Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1988 - Regular MeetingCOUNCIL MEMBERS i Dent x x Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes .0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x x x x x x x MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council. Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: March 14, 1988 Certificate honoring Hugh Barker for his outstanding work with the disabled veterans as an Employment Representative for the State of California regarding the OutReach Program for 1987, was presented by Mr. Charles Gray. I A. ROLL CALL. B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of February 22, 1988, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. C. Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing regarding: PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 658 Request of STROCK ARCHITECTS, INC., Newport Beach, to amend the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to establish provisions which would allow structures located within a portion of INDUSTRIAL SITE 3A to be constructed in excess of the 35 foot height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. This proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Document. Property located at 3600, 3610 Birch Street; AND Public hearing and City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. 3308, a request of STROCK ARCHITECTS, INC., Newport Beach, to permit the construction of three office buildings on property located in INDUSTRIAL SITE 3A of NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY which exceeds the 35 foot basic height limit. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off — street parking. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Manager commented that Mr. Strock was in the audience to introduce the subject project and illustrate with colored maps. The City Manager stated that the present PC text on the Birch /Bristol intersection permits a maximum height of 35 feet, and there are two things that the Council will act on Volume 42 — Page 74 RCA 658 (94) J/P 3308 (88) COUNCIL MEMBERS • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INZIFid March 14, 1988 tonight; one is a zone change PCA 658/ (amendment) to permit a structure of U/P 3308 between 35 and 50 feet, subject to approval of a use permit; and two is the actual use permit to exceed the 35 feet on the three structures, varying from approximately 38 feet to 40 feet in height, which does not increase the density or square footage permitted, under the current PC text and the City's General Plan. He added that the subject development was unanimously approved at the February 4, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Arthur V. Strock, Strock Architects, 3300 Irvine Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that he wanted to inform the Council the plans that were approved by the Planning Commission have since been changed slightly, which does not increase the allowable square footage on the site, but asks that they be permitted to build structures higher than are permitted by the PC text on Industrial Site #3. The reason for the increase in height, is to allow a portion of parking on the site to be placed under the buildings, and to allow a disproportinate amount of landscaping to be created on site. In answer to Council inquiry, Mr. Strock stated that the plan is different from the plan submitted to the Planning Commission in that the specific architecture of the buildings has changed and has caused a slightly different relationship of two of the buildings with regard to the front yard setbacks, adding that they do not encroach, but they are in a different location. With the use of illustrations, he pointed out the differences between the two plans stating that Building #1 and Building #3, at their closest points, are 35 feet from the property line, and the legal required setback is 30 feet. The plan being presented to the Council tonight shows the same number of buildings, size., and location on site, the difference being that the buildings are now 30 feet from the property line, rather than 35 feet, which setback was specifically mentioned in the plan to the Planning Commission, but the overall net effect is the same, as well as the environmental quality that was presented to the Planning Commission. Volume 42 - Page 75 COUNCIL MEMBERS is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 14, 1988 In answer to questions from the Planning PCA 658/ Director as to the construction material U/P 3308 to be used on the buildings, Mr. Strock stated high performance glass, that reflects heat but is not mirrored, and stone would be used, but the shape of the buildings (triangular and square) have been simplified for economic reasons. Council Member Sansone inquired as to why a significant change such as that which is being presented now, has not gone before the Planning Commission. The Planning Director explained that he was informed of the proposed changes on Friday, March 11, 1988, and advised Mr. Strock that the City Council could still go ahead and approve the amendment to the Development Standards, which would allow proposed buildings to go higher on the basis of use permit approval. He was further advised that he could make his presentation to the Council, wherein the Council could either approve the revised site plan, or refer the use permit back to the Planning Commission. With regard to the inquiry of the increased height from 40 to 50 feet, the Planning Director stated that in the existing Zoning Code, the City is divided into Height Limitation Districts. In order to go to the higher height limit, the developer or architect is required to demonstrate to the City the findings that are required, and must apply for, and have an approved use permit. He added that the developer, in any case, is limited to the height of the building as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and they are further limited by the amount of square footage that the PC allows. Specifically, the subject development has buildings which vary from 38.45 feet up to 45 feet. In order to go to 50 feet, they would have to go back to the Planning Commission, or the Council. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Volume 42 - Page 76 COUNCIL MEMBERS ti Motion Ayes Noes Abstained /1 u • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 14, 1988 Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 88 -17 88 -17, amending the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards to allow structures located within a portion of Industrial Site 3A to be constructed in excess of the 35 ft. height limit up to a maximum of 50 ft., subject to the approval of a use permit; accept the Environmental Document; and sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3308. 