Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1982 - Regular MeetingC UNCI ROLL CALL L ME B RS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR COUNCII. MEETING PLACE: Council. Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: February 8, 1982 MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Meeting of All Ayes January 25, 1982, was waived, approved as written ion x and ordered filed. C. The reading of all ordinances and resolutions under All Ayes consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing CPA 81 -1 regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81 -1, a request Banning -Npt initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to amend Ranch the Newport Beach General Plan for the Banning- (45) Newport Ranch Planned Community, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located northerly of West Coast Highway and approximately 360 ft. westerly of Superior Avenue in the West Newport area; AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, a Amnd No.1/ request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to LCP amend the Land Use Plan and the adoption of an Implementing Ordinance for the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; AND AMENDMENT NO. 561, a request initiated by BEECO, Amnd 561/ • Ltd., Newport Beach, and the Newport -Mesa Unified BEECO, Ltd/ School District, to establish a Planned Community Npt -Mesa SD Development Plan and Development Standards for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community; AND TRAFFIC STUDY, initiated by BEECO, Ltd., Newport Tfc Study/ Beach, and the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, BEECO, Ltd. to consider a Traffic Study for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community. Report from the Planning Department was presented. Report from the City Attorney's office, regarding CPA 81 -1, was presented. Letter from Terry Watt, WNBLA, regarding Newport - Banning Ranch Checklist of January 21, 1982, was presented. Bill Darnell, Consultant representing the Applicant explained maps on display depicting 1995 Master Plan Circulation Element; 1986 Traffic Capacities/ Volumes; and 1995 Traffic Capacities /Volumes. Volume 36 - Page 35 C UNCIL ME B RS y ,o 9 �� y yy� y ROLL COL I n9 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8. 1982 MINUTES -- INULX Bill Banning, President of BEECO, Ltd., Applicant, GPA 81 -1 expressed appreciation to the Council and staff for the time and effort: given to the proposed project, and stated he would like to proceed with the devel- opment as soon as feasible. The following persons addressed the Council: John Geisler, 5205 Bruce Crescent, Lido Sands, spoke regarding the current alignment of Bluff Road and the advisability and alignment of a restudy of the 5- points location. He also referred to the proposed traffic signal to be installed at Pacific Coast Highway and Bluff Road, which he: felt was not addressed in the EIR with respect to noise impact. He stated that, on behalf of the residents in the com- munity, it is their request that a sound wall, at least eight feet in height, be in place prior to the installation of a traffic signal at Bluff Road. Margot Skilling, 6610 Ocean Front, spoke re- garding the traffic maps referred to earlier in the hearing, indicating she felt the in- formation should include "peak hour" traffic. She also spoke: in opposition to ending Bluff Road at 17th Street, and the need for beach access, urging, Bluff Road not dead -end at Lido Sands. She felt 15th Street should be main access to beach from the proposed development. Mike Johnson, Villa Balboa Condominiums, West Newport, stated that the residents in the area are most aware, of the problems in West Newport and also must endure what the Council decides to allow for the area. He urged the Council to seriously consider the comments and recom- mendations made by the local citizenry prior to making their final decision on the develop- ment. Terry Watt, Planning Consultant representing the West Newport Legislative Alliance, stated that they were opposed to the General Plan Amendment as proposed, and urged the Council to take a "second look" prior to final action. Gill Hernandez, 20 Kiola Court, stated he was in opposition to the development because of possible traffic problems. Susan McBride, 1812 Antigua Way, stated she was strongly opposed to industrial development so close to the beach. Jim Huff, #8 Tribute Court, stated he was opposed to the development as proposed, and suggested consideration be given to senior citizen housing on the school property, He • Volume 36 - Page 36 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L ME B RS MINUTES s s�A S� P February 8, 1982 Motion Motion x x x Motion All Ayes Motion Motion Ayes x Noes x Motion r: x X x x x x x x x thanked the West Newport Legislative Alliance IGPA 81 -1 for their efforts in this regard, particularly Louise Greeley. Dr. Todd Baylor, Newport Crest, stated that the West Newport area had not been adequately evaluated as far as traffic was concerned. Louise Greeley, Chairperson, West Newport Legislative Alliance, stated that the staff report included a letter from them reiterating their concerns with respect to the EIR. It also contained a response from the staff, but they have not had an opportunity for rebuttal. The Council has also received a letter from them outlining their compromise imposed on the Banning checklist. Their compromise was arrived at through many sessions with homeown- ers, as well as professional guidance, and represents viewpoints of the majority of Newport Beach residents. Reference was made to the Banning - Newport Ranch Checklist dated February 1, 1982, wherein the Council took the following actions: Site Area No. 1 Motion was made to approve Item No. 5, Resi- dential, with 5.0 du /buildable acre. Substitute motion was made to approve Item No. 3, Residential, with 11.5 du /buildable acre, including a housing mix, and with the option that the Applicant can transfer any . unused dwelling units from Site Area No. 1, to Site Area No. 4. Motion was made to permit representatives of the Applicant, as well as West Newport Legis- lative Alliance, to make queries on each checklist item for clarification. Site Area No. 2 Motion was made to approve Item No. 2, Resi- dential, with 4.0 du /buildable acre, plus five acre park. Substitute motion was made to approve Item No. 3, Residential, with 11.5 du /buildable acre, including a housing mix, and with the option that the Applicant can transfer any unused dwelling units from Site Area No. 2 to Site Area No. 4. Site Area No. 3 Motion was made to combine Site Area No. 3 and No. 4, designating area north of school district property and proportionate share of Newport -Mesa School District property as Volume 36 - Page 37 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES ROLL CALL Jo •A February 8, 1982 Multiple - family residential with a maximum GPA 81 -1 buildable area of 200,000 sq. ft.; remaining portion to be light industrial /office, limit- ing square footage to 300,000 sq. ft.; Bluff Road to be extended to 17th Street and no additional building to be allowed until Bluff Road extended to 19th Street, wherein then Applicant is given an additional 100,000 sq. ft. of light industrial /office. The northern portion of the area with residential would be 11.5 du /buildable acre. Following discussion and comments, Council Member Maurer withdrew