Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1995 - Regular MeetingROLL CALL Present Motion All Ayes Motion Alm Aye s • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES IEX RCVULAX L.VUNF-IL Mtt111YV q� u7 x J PLACE: Council Chambers F } ¢ W C9 W > 1-4 W TIME: 7:00 P.M. QaWWO�, 3 ra x 0 o 0 z 0 DATE: June 12, 1995 IND W Q= CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 p.m. (Refer to separate agenda from City Attorney] CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED: None. RECESSED AT 6:50 P.M. RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. for regular meeting. Pledge of Allegiance. Invocation by Reverend Don Oliver, Chaplain, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Presbyterian. Council Member O'Neil presented a Proclamation to Inez and Grant Howald in honor of their 60th Wedding Anniversary on June 15, 1995. x x x x x x x ROLL CALL x Reading of Minutes of May 22, 1995, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. x Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. MATTERS WHICH A COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING: • Mayor Hedges requested staff meet with Balboa Merchants and Owners Association to bring the on- street parking meter rates in line with the new rates at the Palm Street parking lot. MATTERS WHICH A COUNCIL MEMBER MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT., • Mayor Hedges requested staff meet with the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission to evaluate the hours when dogs can be walked on the beach during the Summer months, suggesting the hours between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m., and between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. be considered. In response to the above, the City Manager advised that two letters have been received recently regarding this same issue which he forwarded to the Marine Director and Police Chief for input, and will now transmit to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission for their review and recommendation. Volume 49 - Page 212 IEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL cri Q�cr0 A L..I ¢ XMXUC70 W W 0 wW _j ? June 12, 1995 INDEX CONSENT CALENDAR Motion x The following items were approved, except for those Hems All Ayes removed: ORDINANCE(S) FOR INTRODUCTION Schedule for public hearing on June 26, 1995: 1. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 2. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 3. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 4. Removed from the Consent Calendar. S. Removed from the Consent Calendar. Pass to second reading on June 26, 1995: 6. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -24, being, Ord 95 -24 (53) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION • 1.12.020 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO ISSUE CITATIONS. [Report from Assistant City Attorney] 7. Removed from the Consent Calendar. RESOLUTION(S) FOR ADOPTION 8. Resolution No. 95 -55, declaring that WEEDS AND Fire /Weed OTHER PUBLIC NUISANCES exist upon streets, alleys, Abatement sidewalks, parkways and private property within Res 95 -55 the city, declaring that said weeds and public (41) nuisances must be abated, SETTING PUBLIC HEARING on the 10th day of July, 1995, of which time the City Council will consider protests from persons objecting to the proposed destruction or removal of such public nuisances by the city and directing the Fire Chief to give notice of the passage of this resolution and of the public hearing. [Memorandum from Fire Chief] 9. Removed from the Consent Calendar. • 10. Resolution No. 95 -57, establishing OFF - STREET Parking PARKING METER ZONES AND REGULATIONS for the Regulations operation of parking meters in the NEW PALM Res 95 -57 STREET PARKING LOT and rescinding Resolution 94- (85 ) 32. [Memorandum from Public Works Department/Traffic Engineering] Volume 49 - Page 213 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MTNTJTFI,q ROLL CALL cl: A¢ w:KMM000 C[:0 w w o >W o? _ June 12, 1995 INDEX 11. Resolution No. 95.58, establishing MARINE AVENUE Traffic /Marin • AS A ONE -WAY STREET for northbound traffic from Ave One -Way South Bayfront to Park Avenue and rescinding Res 95 -58 Resolution No. 6659. [Memorandum from Public (85 ) Works Department/Traffic Engineering] 12. Resolution No. 95 -59, establishing administrative Fees /Jail POLICE JAIL BOOKING FEES. [Report from Police Booking Department] Res 95 -59 (40 13. Resolution Nos. 95 -60, and 95 -61, allowing City of C- 2065/2059 Newport Beach to elect to be subject to the PUBLIC PERS Medical EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT only & Hospital with respect to Members of the NEWPORT BEACH Care Act EMPLOYEES LEAGUE (NBEL) and NEWPORT BEACH Res 95 -60/61 CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NBCEA), and fixing (38) the employer's contribution for employees and employer's contribution for annuitants at different amounts, and rescinding Resolution No. 95 -40. [Memorandum from Personnel Director] 14. Resolution No. 95 -62, allowing City of Newport C -2051 Beach to elect to be subject to the PUBLIC PERS Medical EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT only & Hospital with respect to members of the NEWPORT BEACH Care Act • PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES Res 95 -62 ASSOCIATION (NBP &TEA), and fixing the employer's (3 8 ) contribution for employees and employer's contribution for annuitants at different amounts, and rescinding Resolution No. 95-40. [Refer to report with agenda item 13] 15. Resolution No. 95 -63 regarding OFFSHORE OIL Offshore Oil MORATORIUM. [Memorandum from Assistant City Res 95 -63 Manager] (87 ) 16. Resolution No. 95 -64 appointing the City Council Council Ad Appointments Committee as the COUNCILMANIC Hoc /Redistric REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE. [Memorandum from ing Cmte Assistant City Manager] Res 95 -64 (24 17. Resolution No. 95 -65, authorizing the 4TH OF JULY Permit /4th TEMPORARY CLOSURE of Seashore Drive, Newport July Holiday Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, and selected Res 95 -65 feeder streets. [Memorandum from City Attorney] (65 ) 18. Resolution No. 95 -66, authorizing the temporary Permit /4th installation of cut de sacs along Seashore Drive July Holiday • during the 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY. [Refer to Res 95 -66 memorandum with agenda item 17] (6 5 ) Volume 49 - Page 214 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MTNTTTRC ROLL CALL ���UJ 3F q LJ -Wg0OZ ¢wMx0 3 g 2 0 Ww 0 0 June 12,1995 INDEX 19. Resolution No. 95 -67, establishing temporary Permit /4th • parking restrictions during the 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY July Holiday for the two city -owned lots on Seashore Drive, the Res 95 -67 lot at the comer of Superior and Pacific Coast (65 ) Highway and the City Hall parking lot and the West Oceanfront lot. [Refer to memorandum with agenda item 17] 20. Resolution No. 95 -68, modifying the amount of Utilities/ charges levied by other agencies for WATER Wtr Sry Chgs SERVICES to be shown on the Municipal Services Res 95 -68 Statement as a separate item in the amount of (8 9 ) $0.87 per bi- monthly period. [Refer to report with agenda item 4] CONTRACTS) AND AGREEMENT(S) 21. INVESTOR ADVISOR AGREEMENT - Approve the City lst Inter - entering into contractual investment advisory and state Bank custodial relationship with First Interstate Bank C -3053 establishing investment advisory and custodial (3 8 ) relationships. [Report from Finance Director] 22. COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS - Award contract for a KPMG Peat • Cost Recovery Analysis to KPMG Peat Marwick and Marwick approve the necessary appropriation budget C -3054 adjustment to fund the study. [Report from (3 8 ) Finance Director] 23. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 24. BOLSA PARK CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. 2899 - Bolsa Park Award subject contract to Gillespie Construction, C -2899 Inc., of Costa Mesa for the total bid price of (38 ) $145,745; and affirm the Categorical Exemption of Environmental Impact. [Report from Public Works Department] 25. CONSTRUCTION OF WATER PIPELINE REACH NO. 3 Groundwtr CONTRACT NO. 3004 -L GROUNDWATER Dev Prj /Wtr DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (SEAWATER LINE TO SLATER Pipe Reach 3 AVENUE) - Find, based on evidence submitted, C- 3004 -L that the "apparent low bidder," Peter C. David (38 ) Company, Inc., committed an error in preparing their bid proposal; and approve the written request of the "apparent low bidder," Peter C. David Company, Inc., to rescind their bid because of the error. Find that C. K. Construction, submitted • the "lowest responsible bid" and can meet the requirements for completing the proposed contract work, declare them the "low bidder," and award contract in the amount of $1,772,255. [Report from Utilities Department] Volume 49 - Page 215 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MTNTTTF:.q ROLL CALL ( Qa:WW0OZ g LJ Q 3g2UC70 C[:0 w w U >W 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX 26. CONSTRUCTION OF AVOCADO AVENUE WATER Avocado Ave ® PIPELINE CONTRACT NO. 2942 - Find that the lowest Wtr Pipeline bidder, Steve Casada Construction Company, can C -2942 meet the requirements for completing the (38 ) proposed contract work and declare them the "low bidder;" and award contract in the amount of $107,273. [Report from Utilities Department] 27. CLAIMS - For Denial by the City Manager. (3 6 ) Ernest B. Adams for reimbursement, alleging City Refuse crew removed tomato cages in error from 444 Aliso Avenue on May 15, 1995. Clay Fauto alleging defects in road caused car to go out of control on Highway 73 from Northbound MacArthur Boulevard, causing personal injuries on December 7, 1994. Jack and June Keyes alleging City at fault for damage and movement of slope adjacent to 15 Point Loma Drive, Spyglass Hill on January 23, 1995. Scott Salmond alleging wheel and tire damage • from hitting large pothole on MacArthur Boulevard on May 13, 1995. Steven and Ellen Weinstein alleging City at fault for damage and movement of slope adjacent to 17 Point Loma Drive, Spyglass Hill on January 23, 1995. 28. AGENDA OF JUNE 8, 1995 /ACTIONS BY THE Planning PLANNING DEPARTMENT. (68 ) 29. OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD SPECIFIC AREA PLAN /AD (24 ) HOC COMMITTEE - Minutes of February 14, 1995. 