2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Ord 88 -6 regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -6, Zoning /Radio being, Antennas (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.77 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 627), PCA 627 was presented for second reading with report from the Planning Department. Letters received after the February 22, 1988 agenda was printed, in opposition to proposed ordinance from Anita Meister Boyd and Seaview Community Association, were presented. Letter from student Jeremy Sparks, ham -radio operator, with suggestion regarding interference on TV's received from subject antennas, etc., was presented. Letter from E. P. Garrison opposing adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 88 -6, citing declining property values and interference with comfortable enjoyment of his property, was presented. Letter from Raymond E. Berg in favor of proposed ordinance, was presented. Letter from James B. (Jay) Stoddard of Amateur Radio Station KA6KIL, expressing his opinion regarding sanctioning the proposed antenna installation ordinance in the event of a disaster, was presented. The City Clerk advised the Council that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Warren H. Clark (W6COK) in support of the subject ordinance. Volume 42 - Page 77 x I x Ix Ix I ly x xl MINUTES March 14, 1988 Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 88 -17 88 -17, amending the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards to allow structures located within a portion of Industrial Site 3A to be constructed in excess of the 35 ft. height limit up to a maximum of 50 ft., subject to the approval of a use permit; accept the Environmental Document; and sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3308. 2. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Ord 88 -6 regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -6, Zoning /Radio being, Antennas (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.77 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 627), PCA 627 was presented for second reading with report from the Planning Department. Letters received after the February 22, 1988 agenda was printed, in opposition to proposed ordinance from Anita Meister Boyd and Seaview Community Association, were presented. Letter from student Jeremy Sparks, ham -radio operator, with suggestion regarding interference on TV's received from subject antennas, etc., was presented. Letter from E. P. Garrison opposing adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 88 -6, citing declining property values and interference with comfortable enjoyment of his property, was presented. Letter from Raymond E. Berg in favor of proposed ordinance, was presented. Letter from James B. (Jay) Stoddard of Amateur Radio Station KA6KIL, expressing his opinion regarding sanctioning the proposed antenna installation ordinance in the event of a disaster, was presented. The City Clerk advised the Council that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Warren H. Clark (W6COK) in support of the subject ordinance. Volume 42 - Page 77 COUNCIL. MEMBERS 1 A� • • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 14, 1988 The City Attorney, at the request of Council, offered information that the proposed ordinance was made necessary by a 1985 Federal Communications Commission ruling which restricted the right of cities and counties to regulate ham radio operators- -that cities and counties could regulate ham radio antennas, only if they adopted an ordinance which meets three criteria, i.e., based on legitimate health, safety and aesthetic considerations, that the ordinance accommodates the needs of the ham radio operator and that the ordinance represents the least intrusive means available to achieve the goals of the cities or counties. The City Attorney explained that the first portion of the subject ordinance represents the interests of the City of Newport Beach in regulating the ham radio operator antennas. The next part of the ordinance provides that certain ham radios and facilities are permitted use so long as the antennas and mast meet certain requirements. The important elements are that the height of the antenna cannot exceed 75 feet when in operation, and the antenna cannot be higher than 28 feet when not in operation and it must be equipped with a motorized device that will assist in raising and lowering the antenna to the appropriate height. The Development Standards also prohibit the antenna from being located in the front 40% of the lot and also prohibits its location and setbacks. If a particular antenna does not meet these standards, the operator must obtain a permit from the Planning Director, and that permit would be granted if strict compliance with those development standards unreasonably interfered with the applicant's ability to receive or transmit signals; would impose unreasonable costs (equipment) on the operator; or was not necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the City. The City Attorney cautioned that overzealous regulation can result in an invalid ordinance, and that means no protection at all. Volume 42 - Page 78 COUNCIL MEMBERS • • IT11 >h7 March 14, 1988 IRS Jeffrey Stern, 2020 Marlin Way, Zoning/ addressed the Council, stating that he Radio is new to the community and a ham radio Antennas operator. For the last 18 years, while living in Los Angeles, he was involved in emergency preparedness, and the last seven years as County Fire Commissioner. He was involved in almost every emergency and disaster in that area, and amateur radio played a major role when communications became a problem. He complimented the City in the writing of the proposed ordinance, stating that it was very well written but a point of concern is the provision stating that a lowering device must be motorized. If all power is lost, this would become a problem, and the Council should take into consideration a battery powered system. Bob Williamson, 1906 Seadrift Drive, addressed the Council stating that obtaining a ham radio operators license requires proficiency in electronics and rules and regulations, Morse Code, and serve as a source of public service communications in time of natural disasters, flood and earthquake. Particularly in this area he has done considerable work in the Maritime Project, effecting rescues at sea by way of amateur radios. He supports the proposed ordinance and has worked for the past two years to get this ordinance before the Council. The motorized antenna raising and lowering was a compromise with the City, and he agrees that the antennas should be lowered to circumvent wind damage. He asked that the