Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2004 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m INDEX CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m. xxxt * ** x+rttererxtx ** A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Absent: Adams (excused) C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None. D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Webb. E. INVOCATION - Ms. Pat McLaughlin, Second Church of Christ Scientist F. PRESENTATIONS Youth Government Annual Report. Aaron Israel, Youth Council Liaison and Youth Council Chairman, stated that the Youth Council has done some excellent things this year and introduced Youth Council Vice Chair Ablia Kattan. Miss Kattan utilized a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed their responsibilities, events, community service activities, and goals. She thanked Mayor Ridgeway on behalf of the Youth Council for being the City liaison. Mayor Ridgeway stated that it is a joy and honor to be a part of the Youth Council and also thanked Recreation Manager Levin for all his work. Presentation for Balboa Island Parade by Craig Page. Mr. Page announced that on June 6 at 11:00 a.m., for the 11th consecutive year, the Balboa Island community will be celebrating the dedication of the Fire Station. He highlighted the list of participants and, on behalf of the Balboa Island Improvement Association and the Parade Committee, invited Council to attend and presented them with commemorative parade t- shirts. G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): Council Member Bromberg reported that 49 teams participated in the American Cancer Society Relay For Life and raised about $90,000. He Volume 56 - Page 926 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX stated that the broad Squad raised the most money ($15,000). He indicated that Mayor Ridgeway was there and slept overnight with his children in a tent. He thanked everyone for participating. • Council Member Bromberg reported that he held a town hall meeting for the Little Balboa Island residents regarding replacing or retrofitting the Little Island Bridge. He indicated that the straw vote was basically split. He stated that Public Works Director Badum and Engineer Dalton gave a presentation that evening. He announced that Little Balboa Island will take a vote, he will then make a recommendation to Council, and they will decide which way to go. He stated that Little Balboa Island residents will receive a packet of information with renderings, an explanation of what the retrofit process will be, and provide an option for a temporary bridge. • Council Member Bromberg asked staff to contact him via email relative to where handicap parking spaces are in West Newport. Council Member Rosansky reported that there are about four to six parking spaces in the two public lots, but noted that they are never used. • Council Member Rosansky thanked all the people who came out for the Adopt -A -Beach Program last Saturday morning at the Balboa Pier. He announced that about half the blocks have been adopted. He stated that people can get more information about adopting a beach by logging onto the City's website. • Council Member Heffernan noted that the extended cable franchise agreements are about to expire. He stated that the committee needs to meet and get this worked out. • Council Member Heffernan reported that they discussed the no smoking on the beach ordinance at the study session and Council was split. He stated that this issue was referred to the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. He indicated that they will report their findings to Council in 120 days which will give them a chance to see how Santa Monica and Los Angeles' ordinances operated during the summer, and how enforcement and legal issues were handled. • Mayor Ridgeway announced that he was on the Council Critters team during Relay For Life and the Fire Department cooked a pancake breakfast. Council Member Bromberg added that there were a lot of volunteers and people supplying services during the event. He announced that Me and My EV even supplied carts to drive individuals around the track who couldn't walk because of some disability or because they were going through cancer treatment. Mayor Ridgeway announced that agendas are on the City's website, are printed in the newspaper, and are posted on the City Hall bulletin board. He reported that he asked the Public Information Office and the City Clerk to work with all the departments to post notices and agendas at a specific time, twice a week, on cable television (Channel 3). He hoped that this will happen before the next meeting. Volume 56 - Page 927 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 ► 1 R- I. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTESIORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Removed at the request of an audience member. 2. Removed at the request of an audience member. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 3. Removed at the request of an audience member. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 4. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE (100/2004) ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -39 amending Resolution No. 2003 -18 regarding membership, attendance and purpose and responsibilities of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. 5. Removed at the request of Council Member Heffernan. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 6. Removed at the request of an audience member. 7. DOVER DRIVE SIDEWALK DESIGN - APPROVAL OF C -3652 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH VAN DELL AND Dover Drive ASSOCIATES. 