his motion because of its complexity. Motion x Motion was made to approve 75,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial and Item No. 8 - -6.0 Noes x x x x x du /buildable acre, which motion FAILED. Motion x Motion was made to combine Site Area No. 3 Ayes x x x x and Site Area No. 4; 36% to be designated as Noes x x residential, and utilizing 36% of school Abstain x board property as residential, with remaining school board property and southerly half of Areas 3 and 4 for commercial /industrial development. Square footage to be limited to 300,000 for commercial /industrial in Phase I of development, with an additional 100,000 sq. ft. upon completion of Bluff Road to 19th Street. Remaining residential property would be the conversion of commercial /industrial as proposed to 200,000 sq. ft. of residential. , • In addition, 11.5 du /buildable acre to accom- modate transfer of residential dwelling units, with a maximum of 15 du /buildable acre. Louise Greeley addressed the Council indicat- ing her opposition to the density approved in the foregoing motion. Parks Motion x Motion was made to approve the location of a park south of 15th Street to Pacific Coast Highway, with requirement of future park to be provided in accordance with Park Dedicatio Ordinance, and a combination of land dedica- tion and in -lieu fees approximately five acre to.be finalized at the tentative map stage. In addition, requiring future park to be dedicated and /or fees paid in accordance with Park Dedication Ordinance (final tract map decision), future park to be completed con- currently with occupancy of first unit. Motion x Substitute motion was made to locate the park Ayes x x in Area No. 2 (Neighborhood Community to Noes x x x x x 15th Street) with requirement of minimum of five acre park as size, and that park to be dedicated and /or fees paid at the time of approval of Tentative Tract Map, which motion 1 . FAILED. Volume 36 - Page 38 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C U ME B RS MINUTES RAI I CAI 1 �n Z February 8. 1982 - i►�nry Ayes x x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on, and GPA 81 -1 Abstain x x carried. Greenbelt *on x Motion was made to require a 30 ft. average Ayes greenbelt to be established adjacent to New- port Crest to be maintained by the Applicant. Development Phasing Motion x Motion was made that the circulation concerns of the City of Costa Mesa, as stated in their City Manager's letter of January 20, 1982, shall be reviewed and specifically addressed during tentative tract map deliberations, and that no more than 300,000 sq. ft. of the development northerly of 15th Street shall be constructed until such time as Bluff Road has been completed from 17th Street to 19th Street. In addition, as a condition of a tentative tract map, all rights -of -way owned by the Applicant and required to widen the northerly one -half of Coast Highway to cur- rent master plan standards in the West Newport area will be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The dedications will be subject to leases and encumbrances of record. Motion x Substitute motion was made that Bluff Road Ayes x x shall not be extended to 19th Street until a N a x x x x x 3rd outbound Balboa Boulevard traffic lane is constructed from 32nd Street to Coast Highway, • and that as a condition of a tentative tract map, all rights -of -way owned by the Applicant and required to widen the northerly one -half of Coast Highway to current master plan stan- dards in the West Newport area, will be dedi- cated to the City of Newport Beach. The dedications will be subject to leases and encumbrances of record. In addition, until such time as it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City by the Applicants that the development northerly of 15th Street will not unreasonably impact westbound and northbound traffic and circulation patterns in the City of Costa Mesa and westbound traffic and ciruclation patterns in the City of Newport Beach, no more than 50% of the development northerly of 15th Street shall be occupied, which motion FAILED. It was suggested the motion on the floor be voted on separately, and therefore, the actio was as follows: Ayes x x x x Motion to approve Item 2.d, as amended in the Noes foregoing by Mayor Pro Tem Hart, was carried. Abstain x • Volume 36 - Page 39 All Ayes Ayes 6 ain Motion Motion Ayes Noes Ayes Abstain Motion if Motion x Mot i on Ayes Noes I X1 X1 X1 X1 x x1x1x Motion x Ayes Ix 1XI x x x Noes x x • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 8, 1982 Motion to approve Item 3, as set forth in the staff report, was carried. Motion was made to add the language, as stated in the original motion, with respect to the letter from the City of Costa Mesa. Circulation System Motion was made to require items A through H and L, in Attachment No. 3 as requested per September 23, 1981 BDI report to satisfy Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and project related arterial improvements regarding I, S and K. Substitute motion was made to require all items in Attachment No. 3 ($6,260,000) and items required per September 23, 1981 BDI report ($140,000) and Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge ($400,000); totaling $6,800.00 (Traff Phasing Ordinance with full improvements, plus Bridge), which motion FAILED. The motion on the floor was voted on, and carried. Pedestrian Bridge Motion was made that the Applicant shall par- ticipate in 100% of all costs related to the provisions of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge and path opposite the West Newport Parl when the need is established, and when devel- opment occurs west of Bluff Road. Substitute motion was made that the Appli- cant shall participate in 100% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge and path opposite the West Newport Park, if and when the need is estab- lished at the tract map stage. Further substitute motion was made that the Applicant shall participate in 50% of all costs related to the provision of a pedestri- an and bicycle bridge and path opposite the West Newport Park. Also, the Applicants shall provide a crosswalk at 15th Street extended, and a sidewalk at 15th Street ex- tended to Superior Avenue on the north side of Coast Highway, which motion carried. Motion was made that views to the west and south shall be preserved for a person stand- ing on the lower balcony level of the Newport Crest development. To the extent feasible, buildings located to the north of Newport Crest shall be terraced below exist- ing view horizons that are established by a person standing on the lower balcony level of Newport Crest Development. Volume 36 - Page 40 GPA 81 -1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCiL ME B RS sy s�A �� �� y�qG 9 ROLL CALL t1�n February 8. 