representative group of amateur radio operators in attendance tonight to stand and be recognized. He further stated that there are approximately 500 amateur radio operators in the City. He then introduced Dr. Wayne Overbeck, who is an officer with the American Radio Relay League, to answer questions of the Council. Dr. Wayne Overbeck, Professor of Communications, California State University, Fullerton, introduced himself and addressed the Council. He stated that there are a number of things that can be done regarding interference picked up from amateur radios by installing filters on television sets and telephones, but there must be cooperation between the amateur radio operator and the neighbor. Ile added that Volume 42 - Page 79 COUNCIL MEMBERS • is • MINUTES March 14, 1988 the interference picked up is almost always caused by a design deficiency in the receiving equipment, or the telephone that causes it to pick up the signal, and it can be shown that an antenna that is 24 feet high, which is the current limit, produces a much stronger and severe signal rather than would a higher antenna. Eugene C. Kaliher, 1218 Essex Lane, addressed the Council stating that he moved to Westcliff 20 years ago so that he could enjoy the aesthetic value of the area with no interference from overhead utilities, and objects strongly to the amateur radio antennas. He suggested that the antennas stay at 24 feet, and raised higher only in case of an emergency. Glen Nelson, 1300 Cambridge Lane, addressed the Council, and stated that he is opposed to the ordinance which would allow an antenna height of 75 feet in a residential neighborhood. He added that, like his neighbor, he too favored the particular location of his residence because of the undergrounding of utilities. He further added that the long term effect on the aesthetics will not be known unless there is more time devoted to study the issue. Council inquired as to what would happen if the City did nothing regarding the subject issue of amateur radio antennas, and the City Attorney advised that the ham radio operator could erect the antenna to whatever height he felt he needed and the City would have no power to control or regulate the result. He further offered the example of a lawsuit filed against Newport Reach four years ago that sought to invalidated the City's ordinance, and which was settled within the perimeters of the proposed ordinance. He would hope that the input from those who are knowledgeable in the field of amateur radio communications would focuse on justifying the 75 foot height limit contained in the proposed ordinance, indicating the need to get above certain geographical features so that the operator can communicate and receive signals, and the accommodation how the mast material is purchased (24 foot sections, four sections) to afford maximum efficiency. Volume 42 - Page 80 Zoning /Radio Antennas COUNCIL. MEMBERS 0 • MINUTES March 14, 1988 John Kubas, 4511 Camden Drive, representing Villageway Management, Inc., addressed the Council stating that as a home owner, he would be very unhappy with the negative aesthetic effect resulting from amateur radio antennas. He commented that for the past two months they have been working on a resolution requesting that the City require all plans submitted by a resident of a homeowners association for exterior modification or structural changes, be stamped approved by that association's architectual committee prior to obtaining approval from the City. The City Attorney, in answer to Council inquiry regarding CCBR's imposed on a homeowners association, stated that the Federal Communications Commission is not interested in entering into private contractual agreements. He commented that the City could not consider Mr. Kubas' resolution as there are some residents who are not required to belong to a homeowners association, and that the City is not physically equipped to notify all homeowners associations. He offered that the proposed ordinance, if approved, would not affect the right of the homeowners associations to enforce their CC8R's, and that the associations have more power than the City to regulate amateur radio antennas. The City Manager suggested it may be possible within three or six months, through the City's computer process, that a notification process could be effected, but there would be a cost involved, which would require the help of the homeowners associations for funds. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, owner of property in Newport Beach, addressed the Council, stating that he did not agree with the letter listed on the agenda claiming loss of property value as a result of the amateur radio antennas. He cited the need for the amateur radio operators in time of emergency. In addition, he suggested that the City make available, . at a nominal cost, daily computer printouts of the building permits issued. Volume 42 - Page 81 Zoning/ Radio Antennas COUNCIL MEMBERS • n CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 14, 1988 Tom Orlando, #15 Balboa Coves, addressed the Council, stating that he was at home viewing the Council meeting on cable, and as an amateur radio operator, was prompted to appear and offer the fact that his homeowners association does not have an antenna requirement, but they have a satelite dish ordinance and setback ordinance. He felt that passing the proposed ordinance should not be delayed, and that the homeowners associations should redo their CCBR's if need be, and not ask the City to notify them of building permits. Dr. Wayne Overbeck addressed the Council again upon invitation with regard to antenna height, stating that the angle from the earth and the antenna producing the main lobe of a radio signal above the horizon determines the distance; i.e., the higher the antenna is the lower the earth's angle will be, and this produces a longer distance an operator can communicate. He stated there is a dramatic difference as to how a radio antenna will perform at 75 feet vs. 50 feet, or compared to a height like 25 feet, which makes long- distance communication virtually impossible. He added that 75 feet is a trade -off based on the size of towers that are commercially available to support antennas, stating that when the amateur operator is away, the antenna would be down, and the idea of motorization would be for the convenience of lowering and raising the antenna. He stated that many amateur radio operators have portable generators in case of power failure, and that,the motorized tower equipment is shipped with a hand winch to use in case the motor failed. He reiterated the fact that if an antenna is raised to a higher limit, the less interference you have with television and other communication devices, and the amateur radio