Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1986 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS S o i y y 7 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Gf 99 �G� 9G9 �9A PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CAL sJ �9 DATE: February 24, 1986 Y" ' Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. #n x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Ayes Meeting of February 10, 1986, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances All Ayes and resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Maurer opened the continued public Ord 86 -1 hearing and City Council review of a Regs fr related Environmental Document and proposed Vestg TMaps ORDINANCE NO. 86 -1, being, Rsdntl SubD (68) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS (PLANNING PCA 630 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 630), (94) was presented for second reading with report from Planning Department. The City Manager pointed out that this • matter was initially considered by the City Council on January 27 and again on February 10, 1986. In the interim, the staff has discussed the proposed ordinance with representatives of The Irvine Company and the Building Industry Association of Orange County. The changes noted in the staff report are intended to resolve the concerns previously expressed by The Irvine Company. To date the Building Industry Association has expressed only interest, with no specific concerns. Dave Dmohowski, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and stated that they had met with the staff to review the changes and that the recommendations being proposed took care of their concerns. The City Attorney referred to Page 4, subparagraph 5 of the Ordinance, and recommended it be changed to read as follows: Volume 40 - Page 49 iii ` `j f B;;" R_3 .✓ 1 MINUTES Wnp it • "Any additional plans, reports or studies required by the City which are in the opinion of the Planning • Director necessary to process the subdivision of land and development thereon." Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to accept the All Ayes Environmental Document; reintroduce Ordinance No. 86 -1, establishing regulations for vesting tentative maps for residential subdivisions; including the revisions as set forth in the foregoing; and pass to second reading on March 10, 1986. 2. Mayor Maurer opened the continued public U/P 3183 hearing and City Council review of an (88) APPEAL BY CHARLES CAPRI, from the denial of the Planning Commission on January 9, 1986, of USE PERMIT NO. 3183 AND RESUBDIVISION NO. 822, requests to Resub 822 permit the resubdivision of an existing (84) lot so as to create a single parcel of land for the establishment of a two unit residential condominium project on . property located at 426 Avocado Avenue, Corona del Mar; zoned R -2. Report from the Planning Department, dated February 10, 1986, was presented. Appeal application from Charles Capri, was presented. It was noted that in 1984, a two -unit residential structure was constructed on the subject property. The applicant has submitted a letter to the City dated December 9, 1985, indicating that it was his intention to establish a condominium at that time. The applicant's attorney has also submitted a letter dated November 13, 1985, indicating that his firm was retained by the applicant in early 1984 to prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for a two -unit condominium. However, application was not made for a use permit or resubdivision for residential condominium purposes at that time. . It was also pointed out that at the time the two residential units were built, . the applicant obtained short term construction financing. The applicant now wishes to obtain long term mortgages for the units as condominiums. However, Volume 40 - Page 50 MINUTES 1 that is not possible unless the U/P 3183/ condominiums can be legally established. Resub 822 Therefore, application is being made • for a use permit and a resubdivision so as to permit the establishment of a two -unit residential condominium on the • site. Mr. Timothy Blied, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council and stated it was the intent of the owner to build a two -unit condominium and live in one of the units in anticipation of retirement. The owner resided out of state at the time of construction and was not aware of the City's regulations pursuant to the Zoning Code, and therefore, left it up to his advisors who were handling the project for him. The error was a "good faith" mistake and the owner needs to have the condominium status legally confirmed so that he can obtain separate financing on both units, live in one and sell the other. Charles Capri, the applicant, addressed the Council and stated that it has been his intent from the beginning of the project for he and his wife to retire in the City of Newport Beach and live in one of the condominium units. There also have been no objections to the . project from any of his immediate neighbors. In response to Council Member Hart, Mr. Capri stated he depended solely upon the people who were putting the project together for him and was under the impression it was being done in accordance with City Codes. It wasn't until just recently that he was made aware of the "mix -up," for which he apologized. Council Member Agee advised that he had received a call from a Mr.- Kendall, adjacent neighbor to Mr. Capri, who expressed his support for the project. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Notion x Motion was made to overrule the action of the Planning Commission based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval . designated as Exhibit "A." Council Member Hart stated that she will support the motion without prejudice, . but with hesitation, as she does not want such action to set a precedent. Volume 40 - Page 51 i aI `I i COUNCIL MEMBERS \r-AL-o ROLL %P0 �A �p February 24, 1986 BRednrg Council Member Strauss indicated he felt the applicant did make an honest • mistake, but it was difficult to support the motion, inasmuch as the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 to 2, denied • the subject applications. Therefore, he will abstain from voting, which in essence supports the motion. Council Member Heather indicated she would be supporting the Motion, but also suggested the Council consider reviewing the City's existing condominium — conversion ordinance, to which no official action was taken. lyes x x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. lbstain x 3. Mayor Maurer opened the continued public Propty Acq/ hearing regarding CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS. Canry Vlg (73) Report from the Executive Assistant to the City Manager dated February 10, 1986, was presented. Report from the City Manager was presented. The City Clerk reported that after the • agenda was printed, a letter was received from Brion Jeannette & Associates regarding the subject issue. The City Attorney advised that he had had a conversation with the attorney representing Mr. Gilsand, and informed him that there may be another option open to the City to provide parking in the Cannery Village area. He discussed the possibility of the Gilsand Company refraining from any action that would increase the value of their property for approximately a 90 —day period which would allow the City to explore the options available. However, he has not received anything in writing from the applicant or his attorney to this effect as of this date. Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made to continue this item to April 14. • In response to Council Member Hart regarding the status of the Assistance League, the City Attorney commented that the League has communicated what might • be called a counter proposal to the Volume 40 — Page 52 COUNCIL. MEMBERS \CAL - o ROLL February 24, 1986 MINUTES (<R_9T37 tentative documents he sent to them a few weeks ago. The League is asking for • more money and certain exclusive parking rights. • It was noted during discussion that the Planning Commission should be acting upon the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Area Plan on March 6. Council Member Strauss suggested to the maker of the motion that this item be continued to April 28, to which he agreed. All Ayes The motion, as amended, was voted on and carried. 4. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing PD /Ofcl regarding award of bid for OFFICIAL Police Towg/ POLICE TOW TRUCK SERVICES FOR A TWO -YEAR Harbor PERIOD. C -2147 (70/38) Report from Business License Supervisor was presented. It was noted that bids were received from Newport Center Towing and Harbor Towing for the two -year service agreement. It was recommended that Harbor Towing be awarded the bid over • Newport Center Towing for the following reasons: (a) Harbor Towing has two more tow trucks, one with a four ton greater capacity than those of Newport Center Towing; (b) Harbor Towing is less than half the distance that Newport Center Towing is from the Peninsula, where approximately seventy -five percent of Police tows occur; and (c) Harbor Towing has a fifteen year proven performance record with the City's Police Department. Hiram A. de Fries, Attorney representing Newport Center Towing, addressed the Council and expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to bid this year for the official police towing contract. He • stated that Newport Center Towing has six trucks, and in addition to its contract with the Auto Club, they have • also entered into a contract to tow for Volume 40 - Page 53 0,11 A • COUNCIL MEMBERS. C' J+ \tP\��p ROLL CAL February 24, 1986 MINUTES T19 1 W111 the City of Irvine. They meet all the PD /Ofcl requirements of the City's Municipal Police Towg/ • Code and would be a viable alternative Harbor to Harbor Towing. • Discussion ensued with respect to the feasibility of utilizing three official police towing facilities in the future, wherein the City Manager was requested to update the Council on the load increase for police towing when the contract with G & W Towing expires next year and the City advertises for bids. Bill Rush, 964 17th Street, owner of Harbor Towing Company, addressed the Council and stated that they are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They are under a great deal of pressure with regard to response time, and to their knowledge have never had a complaint filed against them. As to utilizing a third towing firm for official police tow, he feels it will happen in time. However, when the City initiated the two existing service agreements several years ago, it was in an attempt to keep the towing fees down. To date, Newport Beach has the lowest towing rates in Orange County, and he feels Harbor Towing provides a good service for a ® lesser fee. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to award contract All Ayes (C -2147) for Official Police Tow Truck Services for a two -year period to Harbor Towing. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as All Ayes indicated, except for those items removed: 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: None. 