1982 MINUTES NDEX Ticonderoga Street GPA 81 -1 Motion x Motion was made to extend Ticonderoga Street to 15th Street as a private street serving Newport Crest, Seawind and Banning - Newport Ranch. It was indicated during course of discussion that possibly some qualifying language could be added herein to make the private street designation,subject to determination after appropriate hearings of the conversion of existing Ticonderoga,from its present public street status to a private street, which language was acceptable to the maker of the motion, and incorporated therein. All Ayes The motion, as amended, was voted on, and carried. Coast Highway /Riverside Drive Motion x Motion was made to indicate that in conjunc- tion with development of the Banning - Newport Ranch, the removal of parking at the inter- section of Coast Highway /Riverside Drive is an unacceptable circulation system improve- ment. Motion x Substitute motion was made to take no action, Ayes x x which motion FAILED. Noes x x x x tain 9 x yes x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on, and Noes x x x carried. Public Services - Fire Protection Motion x Motion was made that a fire station shall be reserved within the P -C District. That prior to the approval of any tentative tract map, the City Council shall approve a Master Plan of Fire Protection Services. The Applicants shall provide 25% of the funds needed for a new fire station - -Land, Building and Equip - went - -in the event the Master Plan identified a site on the Banning - Newport Ranch (Item No. 1). Motion x Substitute motion was made that if a Master Plan of fire protection services has been approved prior to any subdivision of land, and it shows a facility in the office/ industrial area, then a site shall be reserve (Item No. 2). Motion x Further substitute motion was made to approve No. 1 as set forth in the above by Mayor Pro Tem. Hart, but Applicant required to deed all land and pay 25% of funds needed to provide a • new Fire Station -- Building and Equipment (Item No. 3). Volume 36 - Page 41 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCkB RS MINUTES ti ROI I rAl I �nA F <t ,.ter., a toa� .1nvv .. -_- -.. -- ,. .- ........_� -1 ____ 11 \VGA Staff pointed out that in order to reserve a GPA 81 -1 fire station within a planned community or tentative tract map, it must be shown in the General Plan, and therefore, if Item 2 or 3 is approved, and the Council is desirous of • a fire station, it should be done at a General Plan level. Ayes x x x x Council Member Strauss amended his motion to Noes x x x reflect the inclusion of the foregoing comment, and the motion was voted on, and carried. CALTRANS WEST. Motion x Motion was made to take no action at this All Ayes time. Drainage Motion x Motion was made to add Items 17 and 18 as footnotes to the P -C text, as set forth in Item No. 1. Motion x Substitute motion was made to add Item 17 as Ayes x x a footnote to the P -C text,as set forth in Noes x x x x x Item No. 2, which motion FAILED. Ayes x x x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on, and Abstain x carried. • Geology Motion x Motion was made to add the following note to the P -C text: Prior to the approval of any subdivision of land in the Banning - Newport Ranch P -C District, an independent third party analysis of geologic hazards of all identified known active faults shall be ac- complished and approved by the City's Build- ing Department. This analysis shall be fund- ed by the Applicant. The recommendations of this analysis shall be incorporated into any subdivision of land, grading permit and . the location of any structure (reasonably stringent standards shall be included in the analysis). Motion x Substitute motion was made to add the note Ayes x x x indicated in No. 1 above, but delete the Noes x x x x word "reasonably" in the last sentence, which motion FAILED. Motion x Motion was made to reconsider the foregoing Ayes x x x x substitute motion, which motion carried. Noes x x x Volume 36 - Page 42 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES G ROLL CALL n9 February 8. 1982 IunFY Volume 36 - Page 43 Ayes x x x x The substitute motion was voted on, and GPA 81 -1 Noes x x x carried. Motion x Motion was made to approve items 1(b and c) as set forth on the agenda as follows, and continue the public hearing to March 8, 1982: (b) Instructed staff to incorporate the results of the straw votes and to bring back to the City Council for final action at its meeting of March 8, 1982: 1) The Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) The Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR; 3) The Statement of Overriding Con- siderations; 4) The List of Mitigation Measures to be incorporated into the project 5) Adopt a resolution approving amendments to the Land Use, Resi- deatial Growth, Circulation, Noise, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Newport Beach Gen- eral Plan; 6) Adopt a resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and the adoption of an Implementing Ordinance for said amendment; . 7) The Planned Community Develop- ment Plan and Development Standards for the Banning - Newport Ranch Plan- ned Community; 8) A Traffic Study for the Banning - Newport Ranch Planned Community; and 9) Any other document necessary for the adoption of General Plan Amend- ment 81 -1; AND (c) Introduced Ordinance No. 82 -3 adopt- ing the P -C Development Plan and Devel- opment Standards for the Banning- Newport Ranch Planned Community, incor- porating the results of the straw votes, and pass to second reading and adoption on March 8, 1982. Motion x Ayes x x Substitute motion was made to deny the pro - Noes x x x x x ject, which motion FAILED. All Ayes The motion on the floor was voted on, and carried. In addition to continuing the pub- lic hearing to March 8, 1982, it was indi- cated that an adjourned meeting will be held sometime between the 10th and 22nd for further consideration of the implementing . documents, due to Council Member Strauss not being in attendance on March 8th. Volume 36 - Page 43 C UNCIL ME 8 RS ?s,� ROl L COLT Sn N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 8, 1982 MINUTES u nry Volume 36 - Page 44 2. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City U/P 1908(A) Council review of the decision of the Planning (88) Commission on January 21, 1982, approving USE Off -Site Pkg PERMIT NO. 1908 (AMENDED), a request by Carmelo Agm /C -2227 Manto, La Strada Restaurant, Corona del Mar, to (38) change the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant use to allow a daytime lunch operation during the week where the existing use permit now permits the opening of the restaurant facility after 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Application also includes a request to amend certain conditions of the existing use permit to reduce the amount of required restaurant parking and to amend the existing off -site parking agree- ment. Project located at 3520 East Coast Highway on the northerly side of East Coast Highway between Narcissus Avenue and Orchid Avenue in Corona del Mar; zoned C -1. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. It was pointed out that the Applicant leases the parking lot across the alley from the restaurant facility, and therefore, has the authority to utilize the existing 29 parking spaces during the day, as well as at night. Council Member Hummel stated, it was his under- standing after discussions with the Corona del Mar Postmaster, that many of the postal employees, as well as postal patrons, use the parking lot leased by La Strada, which does reduce the number of parking spaces for restaurant customers. Judy Manto, Applicant, stated that she and her husband are requesting to open for lunch, inasmuch as their dinners have been so successful. She stated that there is no problem with respect to parking spaces, and they are willing to share their parking lot with the postal employees. The following persons addressed the Council: Walter C. Boice, Realonomics Corporation, 3500 E. Coast Highway, Corona del Mar, stated that he was strongly opposed to the granting of a permit to allow the La Strada Restaurant to open before 5:00 p.m. He stated that it is usually impossible to find a parking space in the area between 11:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m. Mr. Boice displayed photographs taken it noontime on February 2 and 5, showing the parking conditions in the subject area. Mr. Boice stated that the post office has only 13 parking spaces and 35 employees, which is why the lot leased by La Strada is used, and if the restaurant is now allowed to open for lunch, the parking situation would only get worse. Dee Dee Masters, 140 Fernleaf, Corona del Mar, spoke in support of the request. She also urged the City Council to develop a specific plan for Corona del Mar. Volume 36 - Page 44 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES � G ROLL CALL n� 9 February 8, 1982 �nry Mat Eichenbond, 415 -1/2 Orchid Avenue, Corona del Mar, spoke in favor of the request. He suggested the restaurant restrict their park- ing lot to "late night" loitering. He also stated that the Los Angeles Times utilizes the parking lot in the early morning hours to load/ unload newspapers. Robert Stone, 414 Narcissus, Corona del Mar, submitted a petition signed by concerned resi- dents of Orchid and Narcissus, who felt they would be impacted if the restaurant lot is used during daytime hours, forcing the postal employees to park on the street. Robert Crawley, Member of the Board of Direc- tors, Church of Christ Scientist, stated that the church maintains a reading room at 3500 -B E. Coast Highway at Narcissus. They are not opposed to the request; however, they do feel it poses a problem for the neighbors because.. of the shortage of parking in the area. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public hearing to February 22, 1982, for clarification of the parking agreement between the post office and La Strada Restaurant. Lee Muir, Architect for the Applicant, stated that the La Strada Restaurant will continue to allow postal employees to use their parking lot, but that the restaurant also intends to use it for their lunch trade. Its x x x x x x Motion was voted on,. and carried. Noes x 3. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City U/P 1717(A) Council review of the decision of the Planning (88) Commission on January 21, 1982, approving USE PERMIT NO. 1717 (AMENDED), a request by Rick Lawrence, Newport Beach, to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the remodeling of an existing commercial building that included the establishment of a new "take -out" restaurant facility, the expansion of an existing restaurant facility with on -sale alcoholic beverages, the establishment of a new two -story cocktail lounge with live entertainment, and the expansion of an existing hotel. The Application is necessary so as to permit the further expansion of the hotel facility on the third floor of the structure. The proposal also includes a variance so as to allow the proposed development to exceed the basic.height limit.in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District, and to exceed the allowable floor area of two times the buildable area of the site in the C -1 District. Project located at 2106 West Ocean Front, on the northwesterly corner of West Ocean Front and McFadden Place in McFadden Square. • Volume 36 - Page 45 CITY OF .NEWPORT REACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES s by 9 G ?�� RAI I CAI I �n February 8, 1982 [IUnry Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk advised that, after the printing of the agenda, a letter had been received from The Second Glance, who are neither for nor against the proposed Use Permit, but anxious to have the pro- ject completed. Richard Lawrence, Applicant, addressed the Council indicating he did not have anything new to add, and was open for questions. There being no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Strauss expressed his concerns and opposition to the request. Mayor Pro Tem Hart indicated that she did not feel the Applicant had acted in good faith to finish the project. Motion x Motion was made to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission with the deletion of the para- pet over the elevator, and with the requirement of an additional $25,000 bond, or other acceptable security, subject to approval by the City Attorney, to insure "speedy" completion. Approval also includes the issuance of an encroachment permit for that portion of the structure located within the public right -of -way for 21st Place. on x During course of discussion, the public hearing was Ayes reopened. Richard Lawrence, Applicant, displayed a rendering of the structure and answered questions of the Council. He stated that he would meet the required "deadline" for completion of the building. Following further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Substitute motion was made to overrule the decision Ayes x x of the Planning Commission and deny the request, Noes x x x x x which motion FAILED. Ayes x x x x The motion on the floor was voted on, and carried. Noes x x x 4. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City U/P 2053 Council review of the decision of the Planning (88) Commission on January 7, 1982, approving USE PERMIT N0. 2053, a request of Ben and Eleanor Chavez, Newport Beach, to establish an entertainment center with electronic games of skill in an existing . building located at 2001 West Balboa Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of West Balboa Boulevard and 20th Street, easterly of McFadden Square; zoned C -1. Volume 36 - Page 46 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C U ME 6 RS MINUTES RAI I rill I .n �Z February B. 1982 1N1nry Report from the Planning Department, was presented. U/P 2053 The City Clerk advised that, after the printing of the agenda, a letter had been received from Mr. and, Mrs. Hill, residents in the area, opposing the granting of the Use Permit. In addition, just prior to the Council meeting, a petition and five additional letters in support of the request for an entertainment center, were received. The following persons addressed the Council; Ben Chavez, 3910 River Avenue, Applicant, appeared in support of his request. He stated he felt very qualified to manage and supervise the center because of past experience. The entertainment center would be a family recrea- tional facility with adult supervision at all times. There would be no loitering allowed, and students would also not be allowed during school hours. Georgia Mahoney, 814 E. Ocean Front, President of the Newport Elementary School PTA, stated that they were 'overwhelmingly" opposed to the proposed entertainment center. She stated that they felt the students would be spending their lunch money on the video games, as well as go to the center during lunch recess. She also felt there was a sufficient amount of similar -type recreational centers in the area. Lee Mallory, 1916 Court Avenue, submitted a • petition signed by residents living in the area bounded by 19th Street, Ocean Front, Balboa Boulevard, and 21st Street, opposing the proposed entertainment center. Sheila McNichols, 1920 Court Avenue, spoke against the facility indicating the Council needed to enact regulations governing these type of establishments. Don Atkins, owner of Rainbow Arcade and Con- sultant for the Applicant, stated that he has set up five other similar arcades, and that they do not have the problems referred to by some of the residents. He also felt that the video games were very educational.and high. skill levels of entertainment. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Avenue, spoke in support of the request. He noted that the City had control over the type of operation, pursuant to the Use Permit process. He pointed .out that there was a probationary period of nine months, and that this would be a family- type recreational center with close super- vision. Bruce Lindsay, residing behind the proposed center, spoke in favor of the request, and . urged that the .Applicant be given a chance. Volume 36 - Page 47 CITY OF NEWPORT REACH C UNCIL ME 8 RS MINUTES ROI I CGI I n� D February 8, 1982 1funov Steve McNichols, 1920 Court Street, spoke in U/P 2053 opposition to the request, indicating he felt it would only create additional police prob- lems. • Dee Mallory, 1.916 Court Street, stated she felt the entertainment center should be in a "more" commercial area, as there is no buffer between the arcade and the residential area. Carol Martin, 1824 W. Ocean Front, spoke in opposition to the proposed use, indicating she felt it would be incompatible with the area. She also suggested the Council consider placing a.moratorium on these type of recrea- tional facilities until a thorough study has been made as to the proper location for such arcades. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Overruled decision of Planning Commission and Ayes x x x x x denied Use Permit No. 2053, with the findings Noes x designated as Exhibit "B" in the staff report. Abstain x There being no objections, the staff was directed to explore other cities' ordinances which regu- late video games, and report back at the March 8, 1982 Study Session. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: - None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as indicated except All Ayes for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: - None. 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) Resolution No. 82 -18 authorizing the Mayor Upr Npt Bay and the City Clerk to execute the amended Ecolg Rsrv/ Joint Powers Agreement between the California Res 82 -18 Department of Fish and Game and the City of C -2280 Newport Beach to conduct conservation in the (38) Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. (A report from the Public Works Department) (c) Resolution No. 82 -19 approving an Agreement Upr Npt Bay between the City of Newport Beach and the Siltatn Prg/ State Water Resources Control Board for Res 82 -19 implementation of the Newport Bay Siltation C -2290 Program. (See report with Item F -2(b)) (38) Volume 36 - Page 48 . I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL ME B RS MINUTES Nh\l y tp � orm i t n February 8. 1982 INDEX (d) Resolution No. 82 -20 awarding a Contract to Main St /Swr Clarke Contracting Corporation in connection Rplcm with Main Street Sewer Replacement (C- 2216). Res 82 -20 (Report from Public Works Department) C -2216 (38) (e) Resolution No. 82 -21 authorizing the Mayor City Clerk to execute a Land Use Agreement; Karagozian and L/U Agm directing the City Attorney to execute a Res 82 -21 Stipulation for Judgment resolving litigation C -2320 between the City of Newport Beach and Edward (38) Karagozian, and directing the City Clerk to record same with the Orange County Recorder. (Resolution attached, with report from the City Attorney) 3. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To Traffic Affairs Committee for reply, Off -St Pkg/ letters from Joseph L. Philbrick, and W. Leeta (63) Philibrick regarding termination of transfer- able parking decal for parking in blue metered areas. (b) To Traffic Affairs Committee for reply, letter Signal /Sgns from Villageway Management; Inc., representing (85) Harbor View Community Association regarding request for traffic signal at the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West. (c) To staff for reply, memo from Terry Watt, Off Shr/ Environmental Planning Consultant, regarding Oil Drlg off -shore oil drilling. (87) (d) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (e) To City Attorney for inclusion in the records, Mobile Home letter from Thomas D. Peckenpaugh of Fulop & Prk /Zng Hardee, Lawyers, regarding De Anza Bayside (94) Village and source of pressures for the mobile home park zone change and rent control. 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) Minutes of January 13, and Preliminary Agenda of February 10, 1982, for Local Agency Forma= tion Commission, Orange County. (b) Application #82 -01 -27 before the California Public Utilities Commission of Southern California Gas Company for authority by an Ex Parts Order to increase the Conservation Cost Adjustment (CCA) Component in its effective rates in order to continue its demonstration . Solar Financing Program. (c) Docket No. 80 -AFC -2 - Application of Southern California Edison Company regarding their application for certification of Lucerne Valley Project. a Volume 36 - Page 49 L i • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 8, 1982 (d) Followup letter from Hugh R. Coffin, of law offices of McKenna, Conner and Cuneo, regard- ing PSA et al. v. County of Orange et al., and termination of their representation of Frontier Airlines; therefore, withdrawing their-request from the City of Newport Beach in their October 5 letter. (e) Orange County League of Cities Minutes of January 14, 1982 and Notice of February 11 General Meeting. 5. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Application to Present Late Claim of Auto Club of California for Marion A. Powell for prop- erty damage sustained on July 16, 1981, on Ocean'Boulevard, alleging traffic accident with.City vehicle. Note: Claim also filed August 12, 1981, and denied by Council August 24. (b) Theodore Owen for reimbursement of trash container alleging City refuse crew took it by mistake on January 19, 1982, from 120 Via Koron. (c) Application to Present Late Claim of Versailles Homeowners Association for property damage, allegedly due to noncompliance of Plumbing Code when Building Department issued accep- tance notice on February 17, 1981, on property located at 100, 101 and 102 Scholz Plaza. (d) Richard A. and Alexandra G. Nichols for prop- erty damage sustained on January 8, 1982, at 519 Iris Avenue, alleging City at fault for water pipe leak. 6. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS: - None. 7. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES - For approval: (A report from the City Manager) (a) One Library Clerk II, Library Services Depart- ment. 8. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS: - None. 9. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For public hearing on February 22, 1982: (a) Appeal of.James Parker, representing A. T. LEO'S RESTAURANT, from the decision of the Planning Commission on January 7, 1982, ap- proving an amendment to USE PERMIT NO. 1965, to Condition No. 3 relating to the parking ratio, and Condition No. 10 relating to the hours of operation. Volume 36 - Page 50 (36) Auto Clb/ So Ca /Powell Owen Versailles H/0 Asn Nichols (66) U/P 1965 (88) C ME 8 RS MINUTES %\Ik t I r a ,our ItInry 10. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN RESUBDIVISION NO. Resub 644 644 - Lot 10, Tract No. 814, and Lot Nos. 11, 12, (84) 13, 14 and 15, Block 221, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 223 -21st Street on the northwesterly side of 21st Street between the Arcade and Newport Bay; authorize the City Clerk to release the Faith- ful Performance Surety (cash deposit in the amount of $2,150, received March 10, 1981, into Account No. 02- 217 -02; Receipt No. 16799); and Labor and Material Surety in like amount, in six months, provided no claims have been filed. (Report from the Public Works Department) 11. ACCEPTANCE OF RESURFACING NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (C- Resurfg Npt 2282) - Accept the work; authorize the City Clerk. Ctr Dr/ to file a Notice of Completion; and release the C -2282 bonds 35 days after Notice of Completion has been (38) filed. (Report from the Public Works Department) 12. SANTA ANA AVENUE MUD JACKING (C -2315) - Approve Sta Ana Av/ plans and specifications; and authorize the City Mud Jackg Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11:00 C -2315 a.m., on February 25, 1982. (Report from the (38) Public Works Department) 13. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. Site Plan 25 - A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at Review 25/ 2244 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of (84) the street, easterly of Tustin Avenue on Mariners' Mile - Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Site Plan Review No. 25; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Surety (Certificate of Deposit No. 11015- 00296). (Report from the Public Works Department) 14. ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS IN RESUBDIVISION NO. Resub 687 687 -Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2 of Tract No. 1136 (84) located at 300 North Newport Boulevard, on the northeasterly corner of Catalina Drive and North Newport Boulevard in the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area - Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 687; authorize the City Clerk to release the Faith- ful Performance Surety (cash deposit in the amount of $2,400, deposited into Account No. 02- 217 -02 on July 7, 1981, Receipt.No. 19239); and the Labor and ' Material Surety, in like amount, in six months, provided no claims have been filed. (Report from the Public Works Department) 15. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR Council HEATHER - To attend National League of Cities Expense Legislative Session in Washington, D. C., February (33) 27 through March 2, 1982; and the Board of Directors meeting of N.O.I.S.E. (Memorandum from Mayor Heather 16. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25) BA -062, $990.00 Transfer in Budget Appropriations for purchase of three 60" tops and four end panels • for word processing equipment; Planning (Office Equipment) Fund. Vnl"me 16 — Pana S1 ' C UNCIL ME 8 RS SG�� ti��G� 4_ MINUTES ROLL CALL v`&p r�P February 8, 1982 INDEX BA -063, $850.00 Increase in Budget Appropriations to replace damaged railing on Balboa Island Bridge; General Services -Field Maintenance Fund. BA -064, $400.00 Increase in Budget Appropriations for two swivel arm chairs; Public Works Administra- tive and Engineering Fund. BA -065, $450.00 Increase in Budget Appropriations for one three - drawer filing cabinet and one swivel arm chair for Purchasing Agent's office; Purchasing and Warehousing Fund. BA -066, $9,000.00 Increase in Budget Appropriations for additional funds for repair and reroofing . Balboa Branch Library; Building Excise Tax Fund. BA -067 - Removed from the Cansent Calendar. G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report from the Environmental Quality Citizens PB &R /WNpt Advisory Committee regarding condition of Semeniuk Area Slough (also known as Oxbow Loop, Newport Shores (62) Channel, etc.), was presented. Motion x Motion was made to direct staff to reply to the above letter, with copy to Council prior to mail - ing. Staff was requested to respond to the tidal gate problem and also include some background information regarding the.present legal status of the "Slough." David Goff, 5212 River Avenue, Member of Environ- mental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee, ex- pressed appreciation to the Council for their "positive" interest in the Semeniuk Slough problem. All Ayes The motion was voted on, and carried. 2. Proposed resolution establishing a revised schedule CdM State/ of rates for the Corona del Mar State and City City Beach Beach Parking Lots and the Balboa Pier Parking Lot Pkg Lots & effective April 1, 1.982, and rescinding Resolution Balboa Pier No. 9813, together with a report from the Marine (63) Department, was presented. James Person, Jr., President of Balboa Improvement Association, addressed the Council regarding the proposed rate increase. He stated that, inasmuch as the Balboa Pier Lot services the business com- munity, as well as local residents, it would be their request that the Winter rate remain the same. They are not opposed to the Summer rate increase. The Association is also in favor of metering the "A" Street Lot, which is currently free. David Harshbarger, Director of the Marine Depart- ment, advised that the Council could approve a dif- ferent rate structure for the Balboa Pier Lot without creating any accounting problems. As to the cost of metering the "A" Street Lot, an esti- mate will be forthcoming with a report from the Off- Street Parking Committee. Volume 36 - Page 52. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES titi s�,A v � Rol I CAI I n� Fehruary R_ 19R2 �.n�.. - 11\NGA Motion x Adopted Resolution No. 82 -17 establishing a revised Off -St Pkg All Ayes schedule of rates for the Corona del Mar State and Res 82 -17 City Beach Parking Lots, effective April 1, 1982, (63) and rescinded Resolution No. 9813. The proposed rate increase for the Balboa Pier Parking Lot referred to the Off- Street Parking Committee for report back at a future meeting. 3. BA -067, in the amount of $5,000 - Increase in Budget Amnd Budget Appropriations for development of an Updated (25) Cost / Revenue System; General Fund, with a report from the Planning Department, was presented. Motion x Deferred BA -067 to February 22, 1982, as requested All Ayes by the City Manager. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: - None. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committees (24) for a one -year term ending December 31, 1982: Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee BT /CAC Motion x (District 4) Mayor Heather's appointment of Thomas All es M. Fish, confirmed. Motion x (District 5) Council Member Maurer's appointment All Ayes of Kathy A. Santilli, confirmed. Motion x (District 6) Council Member Hummel's reappointment Ayes of Tammie Fraser and appointment of Robert J. • Caminiti, confirmed. Litter Control Citizens Advisory Committee LC /CAC Motion x (District 2) Council Member Plummer's appointments All es deferred to February 22, 1982. Motion x (District 7) Council Member Cox's remaining appoint - All Ayes ment deferred to February 22, 1982. 