operators try very hard to minimize this problem through their transmitters. Mayor Pro Tem Hart asked the Antenna Committee if there was any discussion by them with regard to a moratorium limiting the number per year of future antennas throughout the City, and the response was in the negative. Volume 42 - Page 82 COUNCIL MEMBERS G\IN\A • Motion • x MINUTES March 14, 1988 The City Attorney stated that the ordinance proposes a 28 foot height limit when the antenna is not in operation, as it was staff's understanding that most amateur radio use occurred during late evening and early morning hours. After it was determined that no one else wished to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Sansone stated that during his review of the 500 amateur radio operators names given to him, it was determined that the 250 -275 that have licenses (novices or technicians) cannot transmit on the higher frequencies. He stated that it costs approximately $5,000 to $6,000 to put up a 75 foot antenna, and the majority of antennas, for example, in the area of Dover Shores, the height is about 40 feet and the proposed ordinance does specify that only antennas above 40 feet have to be motorized. He further added that for the past two years the Antenna Committee has been working with the Planning staff, and he did not feel there was a need for any more study. He stated that in view of the fact that court cases brought against a city. and county have resulted in favor of the amateur radio operator, he proposed the motion to adopt Ordinance 88 -6, as written, stating that with the ordinance there is control, and without it, the 24 foot regulation that the City now has could be challenged in court. Council Member Strauss stated that if for some reason the City was not satisfied with the height limit, could the ordinance be changed after it was approved, by amending the height limit of the antenna from 75 feet to 40 or 50 feet. The City Attorney stated that they could, as long as the height regulation reasonably accommodated the needs of the amateur radio operator. Council Member Turner asked for clarification regarding conflicting testimony for motorized equipment, stating that he would like to amend Page 4, Section A, line three of the proposed ordinance to include "...shall be equipped with both a mechanical and a motorized device..." and also to include a provision to Section 20.77.035, (7) "At least 10 days prior to the issuance of a permit, the Planning Director shall Volume 42 - Page 83 /Radio COUNCIL MEMBERS 1� u Motion All Ayes • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x MINUTES March 14, 1988 notify all owners of property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 100 feet of the property on which the proposed antenna is to be located, as well as any applicable homeowners association." The City Attorney advised that the proposed revisions would require a reintroduction of the ordinance; therefore Council Member Sansone withdrew his motion for adoption. Motion was made to reintroduce proposed Ordinance 88 -6 as amended, and pass to second reading on March 28, 1988. 3. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and City Council review of an appeal by LYNNE VALENTINE, Balboa Island, from the denial of the Planning Commission on January 21, 1988, of MODIFICATION NO. 3352, a request to permit the retention of an "as built" wall and gate which vary in height from 45± inches to 53± inches and which encroach ten feet into the required ten foot front yard setback, where the Municipal Code limits the height of fences and gates in the front yard setback to no more than three feet. Property located at 106 Garnet Avenue, on Balboa Island. Appeal application from Lynne Valentine, was presented. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, communication was received from Victoria L. Miller of 108 Garnet, with a set of colored photos; and Hannah E. Flynn of 110 Garnet, regarding the subject appeal application. The City Manager briefly summarized for Council that the applicant is asking for a modification to the zoning code, as the "as built" wall exceeds the 36 -inch permitted height in the front yard setback. Lynne Valentine, 106 Garnet Avenue, Balboa Island, applicant, addressed the Council stating that she did check with the City and her neighbor before she made the improvements. She stated there are many instances on Balboa Island where the limits are exceeded, and as long as there were no complaints from Volume 42 - Page 84 3352/Valen- tine (94) • Motion • Ayes Noes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS xlxlxlxlxIX MINUTES March 14, 1988 the neighbors, she was told that there Modi is no enforcement. Further, she 3352 felt that the decorative addition has enhanced the area and she has gone to great expense, but that this was done for safety reasons also. John Miller, 108 Garnet, addressed the Council.objecting to Modification 3352, stating that it is not an "as built" fence, but a recent addition on top of another fence. He also stated that along with his view being impaired, two of his neighbors are also affected. He stated that any obstruction of views changes the value of property. He asked for enforcement of the City's zoning code ordinance. Hannah Flynn, owner of 110 Garnet, addressed the Council stating that the house is rented and her family occupies it, and that she has been a resident of Balboa Island for 30 years. She stated that the applicant had full knowledge that the fence she put up was not in compliance with the code, but went ahead anyway. Ms. Flynn added that she is most adversely affected by the addition, and asks that staff's and the Planning Commission's decision be sustained. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Discussion ensued, wherein it was determined that there is a tremendous responsibility on the part of Council to make a decision regarding a conflict with the City's existing code. It was suggested that the code be reviewed and changed, as practically all of Balboa Island is affected by the floodplain. x Council Member Maurer stated in view of the fact that there are many homes on Balboa Island, citing Apolena and S. Bay, that have been approved with modifications much higher than 36 inches, he would make the motion to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission, and approve the subject appeal for modification 3352. Council Member Strauss commented that he felt the Council should enforce the existing code requirement that is within their right to do regarding the subject appeal, and then review the code and make necessary changes. 4 x The motion was voted on and carried. Volume 42 - Page 85 ication COUNCIL MEMBERS \IN\X � • .• • • �' March 14, 1988 MINUTES Public hearing and City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. 