30. UPPER CASTAWAYS ACTIVE PARK AND VIEW PARK - Upper Cstwys Status report from Public Works Department. Prk (62 ) 31. DRUG REHABILITATION CENTERS IN THE CITY. Drug Rehab [Report from City Attorney] Ctrs (3 3 ) 32. VIA LIDO WATER PIPELINE PROJECT /CONTRACT NO. VLido Wtr 2882) - Approve the plans and specifications; and Pipeline authorize City Clerk to advertise for bids for C -2882 construction of the project to be opened at 2:00 (3 8 ) p.m., Thursday, July 6, 1995 at the office of the City • Clerk. [Report from Utilities Department] 33. WATER PIPELINE REACH NO. 4, PHASE [/CONTRACT Groundwtr NO. 3004 -M (GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT Dev Prj /React PROJECT) - Approve plans and specifications; and 4, Phl authorize City Clerk to advertise for bids for C- 3004 -M construction of the project to be opened at 2:00 (3 8 ) p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 1995, at the office of the City Clerk. [Report from Utilities Department] Volume 49 - Page 216 ROLL CALL t • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ���� M¢ W 3Q=000 W W o >w J? June 12, 1895 INI; 34. SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATION - Approve Special Application No. 95 -160 for Sea King Running Club Apl #95 -: of Corona del Mar High School to conduct 6th (27 ) Annual "Newport 5000." a 5K Run benefiting Corona del Mar High School athletic programs. Permit is requested for Sunday, June 25, 1995 from 6:30 to 10:30 a.m., with amplified sound being used from 7:00 to 10:30 a.m.; the following application, subject to conditions in the staff report from the Recreation Manager, Community Services Department 35. BUDGET AMENDMENT($) BA -039 Removed from the Consenf Calendar ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR S Report from Planning Department covering items 1, 2 & 3: 1. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -19, being, Ord 95 -: Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (94) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE PERMITTED USES IN THE APF DISTRICT AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 20.33 OF TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING PCA 819 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 819; AND 2. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -20, being, Ord 95 -: Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (94) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAPS NOS. 34 AND 35 TO RECLASSIFY ALL PARCELS LOCATED BETWEEN CAMPUS DRIVE, BRISTOL STREET NORTH, BIRCH STREET, AND MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, FROM THE CURRENT ZONE OF M -1 -A TO APF, TO CREATE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTING MAPS, CHAPTER 20.33 OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 24, 1988 (PLANNING PCA 821 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 821; AND Volume 49 - Page 217 EX Event .60 K >.0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL 3 M¢ W X Wax0z W Ma:UUO W W o W J ~ June lz, 1995 INDEX 3. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -21, being, Ord 95 -21 Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (94) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 26 TO RECLASSIFY SPECIFIC PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE BETWEEN IRVINE AVENUE AND DOVER DRIVE, FROM THE CURRENT ZONE OF CNH TO APF, TO CREATE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTING MAPS, CHAPTER 20.33 OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE GENERAL PLAN USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 24, 1988 (PLANNING PCA 822 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 822). Gary Chaffin, 1848 W. 17th Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Council and asked if churches would be a permitted use under the new zoning designation, to which the Planning Director replied in the negative. The Planning Director stated that the purpose of the subject three amendments is to change the zoning so as to conform with the designated uses in the General Plan at two locations, i.e., between Campus and Birch in the Airport area, and the westerly side of Westcliff Drive. Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Debay to All Ayes introduce and schedule for public hearing on June 26, 1995, Ordinance Nos. 95-19,95-20 and 95 -21. Report from Utilities Department covering items 4 and 5: 4. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -22, being, Ord 95 -22 Basic Wtr AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Qnty Rate CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING VARIOUS (89) CHAPTERS OF TITLE 14 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING THE BASIC WATER QUANTITY RATE AT $1.94 PER HUNDRED CUBIC FEET AND MODIFYING THE WATER RATES FOR WATER SERVICES; AND S. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -23, being, Ord 95 -23 Sewer Cnsmptn • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Chrg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER (89 ) 14.24 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADJUSTING THE SEWER CONSUMPTION CHARGE TO $0.13 FOR EACH HUNDRED CUBIC FEET OF WATER DELIVERED UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1995, TO EACH CUSTOMER CONNECTED TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM AND ADJUSTING THE SEWER Volume 49 - Page 218 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NiAMRN19.9 M ROLL CALL n T A w � X a: w M u w M: o U w ° 0 w ? 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX • CONSUMPTION CHARGE TO $0.15 FOR EACH HUNDRED CUBIC FEET OF WATER DELIVERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1996, TO EACH CUSTOMER CONNECTED TO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM. In response to questions raised by Council Member Glover, the City Manager stated that the proposed increase in water rates is largely due to a 12.259o' increase in the price paid for water. On July I, 1995, the Metropolitan Water District will increase their price from $412.00 per acre -foot to $462.45 per acre foot. This will increase 1995 -96 costs in excess of $862,700. The proposed increase in sewer rates is being recommended primarily because of long - range sewer main replacement programs and sewer pump station improvement programs. Council Member Watt, member of the City's Utilities Committee along with Mayor Pro Tern Debay and Mayor Hedges, in discussing the basic reasons for the Committee's recommendation, noted the Committee looked at: IJ anticipated costs through 1999 making an assumption that • MWD would again raise their rates in the following three years at an increase of 10% each year 2) fixed cost comparisons of other agency water rates for hook -ups, etc., and found that Newport Beach has a lower fixed rate than other agencies in the County; and 3) made a decision to maintain a million dollar minimum reserve. Motion x There being no further discussion, motion was made by Council Member Watt to introduce Ordinance Nos. 95.22 and 95.23 and to set for public hearing on June 26, 1995. Mayor Hedges stated that the above two subjects have "troubled " him in years past, in that the enterprise funded operations, such as the Utilities Department, are supported by water rate payers, and any costs of the operation are passed directly onto the consumer, and what bothers him the most is that these type operations may not undergo the same budget scrutiny as other parts of the organization. He stated he will continue to monitor this issue, and requested the. staff, following approval of the budget, to take a look at the operation very closely with a view to how • additional efficiencies can be gained. Mayor Pro Tern Debay noted that water and sewer rates have not been raised for two years; and in an effort to keep the rates down and be fair to everyone, the Committee developed a method whereby those users on fixed incomes will be the least impacted. Volume 49 - Page 219 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL A X P Ir 9� W U) X w ° 0 _J J z June 12, 1995 INDEX X x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried. x 7. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 95 -25, being, Ord 95 -25 G/S Refuse AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Cntnrs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION (44) 6.04.080 AND 6.04.750 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING STORAGE AND PLACEMENT OF REFUSE CONTAINERS. [Refer to report with agenda item 61 Mayor Hedges suggested Section 6.04.080, second sentence, be amended to read as follows: "The owner, or owner's agent of properties which operate under the short term lodging ordinance and otherwise occupants of the properties, shall be responsible for providing the required number of containers." Mayor Hedges also requested that Section 6.04.150 (C) be amended with the foregoing language. He stated that in making this recommendation, it is his intent that tenants • should be responsible for their own refuse containers. Mayor Pro Tern Debay stated this issue came about as a result of the clean -up work being done in West Newport: however, the proposed amendment would apply to the entire City. She indicated she was in support of Mayor Hedges' suggestion, and stated that residents have been complaining that trash containers are visible in alleys from public streets when they are not pulled out -of- sight. Mayor Hedges, in clarifying his recommendation, stated if there is a tenant living in a unit for longer than 30 days, that tenant would be responsible for the garbage containers; however, if the tenant falls under the short term lodging ordinance, 30 days or less, then the owner, or the owner's agent is responsible for the placement and pickup of the containers. The City Attorney stated that the subject ordinance is the first step in a process that envisions the • creation of some administrative procedures and penalties for the violation of relatively minor ordinances which do have an accumulative impact on neighborhoods and quality of life. Another ordinance is in the process of being prepared which will focus on giving notice to the owner of the property and eventually establishing an assessment which would be collected through the properly tax bill. If the proposed ordinance is Volume 49 - Page 220 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Ti! T XTr TrP L" c ROLL CALL Lr' Cr A w:KM=000 ¢0 w w o >W o 12, z ++s +�V 1LIN June 1995 INDEX amended now as recommended by Mayor • Hedges, it would have an impact on the City's ability to actually implement the ordinance. He, therefore, recommended that staff be directed to bring back a report of the changes being suggested inasmuch as he felt they could be enacted in another ordinance without impacting the second phase of the process. Motion x In view of the foregoing, motion was made by All Ayes Mayor Hedges to introduce Ordinance No. 95 -25 as presented, and that staff bring back the changes recommended in the foregoing on June 26,1995. 