters to be developed and a decision made by the City Council at the current meeting. He stated that he is only looking to be fair and reasonable, and another option would be to have the study conducted privately. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to continue the item to the City Council meeting of March 27, 2001. Council Member Heffernan stated that the Ad Hoc Committee should recommend to the City Council a use for the parcel. He stated that each group should do their own studies, with the committee only defining the questions that might be asked by the City Council and making a Volume 54 - Page 127 IO17�1:/ Arts & Education Center (62) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 -10 0 D►:1 recommendation in six months. Council Member Bromberg stated that the feasibility study would include an outreach to the various interest groups of the parcel. Council Member Glover suggested that the City Attorney review the duties and parameters of the Ad Hoc Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the issue is politicized, if only by a small group of people, and reminded everyone that an arts & education center has been a goal of the City for quite some time. He stated that the only question is where the center would be located. Mayor Adams asked how the process might proceed if it was decided to put an arts & education center and a passive park on the site. City Manager Bludau stated that the process would involve such things as receiving consent from The Irvine Company, determining size and parking requirements, and possibly a general plan amendment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mayor Adams confirmed with Council Member Bromberg that The Irvine Company has not been approached yet, but the current issue is only if the item should be continued to set parameters. Council Member O'Neil stated his understanding that The Irvine Company dedicated the parcel to the City as open space. City Attorney Burnham confirmed that the City is required to use the parcel as open space, unless The Irvine Company consents to a different use. Council Member O'Neil suggested that a determination should be made on Newport Village and the determination should be that it remain a passive park. Council Member Heffernan stated that the definition of a passive park should be determined. Mayor Adams stated that any type of park facility would be considered open space. Don Gregory, 601 Lido Park Drive, Arts Commission, stated that he is not in disagreement with the continuance. He did, however, request that the City Council make a decision on the possibility of the site being used for an arts & education center. He stated that a decision needs to be made, so that time can stop being wasted and another site can be pursued, if necessary. Mayor Adams stated that the answer is years away and isn't wholly a City process. He added that a change in land use cannot happen overnight. Mayor Adams stated that the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Committee to find out how best to proceed. He added that he understood Mr. Gregory's impatience. In response to Mr. Gregory's request to make a decision regarding the land, Mayor Adams stated that a vote at this stage would be made without knowing all of the facts. City Attorney Burnham reminded the City Council that the item at the Volume 54 - Page 128 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX current meeting is to make a decision about the feasibility study and that to make a decision on the use of the land would be outside the scope of the agenda. Council Member Bromberg stated his surprise that Mr. Gregory would make the comments that he has and suggesting that proponents of the arts & education center are victims. Council Member Bromberg stated that he intended to have a decision made on the parcel regarding the open space issue, but delayed it due to Mr. Gregory's suggestion that a feasibility study be done. Council Member Bromberg stated that if the City is involved with the feasibility study, parameters also need to be set. Mr. Gregory stated that he only wanted to know if an arts & education center would ever be possible on the site. Council Member Bromberg stated that he hoped Mr. Gregory would continue working with the City on the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he sees a win -win situation for the parcel with a nine -acre passive park, additional parking for the library and an arts & education center all occupying the site. As a developer, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated his understanding of Mr. Gregory's request to receive an answer on the possibility of an arts & education center. Roberta Jorgensen, 124 Coral, Arts Commission Chairman, stated that the City is fortunate to have received the offer of private funding from an interested citizen to commission an independent feasibility study for the potential of an arts & education center adjacent to the Central Library. She stated that the study would examine the need for such a facility, as well as the likelihood of raising sufficient private funds to build it. She stated that the location of the center needs to be known to study the funding issue. Council Member Heffernan asked if the donor could do the study privately. Ms. Jorgensen stated that another option would be for the donor to give the money to the Arts Foundation, which is a private organization, but the Arts Commission felt that it was important to have the City involved. Council Member Heffernan stated that the next thirty days should be spent to set the parameters. Council Member Glover confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the City Council could