2. Reports from the City Attorney's office dated GPA 80 -3 December 31, November 4 and September 14, 1981, re- Referendum garding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 -3, were presented. (39) Report dated January 20, 1982, from the City Council Ad -Hoc Committee, was presented. Letters from Allan Beek, Planning Commissioner, Pat Hollander of SPON, and Ron Covington, Resident's Action Plan Committee, regarding GPA 80 -3, were presented. Robert Shelton, Vice President, Government Relations, The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and read into the record the following prepared statement: "I would like to state the Company's position • with regard to the referendum on General Plan Amendment 80 -3. Volume: 36 - Page 53 • • CITY OF NEWPORT REACH L MEhkBQRS MINUTES ti s� �� Via February 8, 1982 "As you may recall, in June, 1980, The Irvine IGPA 80 -3 Company formally applied for City approval of Referendum our plan for the completion of Newport Center. "Following many months of public review involv- ing community associations, civic organizations and the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council, General Plan Amendment 80 -3 was approved in August, 1981. The adopted plan calls for a luxury hotel with residential units one mid -rise office building, and one mid -rise residential condominium, a group of one and two story garden offices, and two additional restaurants to occupy the 70 vacant acres re- maining in Newport Center. "The major conditions imposed on the plan by the City Council obligate The Irvine Company to complete $8 million in local road improve- ments and to accelerate the $22 million Pelicar Hill Road bypass of Corona del Mar in exchange for the right to develop our property in phases "These road system improvements were regarded by the City Council, and by us, as significant community benefits. "The adopted plan also provides for a number other community benefits. These include the undergrounding of utilities along MacArthur Boulevard, developer contributions toward soung- barrier walls along Irvine Terrace and Eastbluff, relocation of the proposed Orange County Transit District facility, and perma- nent protection of view planes from Harbor V Hills. "In addition, the General Plan Amendment pro- jects another considerable community benefit. It anticipates that on completion, the Newport Center development program would generate at least $1 million annually in surplus revenues to.the City. "Unfortunately, few decisions by government achieve unanimous community acceptance. In the case of General Plan Amendment 80 -3, a group of citizens who oppose the plan obtained sufficient signatures to require the City Council either to rescind its action or to put the issue to a vote of the public. "Under ordinary circumstances, we would welcoi an opportunity to have voter ratification of the Newport Center Plan, because we believe- - as our opinion surveys have consistently indicated - -that there is widespread community support for completing Newport Center and for completing the City's road system as well. 0 11111111 Volume 36 - Page 54 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES February 8, 1982 "However, a number of issues have arisen in the GPA 80 -3 community that have created an atmosphere which Referendum makes it unlikely, in an election test, that the Newport Center plan could be dealt with objectively. "The primary issue, of course, is the residen- tial leasehold controversy. The leasehold dispute is a highly complex issue with legal, financial, and social implications; an issue which is not subject to simple and immediate resolution; one which generates strong negative perceptions, and one which some leaseholders have chose to link to the future of Newport Center. "Our discussions in the community, reinforced by our surveys, clearly indicate that as a consequence primarily of the leasehold con- troversy there is an anti -Irvine Company constituency that will seek to strike at the Company by opposing completion of the Center. "As a result of our assessment of the circum- stances, including the prospect of a bitter, emotion - charged campaign, we are concerned that the Newport Center completion plan would not be judged on its merits alone. "If we could simply act to withdraw our appli- cation we would do so. Because that is not possible, we respectfully request that the City Council consider rescinding its approval of GPA 80 -3. "If this action is taken, we hope it will miti- gate the divisive climate we see developing in the community. The ultimate resolution of the Newport Center issue, in which everyone has an interest, can and should wait another day, when we and the City can once again move toward achievement of mutual goals in a deliberate, thoughtful, and positive manner. "Thank you for your consideration." Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. 82 -22 repealing Resolution No. 11039 which approved General Plan Amendment 80 -3 (GPA 80 -3) and allowed residential, office, commercial and hotel develop- ment in Newport Center, subject to the completion of certain roadway improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Hart stated for the record: "I realize the Council is under a lot of pressure; however, I must stand on the princi- ple that the right of referendum is one of the most important rights reserved for the individ- ual electorate. The number of signatures collected on the petition well exceeded the • required 10% and that carries a lot of weight Volume. 36 - Page 55 • Motion • • L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH rphruary R_ 1982 MINUTES .s i ti iod I Lt .ls, :o )t are 1. c ers? aho zeds Dn h ay, ple e c his no h ubli si- to 80 -3 with me. I cannot vote to rescind when it i evident that a great number of citizens wisl have a say on this project. There are no g< guys, and no bad guys, just a City that I really care a lot about. I have respect an( confidence in the voters' ability to sort of the facts and vote their conscience. The question of who can win or lose, is not a charge that is given this Council, but the number of signatures collected indicate som4 dissatisfaction with the Council's decision x "The way to settle this fairly is at the po: and therefore, I offer a substitute motion I select the language for the measure and ado the necessary resolutions to implement the calling of an election as enumerated on the agenda." Council Member Maurer read into the record the following prepared statement: "I'm saddened by what is trying to happen h, tonight. It's a black day for Newport Bead "Let's look at benefits and losses if we rescind 80-3. First - What are the benefit 1. The Irvine Company is off the hoo for $32 million dollars. 2. There .will be some inflated egos. "Now, what are the losses? Who are the los 1. The businesses of Fashion Island need this expansion desperately. 2. The City is losing $1 -1/2 million dollars a year in bed tax revenue (money that the City critically n to keep a healthy ten -year budget 3. All citizens of Newport Beach who will lose approximately $32 milli dollars in road improvements. 