9. Report from the Fire Chief recommending Fire /Medic approval of Resolution No. 95 -56, revising the FIRE Fee MEDIC fee schedule (Resolution No. 94 -98) to allow ( 40/41) billing for medical supplies and medications to Fire Medic members' insurance providers and directly to non - members; and approve authorization for the Fire Chief to purchase medical supplies and medications for emergency medical care provided by the Fire Department and to make a one -time reimbursement to Hoag Hospital in the amount of $17,596.30 for medical supplies and medications currently located in the fire stations. Harry Merrill, 25 Montecito Drive, stated that after reviewing the Fire Chief's report, he feels that the City will not recoup the percentage of fees as purported for this program. In response, the City Manager stated that per recommendation No. 3, the Fire Chief is authorized to make a one -time reimbursement to Hoag Hospital in the amount of $17,596.30 for medical supplies, etc., currently located in the fire stations, and that the projected annual cost will be $102,000. These are two separate issues, and if the Council approves this item as requested, staff will come back with a budget amendment to purchase the supplies, which over time, the City would collect from the users of this service to repay this cost. The City will also mark up the cost of those supplies 30% to recover administrative costs and because not everyone will be paying their bill. At present, only Sion about 60% is being collected. x Following discussion, motion was made by Mayor Res 95 -56 All Ayes Pro Tem Debay to adopt Resolution No. 95.56. 23. Report from General Services Director West Coast recommending approval of amendment to WEST Arborists COAST ARBORISTS CONTRACT NO. 2966, current C -2966 tree trimming contract that would extend the (38 ) length of the contract to 10 years at the current rate of $39 per tree. Volume 49 - Page 221 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL v, 3�o X wzMz:000 ¢ w MXOz w 0 June T2, 1995 INDEX 10 n x Mayor Hedges stated he had concerns with respect to the term of the agreement as well as tying said agreement to the Consumer Price Index, and therefore, moved fo defer action on fhis Item to June 26, 1995 and refer N to the Finance Committee for review and comment. All Ayes Following discussion, the motion was voted on and carried. 35. BA -039, $78,500 - [Report presented with agenda (40 ) item 22] to provide for a comprehensive FEE AND COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS: Professional Services Account /Finance Administrative Division. Harry Merrill, 25 Montecito Drive, addressed the Council and questioned if the proposed Fee and Cost Recovery Analysis would include the Paramedic Program, to which the City Manager replied in the affirmative. Motion x There being no further comments, motion was All Ayes made by Council Member Edwards to approve Budget Amendment No. BA -039 as recommended. • PUBLIC HEARING(S) 36. Mayor Hedges opened the continued public undergr Util/ hearing regarding UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN Asmt Dist 64 CHANNEL ROAD FROM OCEAN BOULEVARD TO Channel Road NORTH OF "M" STREET ON PENINSULA POINT (8 9 ) (Proposed Assessment District No. 64). Report from Public Works Department. The Public Works Director updated the Council on this item since the first public hearing on May 22, 1995, noting: the total cost of the district is estimated to be $283,898; there are 22 properties within the district that will have equal assessments of $9,582 per parcel, eight parcels at $7,091, two parcels at $ 7,666, and one parcel at $1,034 minus any credits given for work already completed or work to be completed in the future; all parcels included in the district were determined to benefit from the undergrounding of the overhead utilities; there are two city -owned parcels in which the City • will voluntarily pay a 50% assessment which totals $9,582. The Public Works Director advised that since the last public hearing, staff is recommending that the Engineers' Report be revised to reflect the following changes in the proposed assessment district: Volume 49 - Page 222 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 12, 1995 MINUTES I. The properties at 2106, 2112 and 2116 E. Balboa 'n of ROLL CE �- >— > W 3~ credit for their telephone lines which were W x oz CALL q¢ W W O 0 LJ X 2U U C70 June 12, 1995 MINUTES INDEX Asmt Dist 64 I. The properties at 2106, 2112 and 2116 E. Balboa Boulevard (Lots I, 2 and 3) will receive a 2090 credit for their telephone lines which were previously undergrounded. 2. The pole located adjacent to Parcel No. 35, 2154 Miramar Drive, will remain in place and the property owner's assessment will be reduced to zero as they will receive no benefit from the district. It was also noted that the parcels located across from the public beaches, Parcel Nos. 9 thru 15 and 36, have been given a credit which calculates to 26% of the total assessment, which represents an estimate of the cost to underground their utility services located in the alley at the rear of the parcels in a future undergrounding assessment district. Should the alley utilities be undergrounded at some future date, the assessment would be limited to approximately 26% of the future district. To date, there have been 10 written protests which • represent 34.65% of the assessment district. In response to question raised by Mayor Hedges, the Public Works Director stated that arrangements can be made for those property owners who have a bona -fide hardship in paying their assessment. Norma Thomas, owner of 2129 E. Balboa Boulevard, addressed the Council and stated her property is across from the public beach. She advised that she does not oppose the underground utilities, but she will receive no benefit to justify the $7,09 assessment. She noted that some bayfront property owners are being assessed only $1,500 due to the fact that their telephone lines are already underground. She has no utilities underground and inasmuch as her utilities are not being placed underground, she feels no obligation to pay for bayfront property owners' utilities being moved underground. She emphasized that the proposed assessment would create a hardship for her as she is a widow on a fixed income. Joe Thompson, Jr., owner of property at 2117 and 2123 E. Balboa Boulevard across from the public • beach, addressed the Council and stated he feels his assessment is unfair in that the amount of the assessment is not proportional to the benefit being conferred upon his property. He stated he does Volume 49 - Page 223 INDEX Asmt Dist 64 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ¢��U X 3 W ~ Cr: X W M W 0 U >W _J 0 , 0 June 12,1995 INDEX not feel it equitable that the properties located on Asmt Dist 64 the inland side of East Balboa Boulevard and Channel Road, which are not having their utilities placed underground, are being asked to pay almost the same assessment as the bayside parcels who are having their utilities placed underground. Mr. Thomas, son of Norma Thomas, addressed the Council and stated he and his mother have owned the property at 2129 E. Balboa Boulevard for over 25 years, and that no one has ever commented on the power lines on this particular section of the beach or that the lines obstruct the view. He questioned if there was an on -going program to eventually have all utility lines placed underground. He stated he felt it was unfair to single -out six parcels across from the public beach who have their utilities in the alley and assess them 76%. Virginia Herberts, 2290 Channel Road, addressed the Council and stated that the petitions to get this underground assessment district initiated were • circulated in 1989, and that the views from the properties across from the public beach will be enhanced greatly from the undergrounding. She also stated that as a result of the proposed improvements, the entire perimeter of the Peninsula will benefit, and therefore, urged Council approval. Mike Millikan, 2222 Channel Road, addressed the Council in support of the proposed project and stated he hoped the improvements could be made as soon as possible. Joan Cox, Assessment Engineer, addressed the Council and discussed how the assessment spread formula was reached on a per parcel basis, and explained how a credit is handled for future undergrounding for the parcels across from the public beach. She stated that prior to the first public hearing on this district, a public informational meeting was held for all property owners within said district. Motion x Following discussion, motion was made by Mayor Ayes Hedges to direct staff to make special arrangements for any bona -fide hardship cases in this assessment district, and to adopt the following Resolutions: Resolution No. 95 -69 approving agreements with Res 95 -69 the respective utility companies for the underground work, and authorizing execution of the contracts; and Volume 49 - Page 224 r` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 151ILIli1111M ROLL CALL M) 3� M¢ w:KMM000 w 'n Mx0Z w o Z J J June 12, 1995 INDEX Resolution No. 95 -70 affirming assessments Res 95 -70 • which takes final action regarding any protests, confirms the assessment, approves the final Engineers Report and orders the works of improvements; and Resolution No. 95 -71 authorizing Issuance of Res 95 -71 bonds which sets forth the terms and conditions for the sale of bonds and approves the Purchase Agreement submitted by the designated underwriter, 37. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing, Golden Coast pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Cab Section 5.12.020 on request of GOLDEN COAST CAB (27 ) COMPANY, 12521 LORNA STREET, GARDEN GROVE, CA 92641, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY to operate in the City. Motion x it was recommended this item be continued to All Ayes June 26, 1995 for the reasons enumerated in the staff report from Revenue Manager, Finance Department, and there being no objections, motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Debay to approve the staff's recommendation. 38. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing on 1995 -96 Preli PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE 1995 -96 FISCAL YEAR Budget /Apr pursuant to Section 1102 of the Newport Beach Limit City Charter, AND THE CITY'S APPROPRIATION LIMIT (40) FOR THE 1995 -96 FISCAL YEAR, pursuant to Article 13B of the State Constitution. The City Manager presented an overview of the Preliminary Budget for 1995 -96, and described the major financial trends and issues as contained in his Budget Message. He displayed the prior organizational chart depicting II operating departments as well as the new reorganization with 7 operating departments. He cited the major factors adversely affecting the budget, discussed his plan to balance the budget in terms of generating revenue, privatization, reduced capital outlay, etc., and noted that the City Council will further review the budget document at a study session meeting at 4:00 p.m., June 19, 1995. • Tom Hyans, President, Central Newport Beach Community Association, addressed the Council regarding the priorities reflected in the capital improvements portion of the budget which he stated detract from the oldest area in the City. He stated their association is grateful for the two block storm drain project on the Peninsula, however, Volume 49 - Page 225 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL q 3� M¢ LJ3M2 w Ul PX00z w 0 U Q' J L50 J June 12, 1995 INDEX more of these same type of improvements are 1995 -96 Budge • needed in order to make Balboa Boulevard and Bay Avenue navigable in wet weather. He stated that no funds have been set aside in the 1995 -96 budget for this purpose, but yet money is being spent on various capital improvement projects in other areas of the City. He discussed the new budget format, indicating he would prefer to see numbers rather than codes, and also stated he is an advocate of privatization. Frederick Curtis, 455 Vista Roma, Engineering Geologist, addressed the Council and expressed his concerns over the elimination of the City's Grading Engineer position from the budget. He stated he understands the position will be privatized and that a contract has been tentatively set up with the existing Grading Engineer. He stated he has worked with the present employee and feels he has done an excellent job of oversight on projects, and as a private consultant, he will probably do an equally good job; however, as a private consultant he will have to charge more money because of insurance, office expenses, etc., which in turn will be passed onto the contractors. He is also concerned that review of geological reports would also take longer under the new proposal, and that some things would "slip through the cracks." Roy J. Shlemon, 611 Lido Park Drive, Consultant Geologist, addressed the Council and also spoke in support of retaining the current City Grading Engineer position in the budget. He indicated he concurred in the remarks of Mr. Curtis, but also added that he felt it was imperative that the City have an in -house reviewing Geologist on board at all times due to the geological impacts potentially facing the City, and because the "standard of care" is changing so rapidly. Mayor Hedges complimented the staff on the new budget format, and noted that the Council will be facing some difficult decisions during the budget process. The City Manager explained the Appropriation Gann Limit as enumerated in the staff report from • the Finance Director, noting the City is $19,624,749 under the appropriations limit. Volume 49 - Page 226 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL U0 ¢ Q¢WW0 w3Q=000 ~ ¢ cm > -J w June 12, 1995 INDEX n x Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Debay to AlWyes receive the oral report from the City Manager, to continue the public hearing on the budget to a study session on Monday, June 19 at 4 p.m.; and to adopt Resolution No. 95 -72 determining and Res 95 -72 establishing an Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 1995 -96 in accordance with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and Government Code Section 7910; and to direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council Meeting of June 26, 1995 to adopt the 1995 -96 Fiscal Year Budget. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member O'Neil to All Ayes consider agenda Rem No. 40 at this time. 40. Mayor Hedges stated this was the time and place CIOSA for the public hearing and proceedings for the (6 8 ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 95 -1 (CIOSA). This hearing is required for the formation of the District, to levy special taxes within the District, and the need to incur bonded indebtedness within the District. Report from Finance Director. • Mayor Hedges stated that before he formally opens the public hearing, if there are any property owners or persons registered to vote in the District who wish to file a written protest, they must file with the City Clerk now. Hearing no protests, Mayor Hedges officially opened the public hearing. The City Manager summarized the purpose of this hearing noting that the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company entered into the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) on June 30, 1993. This agreement allows for the petition of the Council to form a Special Improvement District for the sale of debt to finance public improvements including the construction of various street improvements, including access roads, sidewalks, street widening, signal relocations, median rework and landscaping, storm drain facilities. This debt will be serviced by assessments on the improved property. In order to proceed with the formation of the Special Improvement District the City Council must take • several actions. In connection with the referenced financing the City Council must approve the Special Improvement District Report; and adopt Volume 49 - Page 227 CITY. OF NEWPORT BEACH IZII.Lry11 aj;�- ROLL CALL v, ¢�¢U A wMMMUL90 ¢ w 'ri w o WW ° ? June 12, 1995 INDEX three (3) resolutions as follows: 1. Resolution of Formation of the City of Newport Beach Special Improvement District No. 95-1 (CIOSA); 2. Resolution Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness; and 3. Resolution Calling Special Election for June 26, 1995. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. It was pointed out that this District is being formed for new development only and imposed on properties now owned by The Irvine Company, and that no taxpayers would currently be impacted by this proposal. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member O'Neil to: All Ayes Approve Special Improvement District Report and adopt: Resolution No. 95 -74, forming the Special Res 95 -74 Improvement District No. 95 -1 (CIOSA), authorizing the levy of a special tax within the district and preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the district; adopt Resolution No. 95 -75, Res 95 -75 determining the necessity to incur bonded • indebtedness within the City of Newport Beach Special Improvement District No. 95 -1 (CIOSA); and adopt Resolution No. 95 -76, calling Special Election Res 95 -76 for the City of Newport Beach Special Improvement District No. 95 -1 (CIOSA). 39. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing GPA 94-1(F) regarding: (4 5 ) A. General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F) - Request Pacific View to consider an amendment to the Land Use Memorial Park Element of the General Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, so as to establish a new development allocation of a maximum of 30,000 square feet of administrative offices and support facilities, 126,700 square feet of community mausoleum and garden crypts, and 12,000 square feet of family mausoleums (or equivalent building bulk restrictions). Additional language is also proposed which specifies that all future mausoleum and garden crypt structures shall be constructed only within the building envelopes authorized by the site plan approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3518; and the acceptance of an • environmental document; AND Volume 49 - Page 228 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL A, 3FMx0Z Q� W 3 W g U) W 2 0 0 x � 0 FJi 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX • B. Development Agreement No. 7 - Request to Dev Agm 7 approve a development agreement for the proposed build-out of the Pacific View Memorial Park; AND C. Use Permit No. 3518 - Request to approve a U/P 3518 master plan of development for the ultimate build - out of the Pacific View Memorial Park, located on property in the R -3-13 and Unclassified Districts. The proposal includes: the establishment of four additional building sites which will be developed with future community mausoleum and garden crypt facilities; one building site for the future construction of family mausoleums facilities; the construction of a future maintenance building, a future garage and sales facilities; and the location of future road construction as part of the interior vehicular circulation of the park. The proposal also includes a request to permit the continued use of a temporary building to be used in conjunction with the continuing sales activities; • AND D. Site Plan Review No. 69 - Request to establish Site Pln grade on each of the proposed mausoleum and Review 69 garden crypt building sites within the Pacific View Memorial Park property; located on portions of Block 96 and 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3500 Pacific View Drive, at the southeasterly terminus of Pacific View Drive, adjacent to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. Report from Planning Department. The Planning Director summarized the series of applications connected with this issue as set forth in the above, stating said applications have been pending at the staff level for approximately 2 -1/2 years. On March 28, 1994, this item was before the City Council for the initiation of GPA 94 -1(F). One month later, an ad hoc committee was appointed in an attempt to resolve the differences between the communities adjoining the cemetery and Pacific View Memorial Park. The committee met nine times between April 21, 1994 and January 18, 1995. Once that work was completed, the hearings • before the Planning Commission commenced, and there were four hearings before the Commission Volume 49 - Page 229 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MTIVTTTFC ROLL CALL � 3�maxoz w I- 3 � g � 2 U > U W o - • - - - -- _a...., June 12, 7995 INDEX • between February 23 and May 4, 1995. The staff GPA 94 -1 (F) report included in the Agenda packet contains attachments numbering several hundred pages covering the entire record on this matter. The Council was also given several documents from the City Attorney, including a revised development agreement, a mitigation monitoring plan, and a restrictive covenant governing the buffer area. The City Attorney stated that at the last Council meeting, staff was asked to meet with impacted residents and representatives of Pacific View to further discuss the development agreement to see if some agreement could be reached on the outstanding issues. Since that time, staff has met on numerous occasions to determine what issues remain, and he felt the meetings were productive. One thing that was discussed and agreed upon, was that any change to the Planning Commission's recommendations would require the consent of both sides; they wanted to make sure the development agreement accurately represented the Commission's recommendations since that served as a baseline for discussing disagreements • that remained; staff also wanted to eliminate any loopholes in the development agreement that would prevent any of the parties from avoiding the obligations they were undertaking in the development agreement. A number of changes are proposed in the development agreement as a result of comments made by residents who have thoroughly reviewed the document. He summarized the substantive changes in the development agreement that were agreed upon in the last three weeks, but felt there still are two significant issues remaining: 1) Building Site E: whether family mausolea or columbaria should be permitted in this site, and assuming they are not permitted, what improvements if any, should be permitted in that particular area, (he noted that he had prepared a memorandum on this issue dated this date); and 2) The term of the development agreement; the Planning Commission recommendation was for an initial 20 year term, with a possible 10 year extension if the property owner and the City reached a mutual agreement on that extension. Also, the restrictive covenant that was presented to the Council in conjunction • with his memorandum dated this date, contains two proposed minor modifications as set forth in his report, which are consistent with the development agreement. Volume 49 - Page 230 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL v, ���� A w � 3 w g w 2 0 0 WW ° 0 ? 