not make a decision at the current meeting about the use of the property because the agenda focuses on the feasibility study. Council Member Glover was prepared to make such a motion if it had been legal. Mayor Adams stated that another alternative might be to agendize the item for the next City Council meeting to make a decision on the use of the land. City Attorney Burnham stated that the City Council could also decline the offer for the donation, which would also send a message to the Arts Commission. Mayor Adams stated that a continuance might have some value. Amended Motion by Council Member Bromb xg to table the feasibility study; and determine at the City Council meeting of March 13, 2001, if the City Council would consider an arts & education center on the Newport Village site. Volume 54 - Page 129 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX Council Member Heffernan stated that he would not be in support of the motion because enough information is not available. He stated that Mr. Gregory should have a better opportunity to state his case. Council Member Bromberg stated that it is really more of an issue of philosophy on open space. James Warren, 1201 Surfline Way, stated that there has been continual opposition to using the parcel for anything other than open space. He stated that the public has spoken, but the suggestion for different uses keeps coming up. Mr. Warren added that the public doesn't necessarily oppose an arts & education center, but not at the site under question. Council Member O'Neil stated that he was an advocate of senior housing and of an arts & education center on the site at one time, but he got the message from the public that they want the site left as open space. Council Member Heffernan pointed out that there are different ways to maintain open space and preserve views. Val Skoro, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission Chairman, stated that State code requires the City to produce a recreation/open space element of the general plan. He stated that this element reflects a deficiency in open space in the Fashion Island area. Additionally, Mr. Skoro stated that the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Newport Village site be developed as a passive park. He stated that a passive park would not include athletic fields. As a new council member, Council Member Proctor stated his discomfort with discussing issues outside of the scope of the agenda and the information provided in the staff report. Jan Vandersloot, Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON), presented some points to be considered in a feasibility study. He stated his agreement with continuing the item. Karen Butera -King, President of the Newport Beach Arts Foundation, stated her support for a feasibility study of an arts & education center at the site adjacent to the library. Pat Beek, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, recommended that the offer for the funding of a feasibility study be declined. She stated that it is inappropriate for private money to be used for a public study. She stated that the various interest groups could conduct their own private studies to support their preferences for the site. For Mayor Adams, Ms. Beek confirmed that she was speaking for the Commission, even though the item was not voted on. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that, by supporting the motion, the City Council would be rushing into an uninformed decision. He stated that the Volume 54 - Page 130 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 site will have an open park, even if an arts & education center is built on the site. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the City Council is succumbing to a small minority. Substitute motion by Mavor Pro Tern Rid¢eway to continue the item to the City Council meeting of March 27, 2001, to establish parameters for the feasibility study. Motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Bromberg explained that Mr. Gregory has asked that a decision be made by the City Council on the possibility of an arts & education center at the site. Mayor Adams added that the proponents for the various interests might want to submit information for inclusion in the staff report. He additionally requested that the minutes and staff reports of previous meetings also be included. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: O'Neil, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: Heffernan, Ridgeway Abstain: None Absent: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES AND RECONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 79 (BEACON BAY DEVELOPMENT). Public Works Director Webb explained that Assessment District No. 79 encompasses the area known as Beacon Bay, and includes the undergrounding of utilities, the reconstruction of the streets' curbs and gutters, and the installation of a drainage system. He announced that the assessment engineers, David Hunt and Bob Quaid of Willdan, City staff, Kim Scherer with the Edison Company, and Bob Hessell, bond counsel, were available at the meeting to answer any questions. Public Works Director Webb stated that the total cost estimate of the assessment district is $1,647,727, with individual assessments of approximately $23,880 per parcel. Mr. Hunt stated that the method of splitting the assessments was simple since all of the long -term lease parcels are uniform single family residences, and the benefit is spread evenly. Mayor Adams announced that this was the time and place fixed for the public hearing on protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention, Assessment Engineer's Report, proposed assessments and all other matters relating to Assessment District No. 79 (Beacon Bay). He further announced that all written protests and all ballots must be received by the City Clerk Volume 54 - Page 131 INDEX Res 2001 -12 Res 2001 -13 Assessment District 79 Beacon Bay Development (89) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX prior to the closure of the public hearing. City Clerk Harkless announced that the notice of the Public Hearing had been given in the manner and form as required by law and that a Certificate of Compliance was on file certifying the mailing of the notice and ballot materials to property owners within the District and filing of the proposed boundary map in the Office of the County Recorder. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that undergrounding has been done on Little Balboa Island, as well as elsewhere in the City. He asked if the property owners were aware of who would pay for any damages involved with the undergrounding, of supplemental assessments or of some of the safety issues. Mr. Hildreth confirmed that he is not a property owner in the district. Constance Sammis, 25 Beacon Bay, stated that she has had difficulty in deciding which way to vote on the assessment district. She stated that she doesn't know if the right plan has been found, although she does favor a plan. Mayor Adams confirmed with Mr. Hessell that public comments can be made, but it is the vote on the ballot that will be the deciding factor. Clarke Pauley, 35 Beacon Bay, stated that the proposal is difficult and controversial. He stated that a minor aspect of the plan that he objects to is the street lighting at the north end of the streets, which he feels isn't necessary. Ms. Sammis stated that there needs to be more discussion on some of the items. Samuel Anderson, 63 Beacon Bay, stated that meetings and discussions have taken place for six years about the proposed assessment district. He stated that a committee was formed and it is believed that the majority of the homeowners support the three improvements. Mr. Anderson stated that relatively tax -free bonds would fund the improvements. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Adams closed the public hearing. Meeting recessed at 9:22 p.m. to allow the City Clerk to count the ballots. The meeting was reconvened at 9:35 p.m. City Clerk Harkless announced that the assessment district is comprised of 72 parcels, 3 of which are City parcels, leaving a remaining 69 votes to be counted. She announced that 38 votes were received in favor of the assessment, 27 in opposition and 1 ballot was submitted with no vote registered. City Clerk Harkless announced that the district passes. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -12 approving contracts for ownership of utility improvements; b) adopt Volume 54 - Page 132 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Resolution No. 2001 -13 declaring the results of the ballot tabulation, confirming the Assessment, ordering the acquisition of improvements, and approving the Assessment Engineer's Report for Assessment District No. 79 (Beacon Bay); c) reserve and establish public utility easements over the public areas within the Beacon Bay development which include Cutter Road, Cape Cove, Ketch Road, Schooner Road, Reef Cove, Yawl Road, and Beacon Bay as shown on Exhibit "B ", and direct the City Clerk to have the Mayor execute the Grant of Easement; and d) dedicate spot easements for electrical facilities to the Edison Company, as shown on Exhibit "B" and direct the City Clerk to have the Mayor execute the Grants of Easements. Council Member Heffernan confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the lien of the assessment is secured by the leasehold interest of the homeowner. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway encouraged those that voted against the assessment district by stating that the improvements will benefit their community and increase their property values. 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. NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER (MARK BARKER FOR THE ST. CLAIR COMPANY, APPLICANT) - 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE - A USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE BASIC HEIGHT LIMIT OF 32 FEET UP TO 50 FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF 208,926 SQ. FT. OF THE EXISTING 416,499 SQ. FT., REMODEL OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS TOTALING 214,210 SQ. FT., AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 201,283 SQ. FT. FOR A TOTAL OF 415,493 SQ. FT. OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USE. Council Member Heffernan stated that he appealed the matter because of a concern for Hoag Hospital and the traffic study that was done by the applicant. He stated that the concern has since been satisfied and Hoag Hospital has waived the condition. Motion by Council Member Heffernan to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the Negative Declaration. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. Carol Hoffman, representing the St. Clair Company, stated that the St. Clair Company is pleased to bring the project to Newport Beach and hopes the City Council will support the motion. Volume 54 - Page 133 INDEX Use Permit No. 3679 Newport Technology Center/ 500 Superior Avenue (88) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Adams closed the public hearing. 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 CONTINUED BUSINESS 13. UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD. Based on the ballots cast by the council members, City Clerk Harkless announced that Council Members Heffernan, O'Neil, Glover, Bromberg and Proctor, and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway voted for nominee Bert Carson, and Mayor Adams voted for nominee Marilee Jackson. City Clerk Harkless announced that Bert Carson would fill the vacancy on the Civil Service Board (term expiring June 30, 2005). 