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: ® None. Volume 40 - Page 54 EMW RTow 3. CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: • (a) Award Contract No. 2517 to Npt Pier Trautwein Brothers Waterfront ndrl /SBay Construction for the total price of Frnt Groin $55,623; and authorize the Mayor C -2517 and City Clerk to execute subject (38) contract for Newport Pier Handrail Completion and South Bay Front Groin Construction. (Report from Public Works) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To Off- Street Parking Committee for Parking/ response, suggestions from Robert Offstreet Todd regarding lack of parking in (63) the vicinity of Newport -Mesa Unified School District for students. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) California State Senator Marian Bergeson °s congratulatory letter regarding the dedication of the Balboa Yacht Basin. (b) Minutes of the Orange County Local • Agency Formation Commission of January 8, 1986. (c) Applications before the California Public Utilities Commission: (1) Application 1186 -02 -011 - Southern California Edison Company requesting authority to change rate levels for service rendered on and after June 1, 1986; and (2) Application 1186 -02 -005 - Southern California Edison Company requesting increase in rates to recover payments made by the Company to terminate its one -term uranium supply contracts with Homestake Mining Company and Bear Creek Uranium Company. • Volume 40 - Page 55 COUNCIL MEMBERS co Ip ROLL S \'P February 24, 1986 MINUTES 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's • referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Sybil M. Eddins for personal Eddins injuries sustained as a result from fall at 44 Bellcourt Drive on November 12, 1985, alleging step was not. constructed in accordance with City Building Code. (b) Montgomery Ward Insurance Company Montgomery for Ruth Barr for property damage Ward Ins/ as a result of her vehicle being Barr rearended by Newport Mesa School District bus at San Joaquin Hills Road east of Santa Cruz on December 3, 1985. (c) Gary Edmund Rausch alleging assault Rausch and battery, wrongful arrest, etc. by City Police Department at 341 Evening Canyon Road on November 11, 1985. (d) Frank Wiltse alleging damage to Wiltse vehicle! as a result of unmarked and uncovered excavation at Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive on January 6, 1986. • (e) Woody's Wharf Newport seeking Woody's indemnity from bicycle accident at Wharf Npt Pacific. Coast Highway near intersection with Superior Avenue on March 11, 1985, involving son of Joseph and Doris Louise Howe. For rejection: (f) LATE CLAIM of James M. Degnan Degnan alleging vehicle damaged by City Police Department while in pursuit at 19th Street and North Court on October 6, 1985. 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and (36) confirmation. of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) AMFAC Distribution Corp., Municipal AMFAC Court Case No. 75652 regarding Breach of Contract and Personal Guarantee, Foreclosure of Stop Notice, at al, concerning City's contract with Marco Construction • for construction of Balboa Yacht Basin. Volume 40 - Page 56 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL s� s ti ROLL February 24, 1986 ",HOTI j myw (b) Alexander Murga, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 478815. Murga • Claim was denied by City Council on July 22, 1985. • 8. REQUEST TO FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: (66) (Report from the City Manager) (a) Approve one Marine Safety Officer, Marine Department. (b) Approve one Library Assistant, Library Department. (c) Approve one Groundsworker I, Parks Division. (d) Approve one Library Clerk IV, Library Department. (e) Approve one Library Clerk III, Library Department. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: (a) Memorandum from Arts Commission for Council consideration of proposed Council Policy F -23 Policy regarding "Donation of Art (69/24) • to the City of Newport Beach." (b) Memorandum from the Arts Commission Arts Cmsn recommending acceptance of Warren (24) Hancock's donation of R. Bret Price sculpture. (c) ,Report from the City Attorney Rutan /Tuckr recommending approval of a request Davis /Housg from Rutan & Tucker for an increase C -2170 in hourly fee charged for legal (38) i services. (d) Report from the City Attorney O'Donnell/ recommending approval of O'Donnell Gordon & Gordon estimate of fees for C -2331 airport- related services from (38) February 1, 1986 through March 31, 1986. (e) Report from Parks, Beaches and PB &R Recreation Director regarding (62) WAIVING OF FACILITY FEES - CARROLL BEEK COMMUNITY CENTER. • (f) Report from Parks, Beaches and Recreation PB &R Director regarding (62) • feasibility of ACQUIRING PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BEGONIA PARK FOR PARK PURPOSES. Volume 40 - Page 57 •rt,mi For information and defer action to • 1986 -87 Budget consideration: (g) Removed from the Consent Calendar. • 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For March 10, 1986: (a) Appeal of Tadashi Shimada for Use U/P 3181 Permit No. 3181 on property located (88) at 3422 Via Lido, denied by the Planning Commission on January 9, 1986. 11. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 12. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #103 -1617 - Harbor Perm Uphold staff's recommendation to approve #103 -1617 application by David W. Hook, subject to (51) conditions listed in the staff report, to raise the residential pier and float bayward of 1617 Bayside Drive. (Report from Marine Department) 13. REPLACE RESTROOM AT 15TH STREET AND Restrm 15th REFURBISH RESTROOM AT WASHINGTON STREET St /Rfbsh (CONTRACT N0. 