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX • In response to question raised by Council Member GPA 94 -1 (F) Edwards as to whether the technical site plan submitted to the City Council is the same technical site plan approved by the Planning Commission, the City Attorney stated that the plan does have shaded areas that he believes are intended to depict various building sites as opposed to building envelopes; he does not think there is any controversy regarding Building Site G or F or D; to the extent that there is shading in Building Site E, he would perceive that shading as authorizing something other than ground burial which is then different than the technical site plan presented to the Planning Commission. In response to question raised by Council Member Glover regarding Exhibit C in the staff report, the City Attorney stated that there was a technical site plan dated April 20, 1995 which was viewed by a number of residents and prepared by Pacific View and did contain the words "lawn or ground burial area" in the left -hand margin with a line and small dot ending essentially in the middle of Building Site E; the technical site plan that was presented to the • Planning Commission that was dated April 28, 1995 did not have that language, nor the line and small dot; however, that technical site plan did show the remainder of Building Site E in what the legend refers to as a "lawn burial area." The language on the April 20, 1995 plan is not on Exhibit C and also was not on the April 28, 1995 plan. Dave Neish, 19100 Von Korman, Suite 800, representing Pacific View Memorial Park, addressed the Council and gave a slide presentation depicting the project history and the project highlights that took place during the Planning Commission process. He stated that regarding the technical site plan, the buffers have been increased from 30 feet to 80 to 85 feet; Pacific View has also committed to irrigating and landscaping the buffer area as well as to maintain it in perpetuity. When the second phase of Sunset Court is implemented, the next increment of development in Pacific View, the entire buffer area will be improved which is a major concession on the part of Pacific View. In addition, they are going to lower pad areas and build up buffer • areas as requested. They feel Pacific View provides a quality needed service to the Newport Beach area and they feel there has been a good faith effort to reach compromises. They also feel the compromise is very fair, they applaud the Planning Commission for their assistance in this process; and feel the revised plans strike a fair balance. Volume 49 - Page 231 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL r, ¢ A W � Q 3MM:000 a: w w o ' °? w June 12, 1995 INDEX . In response to question raised by Mayor Pro Tern GPA 94 -1 (F) Debay regarding the difference between the technical site plan of April 20 and the plan of April 28. 1995 as referenced earlier by Council Member Glover, Mr. Neish stated that at one point, on the left -hand side of the plan near the concrete drainage swell, there was a notation with a line drawn over to Building Site E which indicated ground burials. To the best of his recollection, in one of the many times the site plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission, there was no mausoleum or crypt structures in Building Site E whatsoever, and at that time, they were only talking about ground burials in that area; however, later on they went back and created the crypt wall in area E and it was their understanding it would be permissible if in fact they could have ground burial or some other facility in area E. The action approved by the Planning Commission for area E, referenced on page 69 of the Commission minutes, states "family mausolea shall be permitted in Building Site E provided they are contiguous and adjacent to a community mausoleum, are not visible from the first floor from any residential • property and are constructed within the approved envelope of Building Site E." It is their understanding that ground burials in this area are permitted; the Commission also said they could have family mausolea under certain circumstances. He stated they will commit at this time that it is not their intent to have any family mausolea in Building Site E. Claire Schwan, 75 Montecito Drive, President, Spyglass Hill Community Association, addressed the Council and stated they are spending a tremendous amount of money to beautify their area and they would like to keep it that way. She stated that when Mr. Lusk bought the Pacific View property 20 years ago, he constructed quality homes all around the perimeter of the park with the idea that the homeowners would have a view of a "lawn- type" park, and for those 20 years, Pacific View and the homeowners worked in harmony; however, a Texas -owned company purchased Pacific View Memorial park and the model of the park disappeared, and plans for huge monuments, mausoleums, family mausolea , • walls, fences, flags, headstones, etc., filled their ears and they protested. They were told by the City Council that they must compromise, so the various affected community associations appointed an ad hoc committee to meet with the cemetery officials and City representatives as requested by the Volume 49 - Page 232 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL Lr , ���0 q¢ W3Q W w = o �� WW d? o tune 12, 1995 INDEX Council. The ad hoc committee tried very hard to GPA 94-1(F) • work with the new owners of Pacific View and the homeowners compromised and compromised. They felt the more they compromised, the more Pacific View asked for, and it was very frustrating. As their final compromise, after one year of meeting, they agreed to the technical site plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 20, 1995. She urged the Council to consider the homeowners' rights, their wishes as taxpayers, and remember that they would like a "lawn" type Pacific View park. Don Olson, 9 Monterey Circle, member of the Pacific View Ad Hoc Committee, addressed the Council and stated that the residents of Spyglass Hill are agreeable with the technical site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission dated April 20, 1995; however, there are two major problems with . the current development agreement that must be changed before they can support it which are: • 1. We believe the term of the development agreement should represent the time it will take to develop the park. This has been estimated to be from 30 to 65 years. The development agreement needs to be a minimum of 20 years with automatic 10 year extensions until the park is totally developed. "2. The site plan shows an additional 132,000 square feet of buildable envelope space for mausoleums with the rest of the park being lawn burial space. We feel that it is absolutely essential that the proposed lawn burial space as shown on the approved site plan (dated April 20, 1995) is maintained as lawn burial space only. We cannot support any development outside the proposed building envelopes, (i.e.) no headstones, pillow blocks, dividing walls, or other stone like pieces (except in area G where this must be done in a manner not visible to the homeowners)." Mr. Olson stated they feel it is essential the development agreement be consistent with the April 20, 1995 technical site plan approved by the • Planning Commission which maintains the lawn park atmosphere. He submitted a petition from the residents of Spyglass Hill supporting the above statements. Volume 49 - Page 233 CITY ROLL W Q�0 >W a�mgoz CALL Q W O J 0 3W U70 �2 • • • OF NEWPORT June 12, 1995 BEACH In response to question raised by Council Member Edwards, Mr. Olson stated that family mausoleums in Building Site E were unacceptable from the beginning. Dave March, I Twin Lakes, addressed the Council and stated that the only difference between the April 20 and April 28, 1995 technical site plan is that the actual notation here (referencing plan on display) that draws a line over to this area in question specifically said "for lawn burial' and with that now gone, it leaves it somewhat in question. He discussed his concern with the buffer area, and the building that goes in this area (referencing the site plan) is going to be extremely difficult to shield or screen without the 80 foot buffer area, and that is why this is such a "hot" issue. Mr. March displayed photographs showing what the residents believe constitutes "lawn burial' and a park like setting, indicating Pacific View has a different interpretation. The Planning Director clarified that there is community mausolea and a crypt wall in Building Site E, but there will not be family mausolea in this area as stated earlier by Mr. Neish. Paul Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive, member of the Pacific View Ad Hoc Committee, addressed the Council and stated he has been intimately involved with this project since the beginning, and that much effort has been put forth to reach a compromise; all the work that has been done was with the understanding that this is the ultimate buildout of Pacific View; Use Permit 3518 requests approval of a master plan of development for the buildout of the park; as homeowners, they negotiated an agreement with a substantial increase in use by Pacific View knowing it was the ultimate buildout; they believe the term of the development agreement should represent the buildout of the park; if there are burials at the rate of 800 per year, they are talking about up to 60 -70 years for the increased footage being requested; please adopt a minimum of 20 -years with automatic 10 -years extensions until the park is totally developed; another area of concern is that a park -like setting be maintained in the lawn burial areas; stone benches are now highly visible from the first floor of his home, and seem to be going up prolifically; the Garden of Valor has now appeared in the lawn burial area without the benefit of a City permit or reference on the technical site plan, and it was never discussed in any meeting since early Volume 49 • Page 234 MINUTES INDEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL M 3 M� w3raxU0 _ M w Ul U w X'o o 0! J J z June 12, 1995 INDEX year hash marks went in adjacent to the buffer GPA 94 -1 (F) • area on the site plan included in the Council's agenda packet, but were not part of the Planning Commission approval. In conclusion, he recommended the Council modify the development agreement to