14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001 -1 - REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, AS FOLLOWS: A) PARK MACARTHUR - 3901 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICE SITE 3A, AND TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION (FROM RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL) AND ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR AUTO CENTER SITE 1B OF THE NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY; B) OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS CATHOLIC CHURCH - 2046 AND 2100 MAR VISTA DRIVE: A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR TWO EXISTING CHURCH PROPERTIES BY 24,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE COMBINED PROPERTIES, TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH, AND THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; AND C) ST. MARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - NORTHWEST CORNER OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE TO GOVERNMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, AND ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT LIMIT OF APPROXIMATELY 39,200 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH COMPLEX, INCLUDING SANCTUARY, ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, PRESCHOOL/DAY CARE, FELLOWSHIP HALL, AND MISCELLANEOUS USES. Volume 54 - Page 134 `11017 s1:1 Civil Service Board (24) GPA 2001 -1 Initiate General Plan Amendments Park MacArthur/ Our Lady Queen of Angels Church/ St. Mark Presbyterian Church (45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Mayor Adams announced that the action before the City Council was not to vote to approve or deny any of the projects, but to allow them to move forward, which would ultimately result in public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. With the consent of the council members, he added that Item A would be discussed separate from Items B and C. Planning Director Temple stated that the square footage given in the staff report for the St. Mark Presbyterian Church was incorrect. She stated that the development limit should be 39,200 square feet, not the 20,000 square feet presented in the staff report. Council Member Heffernan asked about the implementation guidelines for Measure S. City Attorney Burnham stated that the guidelines have not been completed yet, but he felt that the Park MacArthur project would require a vote and Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church and St. Mark Presbyterian Church would probably not. Mayor Adams stated that peak hour traffic issues would probably trigger a vote for Our Lady Queen of Angels. Council Member Heffernan confirmed that the City Council could move forward with a decision at the current meeting without the guidelines in place. Council Member Glover asked how Park MacArthur might be affected by the Conexant project when looking at the cumulative impacts of traffic. Planning Director Temple explained that the environmental documentation and traffic studies will present the information needed when evaluating the impacts. Council Member Proctor confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the City Council can reject the initiation of the project without making any findings. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street, stated that the Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed both the Park MacArthur and Conexant projects due to the concern over the impact at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. He also stated that the General Plan Update Committee did recommend that there be a specific area plan for the airport area to run concurrently with the general plan update. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Eaton that the General Plan Update Committee does feel that there needs to be an update of the City's traffic model, based upon what land uses will be assumed in the specific area plan and the general plan. Mr. Eaton added that he wouldn't deny the applicant the right to be heard on the project. Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Rid¢eway to initiate the amendment to the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for Item A, Park MacArthur. Volume 54 - Page 135 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 IUN 103 D►:1 Council Member Glover stated that she would not be supporting the motion because she knows of the possibilities for traffic mitigation in the area and is not in support of such things as overpasses and double grades in the area. Council Member Heffernan stated he is concerned about moving forward with the project before the specific area plan is done. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: Heffernan, Glover Abstain: None Absent: None Monsignor Bill McLaughlin, Our Lady Queen of Angels Church, stated that the church currently serves 4500 families, all of which live in Newport Beach and Newport Coast. He stated that the project is needed to accommodate the many needs of the church and that their proposal is to build a larger church on their current property, extending onto the property currently occupied by St. Mark Presbyterian. He added that the church will work with all of their neighbors to alleviate the traffic problems in the area. Council Member Heffernan confirmed with Monsignor McLaughlin that Our Lady Queen of Angels is paying St. Mark Presbyterian for their site and also supplying them with new property at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Mary Urashima, Huntington Beach resident representing St. Mark Presbyterian Church, stated that the change in the land use designation at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is important to the church because it is close to their current location, which will maintain the nature of their congregation. She stated that the site is special and they plan to become a steward of the small canyon head on the property and an educator of environmental responsibility. She stated that they also plan to work with the residents of Big Canyon and Big Canyon Country Club. Reverend Doctor Gary Collins, Pastor at St. Mark Presbyterian Church, stated that central to their mission is service to the community. He stated that they pledge to continue to be a good neighbor. Sister Joanne Claire, 2108 Aralia Street, Principal of Our Lady Queen of Angels school, stated that the school was established to assist Catholic parents with the total education of their children. She stated that the school has a current enrollment of 350 students and 10 classrooms, with a waiting list of 189 students. She added that registration was conducted during the past month for the classes beginning in September 2001, and there were 155 applicants for only 35 spaces. She stated that they would like the opportunity to increase the number of classrooms and add a gymnasium. Council Member Heffernan stated that he'd like to see a site plan for the proposal for Our Lady Queen of Angels. Volume 54 - Page 136 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 NZ 103 Mayor Adams stated that a site plan is usually not presented at the time of the initiation of a general plan amendment. Council Member Heffernan stated that he is already hearing from the neighbors in the area and he'd like more information so that he can respond accordingly. Mayor Adams stated that the public will have plenty of opportunity to voice their opinions and those opinions will be used to develop the site plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he has never seen specific site plans submitted at the initiation stage, until the two received this time for Items A and C. He added that it is almost a disservice to submit the site plan prior to involvement by the community. For Council Member Heffernan, Council Member O'Neil explained that when the two projects were before the City Council at their meeting of June 27, 2000, concerns were expressed by members of the community and it was decided that there wasn't enough information to approve the initiation at that time. He stated that the initiation was not denied, but was withdrawn for being premature. He agreed with prior comments made by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway and stated that approving the initiation gives the applicant the opportunity to gather information, conduct traffic studies, look at the environmental impacts, work with the community and review every detail, prior to public hearings. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland, stated that Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) has met with representatives of St. Mark Presbyterian Church and supports the project. He stated that they do have two concerns, however, which include taking away open space and the runoff problem on the site. Mayor Adams confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the site is not Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) open space. Planning Director Temple added that the site is designated as recreational and environmental open space. Jan Vandersloot stated his concern for losing a site designated as open space in the general plan. He asked if a condition to replace the open space could be made a part of the initiation approval. He suggested that the Lower Castaways site might be a possibility. He added that he does feel that St. Mark Presbyterian is showing sensitivity for the site, but he'd like to see more of the site being used to retain runoff. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked City Attorney Burnham if conditions could be placed on the project at the initiation stage. City Attorney Burnham responded by stating that the City Council has total discretion to approve or reject the initiation. He felt that Dr. Vandersloot was probably asking that during the processing of the amendment that consideration be given for preservation of some alternative open space. Mayor Adams agreed that an impact of the project would be loss of open space and mitigation would be required. Volume 54 - Page 137 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX Council Member O'Neil stated his understanding that St. Mark Presbyterian is acquiring the site from The Irvine Company, but that it is not a project of The Irvine Company. Council Member Proctor confirmed with Council Member O'Neil that the applicants are St. Mark Presbyterian and Our Lady Queen of Angels. Council Member O'Neil added that The Irvine Company did submit a letter of consent for the St. Mark Presbyterian project, as did St. Mark Presbyterian for the Our Lady Queen of Angels project. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway added that a consent letter is always required of the owner of the property. Peter Perrin stated that he understood that the City Council denied the initiation of the St. Mark Presbyterian project at their meeting of June 27, 2000. He added that the site is zoned as open space and should be preserved as such, as indicated by the voters that supported Measure S. Mr. Perrin stated that the church has lobbied to receive support for the plan, but there are problems with traffic, ingress, egress and parking. Bernard Rome, 3 Pinehurst Lane, stated that Newport Beach has not set aside enough land for religious purposes. He stated that nothing has changed with regards to the problems of traffic and open space for the St. Mark Presbyterian project since it was first presented to the City Council in June. He stated that the corner was never intended to be developed, and has several problems with ingress and egress. Mr. Rome requested that the City Council not approve the initiation until the applicant can show a reasonable solution to the traffic problem and identify a replacement open space site. Council Member O'Neil stated that he supports Mr. Rome's comments, but that it's not appropriate for the applicant to provide such information at the initiation stage of the process. He stated that there would be ample opportunity to address the issues discussed and the details of the project later in the process. Council Member O'Neil added that if the issues cannot be resolved, then the project can be denied. He stated that it may be found that a church might be the best use of the site. Council Member Heffernan stated that, like the site above the Central Library discussed earlier in the meeting, careful analysis needs to take place when looking at sites designated as open space. Council Member Bromberg reminded Mr. Rome that the action before the City Council is only to initiate the process and that the representatives of both St. Mark Presbyterian and Our Lady Queen of Angels still have a lot of work to do. He knows that they will have to be environmentally sensitive. Marc Foster, 407 Aliso, President of Big Canyon Country Club, stated that he doesn't support the current plan for the St. Mark Presbyterian project, but feels that it can work as long as the representatives of the church continue to work with them in good faith. Volume 54 - Page 138 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Barry Eaton, President of the Eastbluff Homeowners Association, stated that the high school in the area is growing rapidly and the interrelationship between it and the school at Our Lady Queen of Angels needs to be looked at. Mr. Eaton stated that as a member of St. Mark Presbyterian, he recalls that the application was withdrawn because St. Mark Presbyterian wasn't ready with their plan. He added the site plan submitted will likely change through the process. Council Member Glover stated that she also recalled that the initiation was withdrawn in June because the applicant was being conservative. Council Member Heffernan stated that he does believe that St. Mark Presbyterian will be a good neighbor. He added that he supports the public letting the City Council know the direction they'd like to see on both projects. Motion by Council Member Glover to initiate the amendments to the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission for Item B, Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church, and Item C, St. Mark Presbyterian Church. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway suggested that the applicants listen to the comments made at the current meeting. Responding to Council Member Heffernan's question, Planning Director Temple stated that the project for Our Lady Queen of Angels is adjusting the actual square footage limitation on the combined total of the two sites and St. Mark Presbyterian's project involves altering the underlying land use designation as well as establishing the entitlement. 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 15. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RECLAIMED WATER, THE SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR (SJR), AND THE BASIC INTEGRATED RE- USE PROJECT AGREEMENT (BIRPA) - RESERVOIR OPERATING CRITERIA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, TRANSFER OF RESERVOIR OWNERSHIP, COLLECTIVE DEFENSE AGREEMENT. Deputy City Manager I{af highlighted the supplemental report, which he stated included two important documents. He stated that the first document was a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that reflects discussions with the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and, the second document is a revision to the last "resolve" of the resolution. Deputy City Manager Kiff stated that the item had been before the City Council five times and each time, the same issues arose. He stated that these issues included management of the reservoir and the odor and Volume 54 - Page 139 Res 2001 -14 C- 3400 -A C- 3400 -B San Joaquin Reservoir (38/73/89) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 IU117 D►:� aesthetic concerns, the quality of the environmental documentation and whether the transfer of ownership should be tied to a no discharge promise from IRWD. He stated that staff is recommending the approval of the item because adding the San Joaquin Reservoir to the system more than triples the storage for reclaimed water, it fulfills the City's obligation under the Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (BIRPA) to use the City's best efforts to improve the beneficial use of reclaimed water and because nearby neighbors of the reservoir are in support of the project. Responding to Council Member Glover's question, Deputy City Manager Kiff stated that IRWD believes that they have a statutory reason why they don't discharge, which is the order by the Regional Board. He stated that IRWD has not given a formal opinion on BIRPA, but staff believes it is enforceable. Jack Skinner stated that many people have been bothered by the discharge of reclaimed water into the bay for various reasons. He stated that, for him, it doesn't