2550) - Approve the plans Wshtn St and specifications; and authorize the C -2550 City Clerk to advertise for bids to be (38) opened at 11 :00 a.m., on March 26, 1986. • (Report from Public Works) 14. STREET LIGHT CONVERSION PROGRAM, PHASE StLghtCnvsn II (CONTRACT NO. 2549) - Approve the Prgrm PhII plans and special provisions; and C -2549 authorize the City Clerk to advertise (38) for bids to be opened at 11:00 a.m., on March 12, 1986. (Report from Public Works) 15. SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT 1984 -85 (CONTRACT SwrMnRplcm NO. 2467) - Accept the work; and °84 -85 authorize the City Clerk to file a C -2467 Notice of Completion and release the (38) bonds 35 days after Notice of Completion has been filed. (Report from Public Works) 16. RESUBDIVISION NO. 736 - Accept the offer Resub 736 of dedication of a 15 -foot radius (84) corner - cutoff at the intersection of Orange Avenue and North Newport Boulevard (Lot 4 and portions of Lots 5 and 6, Tract No. 443, located at 504 North Newport Boulevard, on the . northeasterly corner of North Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue in the Old Newport Specific Plan area). (Report . from Public Works) Volume 40 - Page 58 COUNGL MEMBERS \CAL q�, cc�`M R ®LL Gtr � $P February 24, 1986 I'lI'",1111 -01:WN 17. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: • Mid -year Budget Adjustments (Report from Budget Finance Director) (25) • BA -053, $475,502.87 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; General Fund. BA -054, $25,438 - Net decrease in Unappropriated Surplus; Park and Recreation Fund. BA -055, $19,720 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Library Fund. BA -056, $2,127,788 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and Revenue Estimates; Community Development Block Grant Fund. BA -057, $196,515 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; State Gas Tax Fund. BA -058, $37,520 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Gas Tax Fund. BA -059, $224,135 - Decrease in Unappropriated Surplus; Arterial Highway Financing Fund. BA -060, $524,850 - Decrease in • Unappropriated Surplus; Fines, Forfeits and Penalties Fund. BA -061, $279,710 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Tide and Submerged Lands Fund. BA -062, $15,000 - Transfer in Budget Appropriations; Building Excise Tax Fund. BA -063, $35,000 - Increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Water System Development. BA -064, $77,398.87 - Net increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Water Fund. BA -065, $101,470 - Increase in Unappropriated Surplus; Marinapark Fund. G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Report from Arts Commission recommending Arts Cmsn/ . $2,000 grant for their "Imagination Budget Celebration," was presented. (24/25) Volume 40 - Page 59 COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL R ®LL Gad' � February 24, 1986 MINUTES ITr 5IT3 Motion x Motion was made to defer action on the Ayes foregoing request until the 1986 -87 budget consideration, and further, that the City Manager investigate and include in the same action, the request of Norma • Hertaog, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa dated November 14, 1985. 2. Proposed General Plan Amendments (GPA GPA 86 -1 86 -1, was presented with report from the (45) Planning Department. The Planning Director, in response to Council Member Strauss, stated that there are two proposals before the Council with respect to the Cannery Village /McFadden Square area. One is a proposed amendment to the General Plan, and a proposed amendment to the LOP as certified by the State Coastal Commission. The Planning Director stated that what the staff is attempting to do is to differentiate between the Recreational and Marine - Commercial type uses that are permitted on the bayfront lots in Cannery Village, as opposed to similar types of uses which are permitted on the inland lots, or non - waterfront parcels. At the present time, both the bayfront • and non- waterfront lots in Cannery Village are designated for Recreational and Marine- Commercial type uses. However, the language in the existing LOP goes on to differentiate between those lots and the types of uses that are permitted on the waterfront lots, which require some type of incentive use and the types of uses which are permitted on the inland lots that do not require an incentive use. What the staff is suggesting, and what the Planning Commission has been looking at the past several weeks, is a proposal to leave the Recreational and Marine Commercial designation on the waterfront lots and to redesignate the interior lots as Detail and Service Commercial. It would only be a change in designation, not land use. The Planning Director continued by stating that with regard to the changes proposed in the General Plan, the Land Use Element of the General Plan • currently designates the area generally lying northerly of Newport Boulevard as a mix of Recreational and Marine • Commercial and General Industrial. The proposal is to allow a different Volume 40 - Page 60 ®UMCIL MEMBERS ALQ �9G CG� 9G.p�9�� F9�y c�F February 24, 1986 is is Motion All Ayes • �" designation with the bayfront lots being designated as Recreational and Marine Commercial, and the balance of the lots on the non - waterfront parcels being designated as Detail and Service Commercial, and a mix of General Industrial. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission and initiate the following: A. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (GPA 86 -1) - to amend the LAND USE and HOUSING ELEMENTS of the Newport Beach General Plan for: 1. Cannery Village /McFadden Square (City of Newport Beach) 2. 