include 1) automatic 10 -year extensions until park totally developed; 2) no headstones, pillow blocks, dividing walls, etc., in the lawn burial areas that are visible from homeowners' first floors, and 3) approval of the technical site plan dated April 20, 1995, and not the hash - marked site plan in the Council's packet. Mr. Neish addressed the Council again and stated that what Pacific View is attempting to do is provide public desires and demands when loved ones pass on, which they feel is very important to the purchaser as well as Pacific View. With respect to the hash marks referred to in the foregoing, he stated it is his understanding that the Planning Commission took action and approved the site plan on May 4, and that a number of revisions were made throughout the Planning Commission process. The hash marks on the latest site plan • define the boundary of the site area such as Building Site G, F, E, and the reason this was done was because in the development agreement there needed to be a differential between the buffer area, the site area and the envelope area. Again, they will stipulate that there will be no family masoleums in Building Site E. Alan Abshez Legal Counsel for Pacific View, addressed the Council and stated that the hash - marked areas denote building sites. In Building Site G, the Planning Commission voted to approve community mausolea in the footprint shown, and in the remainder of the area G, the cemetery is permitted to construct family mausolea, provided they are not visible from first floor view of residences along the property line. The same restrictions were imposed in area E; however Pacific View has said they will delete family mausolea from area E. He stated that the development agreement defines what is in the hash marked areas. He also noted that page 12 of the development agreement contains the definitions of family mausolea and community • mausolea. Volume 49 - Page 235 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL (Z 3�WW0_J, Q¢ W x C[: W M W 0 U 'w 0. 0 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX The City Attorney referenced where family GPA 94 -1 (F) • mausolea and columbaria could be constructed in Building Site G, noting the development agreement is consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation in that it states that family mausolea are permitted in Building Sites F & G provided they are contiguous and adjacent to community mausolea and are located within the westerly projections of the building envelopes. Following a brief discussion between the City Attorney and Mr. Hitzelberger regarding the definition of hash marks, the City Attorney stated it would be his personal preference to put in the legend on the technical site plan something to the effect that the hash mark represents only building sites and does not affect the usage or entitlement for those sites. Further discussion ensued wherein the City Attorney noted that the locations of buildings in area G changed over time, and there were a series of different envelopes considered. Mr. Hitzelberger stated that in the meetings held with the Planning staff and representatives of Pacific View, the discussion of family mausoleums related to three westerly projections, and it was clearly his understanding that family mausoleums would be at the end of the three referenced buildings, 14 feet in height, and lowered down so they would not be visible from homeowners' first floor. The buildings were not to be in the area where the crypt wall is located or adjacent to it. In response to question raised by Council Member Watt, the Planning Director stated that in the language in the General Plan Amendment, there is a specific allocation to the square footage that could be devoted to family mausolea type use, and given the size of those structures, there will be about 40 structures, including all those structures in area D. Following comments of Council Members Watt and Glover regarding what constitutes a ground or lawn burial, the City Attorney noted that "lawn burial" has not been defined in the development • agreement. In response to question raised by Council Member Edwards, Mr. March addressed the Council again and stated their real concern is what goes into Building Site E. He displayed two photographs showing the flat park -like setting of the cemetery as well as that depicting 36 -inch benches, walls, and raised ground headstones. Volume 49 - Page 236 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 3FWgx' q¢ W 3 W gUC70 W W 2 o W o -J ~ z June 12, 1995 INDEX • Donald Turner, 3839 Ocean Birch Drive, President, GPA 94-1(F) Spyglass Ridge Community Association, addressed the Council and stated they are strongly opposed to the proposed development by Pacific View. They are aware of the compromises made along the way, however, they are particularly concerned about Building Sites D and H which have not been discussed much this evening, but are in direct site line with at least 10 of their homeowners' properties. Area D is the site of family mausolea which they have been opposed to from the beginning. In addition, a 12,000 community mausoleum is proposed for area H and shielded by box trees 60 feet in height which will obstruct views to their homeowners. Karl Wolf, owner of 17 Carmel Bay and 1633 Castle Cove Circle, addressed the Council and stated that both properties are adversely affected by the applicant's request. He stated his May 31, 1995 letter to the City Council explains why Pacific View has no authority to build any more mausoleums without a new use permit, and the General Plan prohibits proposed projects that will adversely • affect adjoining or nearby land uses which is the case at hand. The subject request is to increase mausoleums seven times the current space and should be rejected. With respect to Building Site G, he urged elimination of the three community mausoleums and that the Council only permit the 16 -foot wide mausoleum wall which is over one - quarter of a mile long in that location. He also urged rejection of all family mausoleums since they have no place in a memorial park setting. He further stated he felt the development agreement should be for 50 years or until the ultimate buildout. With respect to the technical site plan, he felt the most recent dated plan should be rejected and the April 20, 1995 plan substituted, and in all cases except for Building Site D, the building site should be limited to the building envelope shown and the diagonal lines eliminated, particularly in Building Site G. The technical site plan should also have removed from it the buffer area, and the wavy dotted contour lines that according to the plan depicts lawn burial areas. Leonard Fish, 2 Twin Lakes Circle, addressed the • Council and urged that the technical site plan dated April 20, 1995 be the only plan considered. He read a prepared statement (which he did not submit for the record), indicating the development agreement should contain language to assure the term of the ultimate buildout includes the beautiful lawn park -like expanses which are essential to Volume 49 - Page 237 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL fm ��¢(D Q w Q :K w U, A° U of 'w o? C9 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX maintain the character of the neighborhood; GPA 94-1(F) • these expanses must remain strictly for lawn burial without any headstones, pillow blocks, dividing walls, other stone -like pieces which tend to create a graveyard as opposed to what is commonly accepted in California as a memorial park; the City has a legitimate interest to protect the rights of the neighborhood environment for the residents of Corona del Mar; the time is now to say to Pacific View that if you want a "gargantuan" increase from a legal 50,000 sq. ft, limit to 160,000 sq. ft. limit and a 700% increase in mausolea space, they will have to maintain the equivalent of a green belt without stone -like profit enhancing novelties placed above the cut grass level; Newport Beach cannot afford an eastern -style graveyard; Pacific View has consistently ignored the building permit regulations of the City, and questioned why is Pacific View teflon- coated. In conclusion, he stated he hopes the term of the development agreement will cover the ultimate buildout. Lana Fish, 2 Twin Lakes Circle, addressed the Council and urged that the request of Pacific View be rejected; that the recommendation of the Planning Commission not be sustained; that the 50,000 sq. ft. cap on the cemetery property be maintained; that the development agreement cover the ultimate buildout, and that the cemetery remain a total lawn- park -type setting and not be turned into an eastern type graveyard. Jo Ellen Allen, 21 Carmel Bay Drive, addressed the Council regarding the slope behind the home at 5 Carmel Bay Drive. She stated that when the newest facility was added at Pacific View, they dug in deeply into that slope without letting any of the residents know ahead of time, and speaking with the Lusk Company who built their home, she was told that if the slopes are in fact dug into it could affect the foundations of the homes. The homeowners along Carmel Bay Drive would like to be assured that whenever those slopes are "tampered" with that they will be able to offer some type of input so that their foundations will be protected. She also stated that when the homeowners were asked to compromise with Pacific View, they began this entire process under • the assumption that Pacific View would be allowed to go to 50,000 sq. ft. and no further, and that is why she purchased her home; however, at Volume 49 - Page 238 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL v, Q¢WW0_J CALL LJXM=L)U0 ~ ¢ U. > w June 12, 1995 INDEX this point, the residents have compromised up to GPA 94 -1 (F) • an extra 130,000 sq. ft. She stated this was an enormous compromise and all the residents get in return is "camouflage." She further stated that she and her husband are willing to accept the technical site plan dated April 20, 1995, with the restrictions brought up by Mr. Hitzelberger and Mr. Olson. In response to some of the above remarks, the City Attorney stated that all construction will be conducted in conformance with the Building Code, and that there will be adequate geotechnical analysis evaluations of any slope work. Alan Bums, 453 S. Glassell St., Orange, representing Spyglass Ridge Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and opposed the proposed development, including all the implementing approvals inasmuch as the property has already been developed, as has the surrounding area. They felt that the "status quo' ought to be • preserved and the residents ought to be allowed to enjoy their property. If the Council does approve the project, they would like adjustments made in Building Sites, D, E and H. They are at a loss as to what Pacific View is "selling" to the City. They are not aware of the development bringing in any increased revenue for the City, but are aware of a possible reduction in property values that could occur. They felt the project, as evidence has shown, will be detrimental and injurious to the property, and therefore, the project should be denied. If the request is not denied, they would ask that the matter be continued so that further mitigation measures can be worked out. H. Ross Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, past - President of Spyglass Ridge Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and stated that if the Council makes the wrong decision, in their opinion, they have options such as litigation, referendum, etc., but do not prefer to get involved in either process. If this project is approved, it would "ruin the eastern residential areas of the City" and create an east -coast type graveyard. He referenced the Garden of Valor that was installed • without the benefit of a permit, and stated that this shows what the management of Pacific View is like." He submitted photographs of various areas of Pacific View and stated the surrounding residents will be greatly impacted if this project is approved as requested. Volume 49 - Page 239 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL v, ��¢U A W Cr 3 w M w 2 o 0 Ww °? 