make sense because there should be a way to use the water. He highlighted BIRPA and the impact of having the agreement reached in September of 2000, which provides for a no discharge scenario through 2011. Mr. Skinner stated that IRWD has been unwilling to sign the agreement, but he supports giving the resolution as much backbone as it can have. He stated that he supports the resolution as revised in the supplemental report. Mr. Skinner concluded by stating that he is in favor of the San Joaquin Reservoir as long as the residential concerns are adequately addressed. Clint Hoose, Harbor Ridge Homeowners Association, stated that his association represents fifty percent of the affected homeowners. He stated that the association supports the project and he is convinced that the reservoir will be run in an effective and clean manner, and encouraged the City Council to support the staff recommendation. Bob Caustin, 471 Old Newport Blvd., Defend the Bay, asked that the City Council postpone their decision for thirty days to allow his attorneys to meet with City Attorney Burnham. He added that IRWD has still not provided a written agreement and several other issues are yet to be addressed. Mr. Caustin stated that the MOU does not include a back out clause, should Defend the Bay win the lawsuit requiring a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He asked that the City not commit to selling the property before an EIR is completed and to not go forward with the collective defense. Per Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's request, City Attorney Burnham stated that if the court rules that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate and requires an EIR, then IRWD has the option of preparing an EIR or abandoning the project. He added that once an EIR is commenced, the City would have the same rights and abilities as a responsible agency in that process as it did relative to the negative mitigated declaration. Further, City Attorney Burnham stated that the sale documents could be contingent upon the certification of the negative declaration, but staff feels that the MOU addresses all of the issues that Defend the Bay has raised regarding reservoir protocol. He stated that IRWD will still have to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if an EIR is required, before they can go forward with the project. Volume 54 - Page 140 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 I U117 D►:/ Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked if the sale document could be made contingent upon all current mitigation issues addressed in the negative declaration being met if an EIR is required. City Attorney Burnham stated that this could be made a part of the resolution. Council Member Bromberg asked if an EIR is required and the City discovers facts that it is uncomfortable with, could the City walk away from the agreement. City Attorney Burnham confirmed that it could if facts are discovered after the agreement is executed that weren't known to the parties and which, if known, would have changed the position of either party. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), stated that EQAC has never taken a position different than the City. He stated that he is concerned about the subsequent follow -up project for the expansion of Michelson and he didn't want the City to take action in connection with the MOU that would prejudice the City's ability to comment on the Michelson documents. City Attorney Burnham stated that growth at Michelson is driven solely by growth within the region and not by the reservoir, which would only have the affect of reducing the need. He added that there is nothing in the MOU that would prevent the City from challenging IRWD's plans to expand Michelson, if they chose to do so. Mr. Hawkins stated that in the long run, Michelson will be used for the storage of the additionally - generated reclaimed water. He added, however, that it is remote that the MOU would prevent the City from commenting on the project's documents. Lastly, Mr. Hawkins stated that in regards to the transfer documents and the comments made earlier by Council Member Bromberg, a lawsuit would have to ensue. City Attorney Burnham stated that the expansion issue could be handled through the recommended changes made earlier by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway, and could be added to the MOU. He stated that Mr. Hawkins' concerns could also be made a part of the MOU. Council Member Glover stated that the City spent time and money in working on BIRPA, but IRWD has refused to sign the agreement. She added, however, that it's not in the best interest of the citizens to sue IRWD. Larry Porter, 1501 Westcliff Drive, stated his support for Defend the Bay and Bob Caustin. He stated that there are many questions that still need to be answered before the reservoir is transferred to IRWD. Jan Vandersloot asked about the downside of including an escape clause in the document. City Attorney Burnham stated that one problem would be to determine the condition to the effectiveness of the provision. He expressed his concerns on how the trigger would be drafted and implemented. He suggested that conditions to the MOU could possibly be modified. Council Member Bromberg stated that he agreed with Mr. Hawkins that it would be great to have a preventative clause, but he also understood City Attorney Burnham's concerns regarding issues of misrepresentation. Volume 54 - Page 141 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 INDEX Mayor Adams stated that it wouldn't really be an issue of misrepresentation, but only of new facts coming to light. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that it could be included in the deed document that if any adversarial impact was discovered that wasn't known, the property would revert back to the City. He expressed his desire to bring the matter to conclusion, however. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, stated her concern with Council Member Glover's comments and that she'd like to see the City Council take a strong stand in requiring IRWD to follow the BIRPA agreement. Paul Jones, IRWD General Manager, stated that IRWD supports the staff recommendation as presented to the City Council. He stated that in response to the concerns about IRWD not providing a written guarantee, he noted the MOU that IRWD has entered into and stated that it addresses the operation of the reservoir at a very high level. Mr. Jones added that IRWD has fulfilled all of its obligations under the BIRPA agreement. Mr. Jones also outlined the benefits of the project which included providing a blue water view, benefits of BIRPA and the water resource and conservation benefits of using reclaimed water. He stated that reclaimed water is authorized for use on an unrestricted use permit, and is only not allowed for drinking. He added that adequate safety measures have been put into place regarding the use of chlorine. Council Member Heffernan referred to the remedies listed in the MOU and the exclusion of some of the operation requirements. City Attorney Burnham explained that the items that were identified were those that didn't involve any dispute or discretion. He stated that the other items involve discretion and it would be inappropriate to identify specific performance. Council Member Glover stated that she understands that IRWD has fulfilled its obligations of BIRPA, but hasn't signed off on them. Mr. Caustin asked that the item not be rushed through and that it be determined how the agreement will be affected if Defend the Bay wins the lawsuit. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -14 relating to Reclaimed Water, the San Joaquin Reservoir, and the Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (BIRPA), as submitted in the supplemental staff report; authorize the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Operating Criteria for San Joaquin Reclaimed Water Storage Reservoir with the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), to include language that the conditions of the negative declaration be complied with in the future, that the City is not giving up its right to any claims the City may have against the expansion of IRWD's plant or other aspects of the reclaimed water system, and the City is not waiving any right under law or equity to known or unknown facts that may arise as a result of an Volume 54 - Page 142 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 16. 17 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); authorize the City Manager to execute the transfer documents associated with the sale of the San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR); and authorize the Mayor to enter into a collective defense agreement with the owners of the San Joaquin Reservoir regarding Superior Court Case #01CC01034 (DEFEND THE BAY, plaintiff vs. IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT and CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al, defendants). Council Member Bromberg noted that he was against the project until he met with Nancy and Jack Skinner and learned that they do support the project and the resolution, with the modification presented in the supplemental report. He stated that Orange County CoastKeeper also supports the project. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that BIRPA and the no discharge scenario through the year 2011 are clearly enforceable. He stated that the City is acting in bad faith, under BIRPA, if it doesn't support the San Joaquin Reservoir being used for the storage of reclaimed water. Council Member Heffernan confirmed with Public Works Director Webb that the reservoir is currently not in the City, but would be a part of the Newport Coast annexation area. City Attorney Burnham stated that most of the permits would be issued by the State. 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 MEASURE S GUIDELINES. Continued to March 13, 2001 to allow staff time to prepare the guidelines and the exhibits. FORMATION OF THE ANNEXATION AD HOC COMMITTEE. Mayor Adams appointed Council Members O'Neil and Heffernan, and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to the Annexation Ad Hoc Committee, with Council Member O'Neil as Chair. Motion by--Council Member Glover to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -15 forming the Annexation Ad Hoc Committee; confirming the Mayor's appointments; and setting a sunset date of November 1, 2002 for the Committee. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Volume 54 - Page 143 INDEX [No report] Res 2001 -15 Annexation Ad Hoc Committee (24) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Abstain: None Absent: None 18. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD. Mayor Adams appointed Dr. Virginia Barrett to the Orange County Vector Control District Board. Motion by Council Member Glover to confirm Mayor Adams' appointment of Dr. Virginia Barrett to the Orange County Vector Control District Board to a term expiring on December 31, 2002. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. ADJOURNMENT - at 11:50 p.m. in the memory of Robert S. 'Bob" Knox, Board of Library Trustee. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on February 21, 2001, at 2:48 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 144 INDEX Orange County Vector Control District (24)