4881 Birch Street (Plaza de Cafes) 3. 3601 Jamboree Road (Sporting House) (Gordon Hall Corporation) 4. 1177 Camelback Street (AT &T Storage Yard) (The Irvine Company) 5. Southeast Corner, Ford Road /MacArthur Boulevard (Freeway Reservation East) (The Irvine Company) 6. 4656 -4678 Campus Drive (Birtcher Building) (Birtcher) 7. Santa Ana Heights (City of Newport Beach) (Pre - Annexation) 8. Housing Element (City of Newport Beach) •\I• ul B. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN - Sustain the recommendation `of the Planning Commission and initiate an Amendment to the Certified LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, LAND USE PLAN, changing the designation of sites for the Cannery Village /McFadden Square and the Santa Ana Heights proposals. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 85 -32, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50 OF THE Volume 40 - Page 61 A 86 -1 Ord 85 -32 Bus Lic/ Massage (27) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS co s s 9 t ROLL CAL February 24, 1986 MINUTES I JIAIMM NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Ord 85 -32 • PERTAINING TO MASSAGE Bus Lic/ ESTABLISHMENTS, Massage was presented for second reading and (27) adoption with report from the Assistant City Attorney. The City Clerk reported that after the agenda was printed a letter was received from Cherie Phillips, President, Newport Body Dynamics, expressing concerns as to the proposed ordinance. The City Manager in reviewing the subject staff report noted that on April 8, 1985, the City Council enacted a temporary moratorium on the issuance of massage establishment permits in response to law enforcement and community concerns. Proposed amendments were first considered by the Council in May, 1985. In June 1985, certain portions of the Massage Ordinance were changed. Specifically, hours of operations were limited and insurance was required. The City Council further directed that a comprehensive Massage Ordinance be analyzed. Since that time, the staff has held many . meetings with massage technicians, massage operators, representatives of various massage establishments and schools, local residents, Orange County Health Department and law enforcement personnel. Several massage ordinances from other jurisdictions were also reviewed by the staff. The proposed Ordinance is a comprehensive scheme designed to remedy the code enforcement problems posed by the occurrence of prostitution at massage establishments, refine the professional requirements for obtaining permits, and provide adequate health and safety standards for the operation of massage establishments. Sgt. Rich Long of the Police Department addressed the Council and spoke in support of the Ordinance. He stated that over a year ago, the Police Department received a number of complaints from members in the community relative to prostitution being conducted in massage parlors within the City. The Police Department conducted investigations into the activities and determined that there was some cause for concern, and as a result, made 15 arrests, issued a number of citations Volume 40 - Page 62 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS C \f\0P\P � ROLL CAL F9 February 24, 1986 MINUTES INDEX for Municipal Code violations, and concluded that there was a problem with • the lack of an effective ordinance. LaDonna Whiteford, President of the California Federation of Massage, . addressed the Council in support of the proposed ordinance. She stated she felt it was an ordinance in which they could comply with and one the Police Department could enforce. She stated she would like to see prostitution out of their profession and hopefully the ordinance will solve that problem. She submitted two letters in favor of the ordinance from Marcella S. Paolocci and Robal Carpenter, members of the California Federation of Massage. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. All Ayes 85 -32. 2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 86 -2, being, Ord 86 -2 Council AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT Meetings/ BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04.020 OF Study Sesn THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (33) ESTABLISHING THE TIME FOR STUDY SESSION AS 2:00 P.M., EFFECTIVE APRIL 14, 1986, was presented for second reading and • adoption. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. All Ayes 86 -2. 3. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 86 -3, being, Ord 86 -3 Vehicles/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT Traffic BEACH AMENDING PROVISIONS OF Tricycles NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (85) SECTION 12.56.140 REGARDING THE DEFINITION AND OPERATION OF TRICYCLES, 0 was presented for second reading and adoption with report from the Police Department dated February 10, 1986. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Ordinance No. All Ayes 86 -3. I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Report from Public Works regarding Npt Blvd NEWPORT BOULEVARD CHANNEL BRIDGE, was Chanl Brdg • presented. (74) Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ed Schwaner • protesting alleged personal assessment for any modification of a public Volume 40 - Page 63 COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL®�� February 24, 1986 11lnyr� INDEX Npt Blvd Chanl Brdg (74) highway, i.e., higher bridge, more sightseeing traffic, bigger boats, etc., . was presented. The Public: Works Director advised that this subject was continued from the . Council meeting of January 27, 1986, as a result of testimony that property owner support may exist for formation of a Special Assessment District to assist in funding, the raising of the bridge. The matter was before the City again because of a letter from CalTrans regarding the proposed project. With regard to the existing programmed project, the Director of Public Works noted that to construct an additional northbound lane from 32nd Street to the Arches Ramp is currently programmed for Fiscal Year 1988 -89 in the approved State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)- -State funding of $1,019,000 and $1,019,000 from the City. With respect to a proposed higher bridge, it was pointed out that the project would include widening of both the bridge and its approaches on both sides; and construction of an additional northbound lane on Newport Boulevard from 32nd Street to the bridge. • Construction of the additional southbound lane on Newport Boulevard southerly of the bridge is not part of the proposed project. Cost sharing of 1/3 State, 1/3 City, and 1/3 benefited property owners for the $1.5 -2 million additional costs of a new higher bridge has been discussed. Under this concept the funding package would be: . Currently New Programmed Funds Total State $1,019,000 $1,600,000 $2,619,000 City 1,019,000 600,000 1,619,000 Private -0- 600,000 600,000 The Public Works Director pointed out that additional State funding above and beyond the incremental cost of the higher bridge is required for this concept. It was suggested also that the property owner share be set at a fixed • amount of $600,000 rather than precisely 1/3 of the incremental cost in order to eliminate one of the variables to be • considered by the property owners in Volume 40 - Page 64 INDEX Npt Blvd Chanl Brdg (74) ITAU Ild rm r3n deciding whether or not to support an Npt Blvd assessment district for a share of the Chanl Brdg . costs. (74) In order to ascertain property owner opinions regarding the proposed cost . sharing concept, a letter and postcard for response was sent to all waterfront residents upstream of the Newport Boulevard bridge. The results of the survey as of this date are: 45% in favor of raising the bridge 25% against 30% not responding The Public Works Director pointed out that there are legitimate reasons in favor of a new, higher bridge concept. 1. The existing 50- year -old bridge would be replaced with a new structure, thus reducing maintenance costs and deferring the need for eventual future replacement. 2. Navigation would be improved for boat operators. 3. The esthetics of the structure could be improved. Despite the above, the Public Works Director then concluded that it was the staff's opinion that the City should support the project for widening at existing grade, for the following reasons: 1. The project and its funding are currently programmed (for Fiscal Year 1988 -89), with an approved Environmental Document. 2. The assessment district for property owner participation could fail. If this should happen, the project could be lost entirely, or the City could be asked to fund the property owner's share. 3. It may not be possible to secure the proposed additional . CalTrans funding. If this should happen, the project could be lost entirely, or the City could be asked to fund . the additional CalTrans amount. Volume 40 - Page 65 OUNCIL MEMBERS 76' \rF •, .3 t ..,,. 1 February 24, 1986 MINUTES Npt Blvd Chanl Brdg 4. At best, a revised project would entail at least two • years further delay beyond the presently programmed schedule. • 5. Construction of a totally new bridge would result in significant traffic handling problems during the 1 -1' year construction period. It was also pointed out that there is a very serious funding shortage for highway funding in the State and the City has been advised by both CalTrans and the Orange County Transportation Commission that there is no new funding available for highway projects. Sandy Willford, 14 Balboa Coves, addressed the Council and cited the results of the survey they conducted in their area in support of raising the bridge as follows: Yes No %Yes %No Unknown 282 Parcels 178 57 63 20 17 Excluding Rivo Alto E 234 Parcels 166 40 71 17 12 Mr. Willford urged the Council to give consideration to forming a Special Assessment District in order that the bridge may be raised. Mr. Ed Schwaner, 511 36th Street, addressed the Council and referred to his letter of February 13, 1986. He stated that he was not in favor of raising the bridge for the reasons as set forth in his letter. However, he was supportive of widening the bridge. Chuck Hirsch, representing Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council and submitted a prepared statement on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Chamber in support of widening the bridge. They feel the widening of the bridge will provide circulation and traffic improvements for a large number of residents and businesses throughout the City; it will reduce the high incidence of traffic accidents; it will reduce the • Volume 40 - Page 66 Npt Blvd Chanl Brdg COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL9j, cMc^ DOLL Gds � $�'P February 24, 1986 MINUTES Wr v air pollution from motor vehicles due to Npt Blvd the stacking of cars because of the Chanl Brdg . overloading of the capacity of the current bridge. They strongly recommend that the City Council take action this . evening to support the project to widen the channel bridge and direct the staff to so advise CalTrans. Tom Orlando, 15 Balboa Coves, addressed the Council and spoke in