4. And, Corona del Mar, who will con tinue to have crowded streets wit little hope of improvement for ma many years. "The County will continue to grow. The pea will continue to come to Newport Beach. Th Daily Pilot Sunday paper states that traffi will double by 1995. "If we don't face up to the challenges of t new growth in population, of which we have control, if we keep putting off dealing wit the issues, Newport Beach is in serious trc We need the road improvements - -and now - -pos bly nobody to pay for them. "Who is responsible for our dilemma? We ce again allow those who would restrict growth Volume 36 - Page 56 .s i ti iod I Lt .ls, :o )t are 1. c ers? aho zeds Dn h ay, ple e c his no h ubli si- to 80 -3 CITY OF NEWPORT REACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES s �.o G ti s RAI I C Gl I �n �A February 8, 1982 1 NAFY an uneconomical level to ever do this to the GPA 80 -3 City again. We wish to encourage those who Referendum desire to improve our City and not be swayed by unrealistic complaints. • 'It's going to take a while to get over this if 80 -3 is rescinded. We have to find new ways to solve our problems, and our traffic problems are not going to go away, in fact, they will only increase on the 'Richter Scale' propor- tion. "When I know I'm right, I hate for circumstanc- es to dictate my vote otherwise, so I will support the motion. "I'm sorry for what is happening, and I'm especially sorry for Newport Beach." Council Member Strauss made the following comments: "I am going to support the original motion to rescind for two reasons. I think the City is becoming split and I don't think that is a good idea. I try on the Council and in the City.to keep our divisions as modest as can be even though there will always be differences of opinion. I was one who opposed GPA 80 -3 in the first place, and so it is not difficult for me to indicate to you that I did not think it made sense for the City at that time, and therefore, I will welcome its rescision." Council Member Plummer expressed her reasons for supporting the substitute motion to call an elec- tion for GPA 80 -3. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Avenue, stated that some months ago he urged the Council to rescind GPA 80 -3. He stated he was also sensible of the fact that this would deny the people of the City the right to vote on the issue. However, he was very inter- ested in having the people express their will and the way the City should be run, and therefore, urged the Council to have a public opinion survey taken . in order to get the "feelings" of the people and what they want in the area of City planning, as well as other major issues. Council Member Cox expressed his reasons for support- ing the motion to rescind GPA 80 -3. Ron Covington, resident of Corona del Mar, stated that he was involved in the referendum movement and that their intent was never at any point in time to deny development of the community, or to stop in any way its progress. He felt that GPA 80 -3 had some good aspects, but also felt the drawbacks and sacrifice that would have to be made by the resi- dents was too great. Volume 36 - Page 57 Ayes x Noes x x x Motion Ayes x x x x Noes Ayes Noes Ition All Ayes J x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES February 8, 1982 x x The substitute motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Hart CPA 80 -3 x was voted on, and FAILED. Referendum Michael Gering, 12 Corporate Plaza, representing the Marriott Hotel, requested permission to address the Council. x Granted above request. x x x Mr. Gering stated that the Marriott's request will be considered by the Council on February 22, and he would hope that irrespective of a difference in legal opinion, the Council will at that time, entertain the Marriott's proposal to institute GPA 81 -3 and allow them to proceed with what the Council had previously seen fit to approve in GPA 80 -3. Ken Sands, 637 St. James Road, stated he felt it was expected by the people that an election would be held, no matter what the results of that election were. x The motion to repeal Resolution No. 11039 and Res 82 -22 x x adopt Resolution No. 82 -22 was voted on, and carried. 3. Report from the Public Works Department, regarding Tfc Contrl TRAFFIC CONTROL ON BACKBAY DRIVE /NEWPORT HILLS Backbay Dr/ DRIVE EAST /CAMELBACK STREET AND BICYCLE LANE, was Npt Hls Dr/ presented. Camelback (.85) x Ordinance No. 82 -4 amending Section 12.52.060 of Ord 82 -4 the Newport Beach Municipal Code designating the. portion of Backbay Drive between San Joaquin Hills Road and the entrance to Shellmaker Island as one- way in a northerly direction, was introduced and passed to second reading on February 22, 1982; and Resolution No. 82 -23 was adopted establishing a Res 82 -23 one -way Bicycle Trail, in a southerly direction; on the westerly 6 ft. of Backbay Drive between San Joaquin .Hills Road and the entrance to Shellmaker; and The findings were made under "Discussion" pertain- Bic Lane ing to the bicycle lane. 4. Correspondence from The Committee of 4000 request- Irvine /lshlds ing the City Council to ESTABLISH A JOINT COMMITTEE Comte 4000 WITH THE CITY OF IRVINE, was presented. (68) Mailgram from Frank. V. Brinchini urging.support from the City Council of Leaseholders /Home Owners Committee of 4000 in their efforts to obtain fair and equitable treatment from The Irvine Company, was presented. Volume 36 - Page 58 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES tp 9 one i rni i tf� n 1 ou9 iuncv The City Clerk advised that, after the printing of Irvine /lshlds the agenda, she had received 35 additional mailgrams Comte 4000 and five letters, urging the City Council to support The Committee of 4000 in their efforts to obtain fair and equitable treatment from The Irvine Company Barbara Young, 2611 Vista Drive, representing The Committee of 4000, requested the City Council, as a body, write a letter to The Irvine Company re- questing they meet with the Committee. She stated that the Committee had continually requested The Irvine Company to meet with them to discuss various alternatives, but thus far have not been successful, and is their reason for seeking help from the City Councils of Irvine and Newport Beach. The Committee was also hopeful the Council would establish a Joint Committee with the City of Irvine in order to assess the matter further. She reiterated that the Committee is.only requesting the City Council to intercede in order to open the door for them to negotiate with The Irvine Company. Robert Shelton, Vice President, Governmental Rela- tions, The Irvine Company, stated that The Irvine Company's position is that they are making progress in terms of dealing with the problem through direct contact with the people with whom The Irvine Company has contracts. The Irvine Company is meet- ing systematically with lessees as groups, as neighborhoods, and as individuals, to the extent they wish to do so. They feel the meetings have been productive and also feel the program they are offering is generating a good response. In addition they feel they are having dialogue with The Commit- tee of 4000, inasmuch as the Committee is composed primarily of lessees. As requested, Mr. Shelton reviewed the basic pro- gram for those lessees, who wish to purchase and /or lease. Mr. DeCrisi, 1712 Galaxie Drive, Member of The Committee of 4000, responded to Mr. Shelton's remarks pertaining to financing. During course of discussion, it was pointed out that the City of Irvine had chosen not to establish a joint committee as requested by The Committee of 4000. Motion x Staff directed to prepare letter to The Irvine All Ayes Company, requesting they meet with representatives of The Committee of 4000, who represent a number of leaseholders within the City of Newport Beach. Subject letter to be circulated to Council for approval, prior to mailing. Volume 36 - Page 59 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL ME B RS P MINUTES February 8, 1982 ROLL CALL INDEX K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: - None. L. Meeting adjourned at 2:13 a.m., February 9, 1982. I/ May ATTEST, City Clerk Volume 36 - Page 60