3086(A), a request of SENATOR D. G. ANDERSON, Honolulu, Hawaii, to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of a multiple use development on property located at 2901 West Coast Highway, in the "Recreational and Marine Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. Said approval permitted the construction of a building that exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit and exceeded the gross structural area limit of .5 times the buildable area of the site. Said approval also permitted the establishment of a full service restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment, and the approval of an off -site parking agreement I -or a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. The proposed amendment includes a request to permit dancing in conjunction with the existing restaurant operation and to amend a previously established condition which limited the number of musicians associated with live entertainment within the restaurant, so as to increase the number of permitted musicians. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Manager stated that basically, there are two requests, (1) The applicant wishes to exceed the number of musicians from three to maximum of eight; and (2) they wish to have dancing within the facility. He stated the Planning Commission approved the project, subject to imposing the Condition of 18 additional parking spaces because of the dancing. The City Manager continued that when the Planning Commission made their findings and conclusions, the staff had not analyzed the "as built" plans of the facility. As with all large projects, the City requires "as built" plans, and then they look at the setback, height, parking, landscaping and whatever the conditions, to make sure that the plans comply. In looking at the "as built" plans, through striping, and with the use of exterior area, they have only 14 additional parking spaces; the Planning Commission requires 18. If the Council desires to sustain the action of the Volume 42 - Page-86 3086(A) (88) COUNCIL MEMBERS A A • • MINUTES March 14, 1988 Planning Commission, one parking space for each 36.2 square feet of area would require a change in condition, and staff has made this finding since examining the "as built" plans and after approval by the Planning Commission. As far as the deficiency of 13 spaces for the daytime operation of the facility, this can be handled administratively through restriping, or require that they do not use some of the exterior balcony areas, as this was a condition imposed in the "as built" plans. The Planning Director, at the request of Council, explained that on the "as built" plans the applicant had shown a certain distance between walls or posts in the parking structure, and in actual measurements, the result was that they were minus one or two feet and this area could not be counted as a parking space. Also, the City required some extra subterranean drainage facilities which took more vertical parking space than was originally anticipated. One thing in the applicant's favor was that they built the parking lot larger than was originally approved by the Planning Commission, but the surplus parking is for evening use. Joseph Lancor, architect representing the John Dominus Group, addressed the Council, stating that concerns regarding the acoustical issue will be addressed by Mr. Greve, the acoustical engineer. He stated that because the facility is not fully leased, the parking "crunch" doesn't exist yet. He concurs with the feelings of Council regarding the marine businesses, as they need all the support and help they can get. He added that the acoustical engineer will talk about the number of musicians, and stated that the type of music will be nostalgic of the 50's and 60's, and light jazz, and the fact that because good entertainers are hard to come by, they want to be able to accommodate a larger group of musicians, as well as the usual three or four man group. In reference to the Riverside /Avon parcel, the sidewalks, gutter and curb are not in yet, and the engineer is drawing the plans and this should be ready soon. Fred Greve, principal in the firm of Mestre, Greve and Associates, addressed the Council stating that they conducted noise measurements at John Dominus Volume 42 - Page 87 3086(A) COUNCIL MEMBERS • is on 40 Ayes x March 14, 1988 Restaurant a week ago, both inside the U/P 3086(A) restaurant, and at three residences located outside the restaurant. One measurement was conducted on Lido Isle, near the bridge before going to Lido Isle and the condominium site west of the property. Basically, the results were that the music inside was loud, but that it couldn't be heard at any of the residential sites where measurements were taken. It is their understanding that bringing in more musicians really is not the intent to increase the volume of the music, but for more variety. Doubling the number of musicians in the band, they estimate as a worse case, would increase the noise level by 3 decibels, and they still feel that it would not be heard in the surrounding residential areas. They are not expecting any problems, but there are some adjustments that could be made, such as closing some of the doors, repositioning the band, putting controls on the volume, etc. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to sustain the decision of the Planning Commmission with minor modifications to Condition #4 - "...the City feels at this time, that the parking space at 36.2 sq. ft. for the restaurant would not be detrimental...." and Condition #8 - "...applicant completes the public improvements and private improvements on Avon Street.." Council Member Strauss questioned staff regarding how the City could hold the applicant to reduce the use by 560 sq. ft. because of the change in parking, wherein the Planning Director stated that this would involve roping off a portion of the third floor restaurant. The staff would work with the applicant, and this is based on the City relying upon the judgment and honesty of the owner, that he can have only a certain amount of square feet in operation. This is not a specific solution, but a flexible one. The motion was voted on and carried. 5. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and U/P 3290 City Council review of USE PERMIT NO. Isailovic 3290, a request of MIROSLAVA AND JORDAN (88) ISAILOVIC, Anaheim Hills, to permit the establishment of a take -out restaurant Volume 42 - Page 88 COUNCIL MEMBERS • • _ MINUTES March 14, 1988 facility specializing in muffins and other baked food items and soft drinks on property located at 3431 Via Oporto, in the Lido Marina Village; zoned C -1 -H. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off - street parking spaces. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. The City Manager stated that the concern is that the Planning Commission waived the 13 Code required off -site parking spaces, as the use would be for walk -in trade. Council Member Strauss stated that just recently, the Council denied a use permit for a similar type of organization because of parking. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, the Police Department was concerned that patrons would park illegally on Via Oporto as they run in for a muffin and coffee to go. Council Member Turner commented that the City is long overdue in changing the restaurant ordinance as it applies to the small operation - -the required parking is unrealistic. He would urge the Planning Commission to expedite this process. Furthermore, he does not feel that the small operation attracts the kind of business that requires off -site parking. Mayor Cox stated that the franchise type of convenience operation is on.the increase whether it be yogurt, muffins, cookies, etc., and is having an impact on the village -type shopping areas in Newport Beach. Jerry King, J. A. King and Associates, 550 Newport Center Drive, representing the applicant, addressed the Council stating that after reviewing the City records, there has never been 100% parking use in the Lido Marina Village, except when there is a boat show. On February 8, the Planning Commission unanimously approved this particular use and felt that it was an attraction unto itself, and that this particular food use did not represent an intensification, but more of a convenience for those people who are visiting the area. Volume 42 - Page 89 3290 COUNCIL MEMBERS )'k "G 5, o¢ �1 • 11 u 11 11 11 IT, IILtii *1 March 14, 1988 Mr. King also stated that he was aware of the Police Department's attention to the fire lanes throughout the Village. This issue was brought to the attention of the owners, and the current management. They have staff on site permanently and will help in the enforcement on Via Oporto, where there would be adequate parking so that people could quickly come in through the alley way, park along the 30- minute limited space and exit through the entrance area of the parking structure. Sandy Willford, shop owner adjacent to the proposed business, addressed the Council, and stated that the 30- minute limited parking was originally designed in such a way as to provide adequate delivery to the shops, and is now being used by people shopping in the Village, or working there. He asks that the Council defer action on the proposed business for approximately one month until the City staff and the shop owners can resolve the parking problem. Jerry King, addressed the Council again, stating that thirty days delay would mean that Traweek would probably lose the tenant and would have to look for someone else to occupy the space. He added that the vacancy rate in the Village is an indication of the public's desire for this type of specialty service.. Council Member Plummer inquired as to whether the new businesses coming in will have parking, wherein the Planning Director explained that for all the spaces in the Village, those spaces have already been allocated whether there is a tenant there or not, which was done initially when the Village was constructed and various use permits were approved. Also, the use permit before the Council tonight is going to occupy a space that formerly had three parking spaces assigned when it was originally a commercial- retail use and staff anticipates that this is adequate for the proposed business coming in. Sandy Willford addressed the Council again, and urged for a postponement of the proposed use permit approval, as he felt the entire parking problem in the Village should be resolved before any more parking spaces are recognized. Volume 42 - Page 90 U/P 3290 COUNCIL MEMBERS S O G9y�CG�4A� O,F �v bon Motion x Ayes x x Noes • Motion All Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x I xi x I x I x I x x MINUTES March 14, 1988 IN® ; After it was determined that no one else U/P 3290 wished to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Strauss made a motion to continue a decision on Use Permit 3290 to April 11, 1988, and if nothing is decided on the parking structure, then the Council would plead it on its own merit. Mayor Cox stated that he could not support the motion in anticipation that the use of the parking structure would be resolved within 30 days, adding that the applicant deserves a right to conduct a business. Council Member Turner stated that he could not support the motion for the same reason, that the parking problem could be resolved in that short time and this would place a hardship on the applicant. He felt the Council should act now, and therefore, made a sutstitute motion to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission, and approve Use Permit 3290, which carried. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following actions were taken as indicated, except for those items removed. 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Pass to second reading on March 28, 1988: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -7, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REPEALING SECTION 3.13 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANNEXATION FEES [Report from the City Attorney]. (b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 88 -8, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.50 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION [Report from Building Department]. Volume 42 - Page 91 1) 88 -7 88 -8 d Damg COUNCIL MEMBERS • �J 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 14, 1988 2. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION: (a) Resolution No. 88 -18 endorsing and Legislati supporting legislation as necessary SoCstAirQ and revision of the New Source Res 88 -18 Review /Emission Reduction Credit (48) Regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for publicly -owned wastewater treatment facilities. (Letter from Rourke & Woodruff of 2/16/88) (b) Resolution No. 88 -19 authorizing General Sery the General Services Director to Disaster Rel make application for financial Res 88 -19 assistance for Disaster Relief. (44) (Report from General Services Director) (c) Resolution No. 88 -20 requiring vehicles on Alta Vista Drive to stop at Bison Avenue. (Report from Traffic Affairs Committee) 3. CONTRACTS /AGREEMENTS: (a) Award Contract No. 2681 in the amount of $279,611 to Signal Maintenance, Inc., Anaheim, California, for Traffic Signal Modifications at Various Locations. (Report from Public Works /Traffic Engineering) (b) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Cooperative Agreement with the County of Orange for Irvine Avenue Resurfacing. (Report from Public Works Department) 4. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral as indicated: (a) To Police Department for reply, letter from Central Newport Beach Community Association President with suggestions to curb Friday and weekend "cruising" on Balboa Boulevard. (b) To Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department for inclusion in the records, letter from Mary Everett Burton regarding proposed building of sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard, between 2901 and 2919, Corona del Mar. Volume 42 - Page 92 les 88 -20 (85) 38) (70) 1(62) Sgnl Av B1 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES c G�'%G�'� March 14, 1988 ROLL CALL (� INDEX— (c) To Public Works for reply, letter PW /DeAnza from Paul H. Morgan, Attorney MHSpc9219 - representing Sharon A. Stockley, (74) owner of DeAnza Mobile Home Space • No. 219 concerning right -of -way acquisition for widening of Pacific Coast Highway from Jamboree Road through Bayside Drive. (d) To Pending Legislation and Legislation Procedural Ethics Committee, (48) requested action regarding SB 987 (Dills), and proposed changes in the current "baseline" law being pushed by Southern California Gas Company. (e) To Mayor for support, letter from CA State California State Coastal Cnsrvncy Conservancy concerning Orange (28) County request for a conservancy grant. 5. COMMUNICATIONS - For referral to the City Clerk for inclusion in the records: (a) Michael M. Drucker's letter to Robert E. Badham questioning the necessity of covering the reservoir below Harbor Ridge. • (b) Luvena, Hayton (Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce) to CalTrans District Director protesting the extremely dangerous situation as a result of the south bound merge lane at Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue in Corona del Mar. 6. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES - For denial and (36) confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Rudy Corral alleging residence was Corral not up to code, but signed off by City Building Inspector on November 13, 1987 for property at 369 Newport Glen Court. (b) Lewis F. Davis seeking Davis reimbursement of towing fee, storage and two parking citations sustained on January 22, 23 and 24, 1988 at Jamboree and San Joaquin • Hills Road. Volume 42 - Page 93 COUNCIL MEMBERS ti � .AGE `G �A O� q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 14, 1988 MINUTES Brien (c) Timothy S. Deutsch alleging property damage to vehicle by roofing pieces which flew off from Utilities Department parking lot roof on February 17, 1988, during recent wind storm. (d) George Hall alleging property damage to his vehicle as a result of collision with City Utilities truck at Marian and Warwick Lanes on September 10, 1987. (e) A. Grant Howald alleging property damage as a result of Police Department employee hitting claimant's vehicle on the passenger side at Marguerite and Seaview, Corona del Mar, on March 2, 1988. (f) Judy Mertz alleging damage to parked vehicle as a result of tree limb falling on car at 702 Narcissus on December 28, 1987. (g) Brian J. O'Brien alleging vehicle towed in error on December 23, , 1987; seeking reimbursement for citation, towing, surcharge and damage by towing company. (h) Charles William Roman alleging personal injuries as a result of being rear -ended by Police vehicle at Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road on January 24, 1988. (i) Elaine Schirmer alleging property damage to vehicle as a result of City employee backing up into claimant's vehicle while parked at 870 Santa Barbara Drive on February 1, 1988. The following are Leaves To Present Late Claims: (j) Barbara Aune (Barbara Ann Ward) seeking indemnity from claim filed by Flavia Iezza as a result of accident on May 23, 1986 at intersection of Balboa Boulevard and Alvarado Street. (k) Betty J. Rez and Donald H. Rez alleging personal injuries as a • result of tripping and falling into planter box cut into sidewalk area on Marcus Street on July 22, 1987. Volume 42 .- Page 94 Brien COUNCIL MENDERS C% `\ ®¢ �G • • • KkAWSIM19M o March 14, 1988 7. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS - For denial and confirmation of the City Clerk's referral to the claims adjuster: (a) Joel A. Cooper and Robert E. Brain (dba Cooper and Brain, Incorporated), Case No. 49- 68 -93, Orange County Superior Court against City of Newport Beach; Sampson Oil Company. Claim for indemnity denied by Council on September 14, 1987. (b) Kevin William Marx, Case No. 549565, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, dated February 28, 1988. (No record of claim filed prior to receiving the subject summons on March 1, 1988) 8. REQUEST TO APPROVE /FILL PERSONNEL (66) VACANCIES: (Report from the City Manager) (a) One Parking Control Officer, Traffic Division. (b) One Library Clerk I, Library Department. (c) Two Groundsworkers I, Parks Division. (d) One Parking Meter Serviceworker, Traffic Division. (e) One Secretary to the City Manager, Administration. 9. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - For Council information and approval: /Brain (a) Report from City Attorney regarding Rutan/ Request of RUTAN & TUCKER (Contract ITucker No. 2170) for increase in fees and C -2170 housing lawsuits. (38) 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For March 28, 1988: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE R &B Towing AND NECESSITY - Request of R & B (70) Towing pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 5.13, relating to tow truck regulations. (Memo from License Supervisor) Volume 42 - Page 95 COUNCIL MEMBERS A \11\� ti � • • March 14, 1988 11. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - Uphold staff's recommendation to approve temporary street closure, Application #88 -028 for Duncan McIntosh Co. Boat Show at Via Oporto in the Lido Marina Village on April 12 thru April 25, 1988. (Report from License Supervisor) 12. HARBOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - (Reports from the Marine Department) (a) Application #0115 -1014 - Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) Uphold staff's recommendation for approval subject to conditions listed in the staff report for Application #124 -3400 by Duncan MacIntosh to temporarily revise the commercial docks bayward of 3400 Via Oporto. 