support of raising the bridge. He stated that he participated in the survey; that the figures quoted by Mr. Willford were accurate to the best of his knowledge; and that anyone not queried was counted as a °ono" vote. He expressed his desire to form a Special Assessment District for the raising of the bridge. Gary DiSano, 912k E. Balboa Boulevard, addressed the Council and stated that, in his opinion, it would be a risk to try and raise the bridge just for the benefit of 200 boat owners, and take the chance of losing State funds for the widening of the bridge. Council Members Agee and Plummer indicated their support for raising the bridge. Council Member Heather advised that she had met with Senator Marian Bergeson regarding this issue and was informed that the Senator was committed to trying to obtain funds for an area in her Imperial District, known as "Slaughter Alley,1° and therefore, in good conscience could not recommend funding for the raising of the bridge when one of her areas is in such 1 °dire" need of improvement. Discussion ensued with regard to the difficulty of obtaining funds for highway improvements in general, wherein Council Member Hart cited from an Orange County Transportation Commission letter dated January 31, 1986, regarding financing status of the 5/55 Interchange and the I -5 widening projects noting that "Given the deficit status of the existing STIP; however, it is a safe bet that no new funds would be possible until FY 1992 -93. Therefore, given these assumptions about the flow of Federal funds, and the assumptions are somewhat optimistic, it will require an . influx of funds for seven years Volume 40 - Page 67 MINUTES l lu n sr Y beyond FY 1992 -93 to fully fund the I -5. Npt Blvd • In other words, the flow of Federal Chanl Brdg funds will not be sufficient to complete the I -5 widening within this century.10 . In response to Council Member Strauss regarding what the cost per homeowner would be if a Special Assessment District were formed, Mr. Willford replied that based on a total of 282 homes, and a cost of $600,000 to be divided among the property owners, they estimate the average to be $2,150 per participant. Mr. Willford requested this item be continued for one additional month to formally talk to the State about the feasibility of forming a Special Assessment District. In response to Council Member Agee regarding the State's time frame, the Public Works Director pointed out that the State is currently preparing the newly revised STIP, and that is what prompted this issue being brought before the Council again. The decision of the Council, he feels, should be made at _ this meeting as any further continuance could indicate lack of support for the • current project of widening the bridge and a very real possibility of losing the project entirely. Council Member Cox stated that in all due respect to the comments made by the other Council Members, he did not agree with any of them. He does not believe the homeowners are behind the raising of the bridge whatsoever, except the two proponents Sandy Willford and Tom Orlando. We are attempting to decide a major issue here and we have only two homeowners in effect represented. If the homeowners were really involved and supported this project, the Council Chambers would be full. He doesn't know how much evidence the Council needs to come to good, sound, judgmental decisions. As Council Member Heather pointed out, Senator Bergeson has stated that there are no funds available for the raising of the bridge, and also, our Public Works Director has indicated that there are no funds available. It also has been indicated that if a city does not show support for a given project that already has been designated in the STIP, . you might as well forget about it. Volume 40 - Page 68 MINUTES TTrITMO Council Member Cox continued by stating Npt Blvd that when we consider the number of Chanl Brdg • people on the peninsula, and the great amount of people that come to our beaches everyday, we have a safety, as • well as quality of life improvement factor that is far more important than the benefit that would be derived from the 200 boat owners on the bay. We have to get on with this and we can't if this Council doesn't 1 °bite the bullet" and make a decision. Motion x In view of the foregoing comments, motion was made expressing the City's commitment to support the current STIP project for constructing an additional northbound lane on Newport Boulevard, including widening of the existing Channel Bridge at the present grade. Motion x Substitute motion was made by Council Member Plummer supporting construction of a new, higher bridge, including implementing actions and policies as listed in the staff report. Council Member Bart stated that she will not support the substitute motion as she feels there is a definite need for an additional lane "out-of-town." She felt it would be nice to have a raised bridge, but realistically speaking, the funds are not available. Council Member Agee stated that he will be supporting the substitute motion as he felt it was worth "one more shot," inasmuch as the City doesn't really have a time- certain to meet. Council Member Strauss stated that initially he was supportive of a raised bridge; however, he cannot support it now because conditions have changed, and it is evident the City will not be getting funds to do it, and if the Council did support it, we could be doing something disastrous from the point of view of the people on the peninsula and other areas he represents. Syes x x x The substitute motion was voted on and goes x x x x FAILED. Ayes The motion made by