0 0 June t2, 1995 INDEX • Jane Hitzelberger, II Carmel Bay Drive, addressed GPA 94 -1 (F) the Council and stated that one area she felt has not been discussed at this meeting is "real control." She stated when this process started over one year ago, the City was to be in control; however, since the new owner has taken over the cemetery, there has been very little maintenance unless it is right before an ad hoc committee or Planning Commission meeting. She showed pictures to this effect, indicating weeds that need water and cutting, and questioned how the property will be controlled and maintained in the future. She discussed the Garden of Valor and questioned how it just "slipped in" without the benefit of a permit, and also discussed the residents' concern over possible slope failure. In response to some of the above comments, the City Attorney advised that the development agreement does require the undeveloped areas of the park to be mowed no less than semi - annually, and requires all the developed areas to be maintained and irrigated. The Garden of Valor provisions were not "slipped in" and were • contained in the draft development agreement which was reviewed by residents that participated in the meetings held the last two weeks as referenced in his June 9, 1995 memorandum. He stated the consensus of the residents with regard to the Garden of Valor was that they did not appreciate the columbaria at that location, that it was installed without a Building permit, and without some advance notice to the residents. He added that the impact of the Garden of Valor on the residents is negligible, and the development agreement gives the City the authority to prevent a repeated occurrence of this type. The City Attorney further advised that a Building permit was applied for by Pacific View after the columbaria was installed, and he has advised the residents that the City will not issue that permit until the City Council has made a decision as to whether those structures are allowed to remain. Bill Buchan, 29 Carmel Bay Drive, addressed the Council and stated his home is the highest elevation above the cemetery and, therefore, he • can look over the entire park. He stated because he has such a panoramic view, he would prefer to see the cemetery remain with a park -like setting Volume 49 - Page 240 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ¢ Q�wW0 W 382000 ¢ U ' °Z W June 12, 1995 INDEX and in- ground interments as they now exist. He felt GPA 94 -1 (F) that 3 -foot structures are totally unreasonable, and would be a disaster as far as he is concerned. He also stated that the management of Pacific View cannot be trusted unless everything is in writing, and urged the Council to extend the development agreement beyond 20 years. The City Attorney stated there are no provisions in the development agreement that would restrict Pacific View from installing items that did not require a Building permit. He has defined family mausolea as a building or structure, or above- ground crypt, but other items such as walls that are 3 -feet or under, pillow blocks, benches, etc., there are no restrictions in the development agreement as currently drafted. The cemetery has also taken the position that the placement of markers, and other aspects of interment, is a heavily regulated industry by State law, and the City does not have the authority under its police power to restrict that monumentation. Ard Roshan, 1607 Castle Cove Circle, addressed the Council and stated he felt that the representatives of Pacific View have not negotiated in good faith, and that adding family mausolea would ruin the park -like setting as well as the view from his home. Jim Dicesare, 1615 Harbor Crest Circle, member of Spyglass Ridge Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and stated he felt that all the issues relating to this matter have not been explored and that the Spyglass Ridge and Seaview areas have not been considered. He, therefore, recommended the public hearing be continued and that all homeowners be given the opportunity of input. He also stated he did not feel enough facts or consideration have been brought forth in order for the Council to be fully informed and be able to make a decision at this time. Mayor Pro Tern Debay stated she took offense to the above remarks, inasmuch as she felt the Council had been given sufficient information with which to make their decision on this matter, and which represents hours of negotiation and public hearings. She emphasized that this issue has not • been taken lightly by any of the Council Members. Dr. Robert Pike, 3 Monterey Circle, addressed the Council, and stated that if the request of Pacific View is approved, he felt the existing park -like setting will turn into a "Disneyland" look. He stated he can easily see the Garden of Valor from his second floor, and recommended the City not issue a building permit, and that the proposed expansion of the cemetery not be allowed. Volume 49 - Page 241 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL L6 3� Q� wXMZ:U w 'n Axoz w o W J J 0 June 12, 1995 INDEX Mr. Neish addressed the Council again and GPA 94 -1 (F) • distributed photographs of examples that could occur in the ground -type burials. He referenced Building Site G, and stated that as a result of discussions with the homeowners, they will not provide any family mausoleums in that area unless they are in front of the three beige structures (closest to the street). He also stated, in response to Mr. Dicesare's remarks, stated there has never been a project in the City that he has been associated with that has been scrutinized like Pacific View. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Council Member Cox, member of the Pacific View Ad Hoc Committee, complimented the Planning Commission for their efforts in narrowing the issues down on this project prior to coming before the City Council, and made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 95 -73 approving General Plan Res 95 -73 Amendment No. 94 -1(F); introduce Ordinance No. 95 -26 relating to Development Agreement No. 7, Ord 95 -26 • and pass to second reading on June 26, 1995; and Introduced approve Use Permit No. 3518 and Site Plan Review No. 69. Approval of these applications is contingent upon the execution of Development Agreement No. 7 by Pacific View and Pacific View's good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of that Development Agreement. Included in this motion are the following amendments: I. Building Site E; Delete section 3.2. Item No. C, page 12, referencing family Mausolea; 2. Building Site E; Add a new section, Article IV, Section 10 that would read as follows: "Building Site E shall be used for ground burial purposes only, except for construction of community mausoleum and crypt wall in the building envelope specified in the technical site plan. The term ground burial shall not preclude the installation of aesthetically pleasing walls not exceeding 3 feet in height. Memorials such as pillow blocks, benches, • etc., shall be spaced no closer than those in Palm Garden and garden landscaping. In addition, Pacific View shall soften all objects through the use of appropriate landscaping Volume 49 - Page 242 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL v, ¢�¢' o w3g2U(90 � w w 0 >w ° ? June t2, 1995 INDEX from the first floor of residents along the GPA 94-1(F) ® eastern and southerly property line with particular attention given to the views of the residents along Monterey Circle since views from these residences along the eastern property line will be protected by the buffer zone in landscaping." 3. Page 25 of the Development Agreement, Item 7.2, the second sentence should be deleted and the new language should read: "The term of the agreement shall be automatically extended for an additional 10 years if Pacific View has not completed all development authorized by this agreement within that initial term." 4. This development agreement shall be tied to discretionary approvals. 5. Building Site G; family mausolea shall be restricted to the area in front of the westerly • prolongation of the community mausolea provided they are contiguous and adjacent to the community mausolea and cannot be seen from the first floor of adjoining residences. 6. The development agreement shall specify what is allowed in the building sites with respect to the hash marks. It should not be construed that Pacific View will be allowed to do more than what is specified in the development agreement. Alan Abshez, legal counsel for Pacific View, stated that the condition suggested by Council Member Cox regarding the term of the development agreement is acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Debay stated she would like to see some type of geological controls on the bluffs spelled out in the development agreement before the bluffs are excavated. In response to question raised by Mayor Hedges as to why Pacific View never took out a building permit for the Garden of Valor, Mr. Abschez stated it was Pacific View's understanding that inasmuch as this was a monument, it did not require a building permit. As :soon as they found out that a permit was needed, they made application. Volume 49 - Page 243 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL M ¢F¢' 3 Sam: �J ~'� 3 g g 2 X U 'W C7 O June 12, 1995 INDEX The Planning Director stated that staff will not attest GPA 94 -1 (F) to anything regarding cemetery law and what does and what does not require a building permit in the City, but he will say that on more than a dozen occasions during discussions the past 2 -1/2 years, Pacific View has been told that anything over 3 -feet in height requires a building permit. Council Member Glover asked Council Member Cox if he would add the following two additional amendments to his motion: Ij If it is determined that the technical site plan dated April 20, 1995, was in fact the plan approved by the Planning Commission, that it be the plan approved by the City Council. 