13. WIDENING PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FROM MACARTHUR BOULEVARD TO JAMBOREE ROAD (CONTRACT NO. 2565); FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT - Accept the work; and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion and release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable sections of the Civil Code. (Report from Public Works) 14. RESUBDIVISION NO. 795 - Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 795; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond (No. SC125746) and in six months, provided no claims filed, release the Labor and Material Bond (No. SC125746). (Report from Public Works) 15. TRACT NO. 12873 WITH PARK PLACE - Approve an Agreement for nonstandard improvements in Tract No. 12873 with Park Place, a California General Partnership; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement and record same. (Report from Public Works) 16. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 14 - Accept the public improvements constructed in conjunction with Site Plan Review No. 14; and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Surety in the form of a Passbook Account (Account No. 7- 127087 -0) and in six Volume 42 - Page 96 /Apli# (65) Perm (51) 124 -3400 ?CH Widng/ 3acA Bl- Jamboree Rd (C -2565) (38) 1(84) 795 12873 Pln Rv • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS • G�'E�G�.v O� �G�P �2 GD�� March 14, 1988 MINUTES months, provided no claims filed, release the Labor and Material Surety in the form of a Passbook Account (Account No. 7- 127086 -2). (Report from Public Works) 17. MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION IN CORONA DEL CdM Misc MAR (CONTRACT NO. 2646) - Approve the Cnstr plans and specifications; affirm the C -2646 Negative Declaration of Environmental (38) Impact and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids to be opened at 11 a,m., on March 31, 1988. (Report from Public Works) 18. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - Approve an Permit/ Encroachment Permit for nonstandard 21st P1 improvements regarding APPLICATION OF Encroac SID SOFFER (to allow an existing front (65) door to encroach 36 inches into the public right -of -way of 21st Place when the door is opened; to provide and maintain a bench in the public right -of -way adjacent to the door; and to permit an existing rear stairway to encroach approximately six (6) feet into an alley corner cut -off until such time as a utility pole is removed and utilities are undergrounded) subject to the execution of an Encroachment Agreement for nonstandard improvements; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject Agreement and record same. (Report from Public Works) 19. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: (25) BA -065, $1,455 - Transfer in Budget Appropriations for Harbor View Homes Special Refuse Collection; General Services- Refuse Fund. (Memorandum from (44) General Services Director and request from Harbor View and Newport Beach Community Associations) BA -066, $15,000 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and Revenue Estimates for replacement of car totaled in rear -end accident; Finance - Administration and Accounting Fund. BA -067, $270,000 - Increase and Transfer in Budget Appropriations and Increase in Revenue Estimates for City's portion and contributions from The Irvine Company and Orange County, for dredging the navigation channel in Newport Bay between Pacific Coast Highway bridge and the main channel; Upper Newport Bay Sediment Control- General Fund. Volume 42 - Page 97 COUNCIL MEMBERS •`GAS • Motion All Ayes • Motion All Ayes 0 X x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 13, 1988 BA -068, $82,161.54 - Increase in Budget Appropriations for first of six monthly payments of Certificate of Participation Loan; Parking Meter - General Fund. G. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. The following items were scheduled for public hearing on March 28, 1988, after motion was made to forward attachments to Council in the Wednesday (March 16) mail delivery, regarding: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -3(C) - Request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN for the DOWNCOAST NEWPORT BEACH AREA (IRVINE COAST) so as to incorporate the changes to the plan adopted by the County of Orange and the California Coastal Commission; and LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 13 - Request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend the LAND USE PLAN OF THE NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM so as to establish a land use plan for the DOWNCOAST NEWPORT BEACH AREA. (Report from the Planning Department) 2. Report from Marine Department recommending denial of application for reasons listed in the staff report for Application #0115 -1014 by Ben Bukewighe to build a cantilevered deck bayward of 1014 Polaris Drive, was presented. Brion Jeannette, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Bukewighe, addressed the Council and stated that his applicant would like to have more time to comply with the legal aspects of this particular situation, and requested a continuance. The City Attorney advised that the Council may not have the discretion to make a decision, and recommended that public testimony be reserved for the continuance. Motion was made to defer action until April 11, 1988, at the request of the applicant. H. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: None. Volume 42 - Page 98 'IPA 87 -3(C) (45) 14 13 Perm 115- COUNCIL MEMBERS y c+o � 0 on Ayes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x MINUTES March 14, 1988 I. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. APPEAL OF BILL BURK from Administrative permit /Burk denial of application to construct a Encroachm 36- inch -high patio encroaching 3_ feet (65) 4- inches into the public right -of -way, adjacent to 219 Grand Canal, was presented. Report from Public Works Department, with correspondence dated January 22, 1988 from Bill Burk, was presented. The City Manager summarized that on page three of the staff report the drawing depicts what is proposed, and that is an encroachment beyond the property line 3.37 feet, and on top of that a fence 36 inches high, which, from the sidewalk, would give a 6 foot high structure. The Public Works Director commented that there is a raised patio of 3 feet in height, rather than at grade level, and the 3 foot fence above that elevation, and staff's concern is that if the sea wall has to be replaced, a raised patio, plus a 3 foot wall will make it difficult for the work to be done. Motion was made to uphold the recommendation of staff for denial of subject appeal. J. CURRENT BUSINESS: None. Meeting adjourned to closed session to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Section 54956.9(A) and B(1). Council reconvened at 11:30 p.m., and immediately adjourned. ty The agenda for this meeting was posted on March 10, 1988, at 11:00 a.m., on the City Hall Bulletin rd located outside of the City Ne o t Beth AQministra- tion Buildi�i"e. 1 I j AR I Volume 42 - Page