Council Member Cox was voted on and carried. Volume 40 - Page 69 COUNCIL MEMBERS \ALs� q s ti 9 �' � 9 February 24, 1986 MINUTES Harbor Perm #111 -1024 (51) 2. Report dated February 10, 1986 from the Marine Department regarding HARBOR • PERMIT APPLICATION #111 -1024 by Tim Crull and Roger E. Riley for an exception to the Harbor Permit Policies • dealing with the mooring of a hydro hoist location at their property on 1024 East Balboa Boulevard, was presented. Council Member Hart was excused from the Council meeting at this time (9:35 p.m.). It was noted in the staff report that the applicant proposes to berth a hydro hoist bayward of 1024 East Balboa Boulevard. The proposed location would violate Section 21.A. of the Harbor Permit Policies, and the applicant is requesting an exception to said policy. It is felt by the staff that an exception to the policies in this case is not warranted, in that the applicant has failed to state that denial would cause him undue hardship at all, and denial of this request is detrimental to the best interests of the City. It was further pointed out that approval of this request could set a precedent and encourage all City permittees at • street ends to make similar requests. Encroachments into the City street ends, such as the type proposed Above, could result in congestion and limited access to street end beaches and water, thereby restricting boat launching, swimming and bathing. Tim Paone, Attorney representing Stewart and Deborah Carl, applicants authorized by Tim Curll and Roger E. Riley to make this application, addressed the Council and explained their request. He displayed a photograph of the hydro hoist at its present location and pointed out where the hydro hoist was located in relation to the bulkhead line. He stated there have been no complaints from adjacent property owners, and as can be seen in the photograph, public access to the water is not in any way blocked. It is their position that because the hydro hoist is located so far beyond the bulkhead, (more than 50 feet) the strict • application of the policy really achieves no purpose. • Volume 40 - Page 70 Harbor Perm #111 -1024 (51) COUNCIL MEMBERS c\ SnG�(n • Motion All Ayes • is if an x x MINUTES February 24, 1986 Mr. Stewart Carl, owner of the hydro hoist, addressed the Council and stated that one of their major concerns when they placed the boat at its present location, was to make sure it was far enough beyond the bulkhead to not block or infringe upon any boat users, which they do not feel has been done. Following discussion, motion was made to uphold staff's recommendation to deny subject application. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. Report from Marine Department regarding Harbor Perm HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATION #256 -504 by #256 -504 Robert Teller and Byron Stiegemeyer to (51) revise the commercial pier and float bayward of 504 South Bayfront, Balboa Island, was presented. Mayor Maurer stated that this particular Harbor Permit was brought before the Balboa Island Improvement Association, and they felt that since the subject property is in a commercial zone, and inasmuch as the pier and upland property is proposed to be rebuilt, it would be a great improvement. In addition, the Tidelands Affairs Committee did view this property approximately three to four months ago. It was not a formal meeting of the Committee, but one in which the property was inspected. Mayor Maurer stated that it was hoped that at this meeting the subject permit could be approved without sending it back to the Tidelands Affairs Committee; however, there are some Council Members that feel it should go back to the Committee in order that certain conditions can be added to the permit. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Plummer, Tony Melum, Tidelands Administrator, addressed the Council, and stated that the plans and specifications for the bulkhead, groin and dock would have to be approved by the Building and Public Works Departments as an automatic condition for the permit unless they were built according to Standard Drawings, however, according to the drawings he has seen, this is not the case. Following discussion, motion was made to refer this item back to the Tidelands Affairs Committee for report back on March 24, 1986. Volume 40 - Page 71 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \CAL s� o s ti v ROLL All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes 11 MINUTES February 24, 1986 shr Oil NBMC /Bus Lic Mitchell Brown of Urban Assist, Inc., representing the applicant, addressed the Council and submitted a copy of a letter to the Mayor from H. S. Beek, owner of the Balboa Island Ferry, advising that "as long as the dock and float arrangement is constructed per the attached specification sheet, and that this same plan causes no additional encroachment into the Ferry docking area from the present dock layout, and that the new operation does not interfere with our exisiting operation, I have no objections to the construction plans." The motion was voted on and carried. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: x 1. Motion was made to authorize Council Member Hart to travel to Washington, D.C. on February 24 and 25, 1986, to speak on the City's position regarding Off -Shore Oil Drilling. x 2. Motion was made to direct the City Attorney to review Section 5.16 of the Municipal Code relative to "going- out -of- business" sales and report back on March 10, 1986. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 10 yor ATTEST: City Clerk Eli � LIFO Volume 40 - Page 72 shr Oil NBMC /Bus Lic