2jThat future lawn burials be defined wherein the headstone remains flat and flush with the ground. Council Member Glover also stated she felt the City Council should ask Pacific View to remove the • Garden of Valor. In response to question raised regarding the bluffs, the City Attorney reported that whenever there is grading or a cut into the bluff, the Building Department requires necessary geotechnical evaluation, and that a permit is not issued until the Grading Ordinance is satisfied in this regard. Also, if the City were to put this provision in the development agreement, it may create more liability for the City than if staff were to just follow their normal procedure. A provision could be included in the agreement that required the City to give notice to specified property owners of a building permit application, but he was unsure how effective that would be. It was indicated by the Council there were no objections to including the latter in the agreement. During discussion, the Council indicated a desire to straw vote certain items following which, Council Member Watt stated she would like to also straw vote Building Site G because she felt it was heavily impacted due to the footprint being ground burial only, and because family mausolea will not be . allowed in that area. She also suggested straw voting the term of the development agreement to include automatic renewal every 10 -years. Volume 49 - Page 244 A N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH M T 1STT TrrIm c� ROLL � � ¢ 3 M ¢(D > x u u 0 >W o l 1T1 \ V 1 JJ AJ • T The City Attorney stated that the language in the G GPA 94 -1 (F) development agreement pertaining to family mausolea and columbaria in Building Site G is accurate, and to the extent that the language in the agreement is complicated by the hash marks on the technical site plan, is an issue that can be resolved. Council Member Edwards suggested the Council adopt the April 20, 1995 technical site plan inasmuch as the applicant has essentially agreed that Building Site E is future lawn burial, to which there were no objections from the Council. The City Attorney stated that he agrees with Mr. Fish that the technical site plan of April 20, 1995 is the plan the Planning Commission acted upon, and he also thinks that Council Member Cox's motion eliminates any concern about any discrepancy between that site plan and the plan before the Council at this time. He also thinks there is value in having the building sites shown through some mechanism that would not interfere with how those properties will be used, and if the April 20, 1995 site plan is used, then he would like to see it modified by some form of coloration to show where the building sites will be located. At this time the Council straw voted the following items: 1. Should the Garden of Valor be permitted? Council Member O'Neil stated that the Garden of Valor was installed without the benefit of a permit, but without the intent of circumventing the City's requirements. He also realizes there is a body of law relating to cemetery developments that is different from the law relating to municipal land uses. He indicated he did not feel it would benefit the City or the community to have the Garden of Valor removed, and therefore, he will not support any action in that regard. Council Members Watt, Glover and Mayor Hedges, all indicated they found it hard to believe that Pacific View was not aware that a permit was required for the Garden of Valor. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL v� q¢ W Cl 3 W c3 M = X u >w J? 0 o June 12, 1995 INDEX Council Member O'Neil stated that in general, GPA 94 -1 (F) ® development agreements with a 20 to 25 year term is about the maximum that a court would find to be valid if that agreement was ever attacked. Development agreements provide vested rights for a landowner to enter into a contract with a jurisdiction to bind Councils for many years into the future, and at some point in time, there has to be a limit as to how long into the future the court is going to allow this to occur. As a result, he believes that a 20 -year agreement with a 10 -year extension, if the project has not been completed by that time, is about as long as the court would uphold; therefore, he will support the provision set forth by Council Member Cox. Ayes x Straw vote was taken on item 2. Noes x x x x x x 3. Should lawn burials be defined as remaining at ground level in Building Site E? Council Member O'Neil stated he will be supporting the definition as suggested by Council • Member Cox in his motion, and he is taking this position because he feels that such types of burial markers are in fact consistent with a cemetery. Mayor Pro Tem Debay suggested the cemetery explore painting the 3 -foot walls a color that would blend in more with the grass rather than being white. Mayor Hedges stated that a yes vote (green light), would establish lawn burials to mean structures up to 3 feet in height. A noe vote (red light) means ground level (no above ground structures). Ayes x x x Straw vote was taken on item 3. Noes x x x x 4. Should lawn burials be defined as remaining at ground level in Building Site G2 Mayor Hedges stated, for voting purposes, the green light means that all structures 3 ft. above grade. (dividing walls, pillow blocks, benches, etc.) • will be allowed, and that the red light means nothing will be allowed above the grave marker. Ayes x x x x x x Straw vote was taken on Item 4. Noes x All Ayes Council Member Cox's motion, as amended In the foregoing, was voted on and carried. Volume 49 • Page 246 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL U11 3F�gxoz w 3 A (!) = ° d J o June 12, 1995 INDEX • PUBLIC COMMENTS • Stephen L. Schacht, General Manager of Pacific View Memorial Park, addressed the Council and asked that they reconsider the motion to remove the Garden of Valor. He stated that he may be at fault, but there was no attempt to mislead anyone when it was installed; the Garden of Valor had been planned for a long time, and the reason it was installed on a Saturday was because of easy traffic flow and to get the equipment there. He suggested the City punish him by a fine rather than make him remove the monuments. Motion x In view of the foregoing request, Mayor Hedges All Ayes moved to reconsider the Garden of Valor portion of the development agreement at the June 26, 1995 Council meeting. CURRENT BUSINESS 41. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Economic Dev APPOINTMENT. Committee MAftn x Motion was made by Mayor Hedges to defer action A yes on the subject appointment until the Planning Commission is fully seated. 42. Report from Assistant City Manager regarding 1995 -96 Budge MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS - CENTRAL BALBOA. Checklist (40) It was recommended the Council consider the following alternatives: (a) Approve and direct removal of the trees without any sidewalk improvements; OR (b) Approve and direct removal of the trees without sidewalk improvements, but with the understanding that the B.I.D. will pay for the installation of new street furniture; OR (c) Place the project on the budget • checklist for June 26, 1995, with sidewalk improvements for Central Balboa at an estimated total cost of $50,000. Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Hedges to approve All Ayes Alternative (c) as stated above. Volume 49 - Page 247 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ve ¢ O LwaAxucjo ¢wwxo�z ¢ ' ' w June 12, 1995 INDEX 43. Status report from City Manager and General GS • Services Director on COUNTY LANDFILL GATE FEE (44) INCREASE. Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Hedges to continue All Ayes this item to the June 19,1995 budget study session. Motion x • Motion was made by Council Member Edwards to All Ayes reconsider Agenda Item 23 off his time. 23. Report from General Services Director west Coast recommending approval of an amendment with Arborists WEST COAST ARBORISTS (CONTRACT NO. 2966) for C -2966 the current tree trimming contract that would (38 ) extend the length of the contract to 10 years at the current rate of $39 per tree. Motion x Council Member Edwards stated that as a result of All Ayes a brief meeting with the General Services Director, he was informed that the private provider has indicated he was no longer interested in obtaining a C.P.I. (Consumer Price Index) for the term of 10 years, and inasmuch as that provision can now be eliminated from the contract, he would move • approval of the amendment. Motion x 43. In view of comments made by the City Manager All Ayes regarding Agenda Item 43, motion was made by Council Member Edwards to reconsider the Council's action on this matter. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Edwards to defer action on thus Rem until the budget study session of June 19, 1995, with the exception of granting authorization to proceed with the update of the privatization study with SCS Engineers, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $7,000. All Ayes Following clarification of the above recommendation regarding the privatization study, the motion was voted on and carried. 44. BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Boards/ Commissions Mayor Pro Tern Debay described the process used for interviewing the applicants for the various Boards and Commissions, stating the Council Appointments Committee screened 85 • applications, and met on Saturday, June 10 at 8:30 a.m. to interview 33 of those applicants. She noted the quality of the applicants in all areas was very impressive. Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tern Debay to All Ayes confirm the following nominees (appointments to be made on June 26,1995): Volume 49 - Page 248 ROLL CALL rJ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES U, Q x Q¢WWO.�, W r- 3g2Ut70 } �� W W IM x W >W O ~ z June 12, 1995 I BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES Norman Loats Frank Lynch Frank Posch Julie Ryan CITY ARTS COMMISSION Marilee Stockman (1 -year term) Elana Donovan Riki Kucheck Catherine Michaels CIVIL SERVICE BOARD (Civil Service Board Nominee) Paula Godfrey PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION Patricia Beek Roy Englebrecht Phillip Glasgow Michael Mahoney PLANNING COMMISSION Anne Gifford Edward Selich Stephen Sutherland Tom Thomson Michael Toerge Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m., June 13, to 4:00 p.m., Monday, June 19, 1995, for a study session on the Preliminary Budget and County Landfill Gafe Fees until 7:00 p.m., at which time the Council will go into Closed Session. The agenda for this meeting was posted on June 7, 1995 at 3:30 p.m., on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. A 'Vcf —') — Mayor ATTEST: Via'�L/gs��A c ,.. -Z City Clerk G U 3�- -� --�;�* �R Volume 49 - Page 249 ' NDEX