1) Approve a budget amendment (04BA -062) in the Sidewalk Design amount of $19,838 from the Transportation and Circulation fund balance, (38 /100 -2004) 260 -3605, to Transportation and Circulation, Dover Drive Sidewalk Design, 7261- C5100712; and 2) approve a Professional Services Agreement with Van Dell and Associates, Inc. of Irvine, for the design of the Dover Drive sidewalk at a contract price of $69,838 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. S. Removed at the request of Council Member Heffernan. 9. SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT (FY2003 -04), PHASE 2 - C -3693 AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3693). 1) Approve the plans and Sidewalk specifications; 2) award the contract (C -3693) to International Pavement Replacement Solutions Inc. for the total bid price of $118,827 and authorize the Mayor Phase 2 and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and 3) establish an amount of (38/100 -2004) $11,137 to cover the cost of unforeseen work. 10. Removed at the request of Council Member Nichols. 11. IRVINE AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPING PHASE II - DOVER C -3576 DRIVE TO HOLIDAY ROAD - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE Irvine Avenue OF CONTRACT (C- 3576). 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Median Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) authorize the City Clerk to Landscaping release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of (38/100 -2004) Volume 56 - Page 928 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 ►Iff -ITA Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. 12. Removed at the request of Council Member Nichols. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 13. Removed at the request of an audience member. 14. Removed at the request of an audience member. 15. BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT A CHECK FROM THE (100 -2004) NEWPORT BEACH LIBRARY FOUNDATION AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS BUDGET ACCOUNT FOR FY 2003 -04. Approve a budget amendment (04BA -064) in the amount of $10,000. 16. BUDGET AMENDMENT. Approve a budget amendment (04BA -065) to: (100 -2004) 1) appropriate unanticipated revenue funds in the amount of $12,000 from account 4320 -5162 (Adult Sport) to expenditure account 4320 -8080; 2) appropriate unanticipated revenue funds in the amount of $42,000 from account 4330 -5150 (Fee Based Classes) to expenditure account 4330 -8080; and 3) appropriate unanticipated revenue funds in the amount of $6,500 from account 4340 -5144 (Aquatics) to expenditure account 4340 -8080. 17. 2004 -05 PROPOSED BUDGET HEARING; 2004 -05 (100 -2004) APPROPRIATION LIMIT HEARING. Schedule a public hearing of the City's Proposed Budget and Appropriation Limit for the 2004 -05 fiscal year on June 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, and direct the City Clerk to publish a notice of said hearings. 18. APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS (100 -2004) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Confirm appointment of Kristine Adams as a Community Association Member to the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). Motion by Council Member Brombere to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams J. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. REVIEW, APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION OF THE FY 2004 -2005 (100 -2004) ONE -YEAR ACTION PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD). Volume 56 - Page 929 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 Program Administrator Trimble reported that, about a month ago, an item was presented to Council approving the public service portion of the grant allocation for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. He indicated that this staff report is the remaining portion and is the submission of the one -year action plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He stated that, after receiving public comments, they will submit the Action Plan to HUD for their review and approval. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the lady from Serving People In Need (SPIN) sent Council a note to thank them for the contribution the City will be making with this motion. Council Member Heffernan stated that there are a number of charities and a large amount of the funds is going to the Balboa Village. Mr. Trimble explained that 20% of the funds goes to administration, 15% goes to public service grants, and the remainder goes to any eligible activities under the Block Grant program (i.e. public improvements, housing programs, and ADA programs). He announced that their normal allocation is about $437,000, but there was left over money from prior years that they allocated in this year's budget. He explained that public improvements, like the Balboa Village, are eligible under the Block Grant program as part of community revitalization. Further, the fund is going towards a matching program with other public monies. He noted that the Section 108 loan is an advance on the CDBG program which is a major funding component for the Balboa Village project. Motion by Council Member Brombere to approve the Action Plan for submittal to HUD. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 20. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -003 (PA2004 -066) — REQUEST TO AMEND DISTRICTING MAP NO. 25 TO ESTABLISH A 10 -FOOT SETBACK ON ORANGE AVENUE FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3315 CLAY STREET. Motion by Council Member Webb to introduce Ordinance No. 2004 -10 and pass to second reading on June S, 2004. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams Volume 56 - Page 930 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 21. UPDATE OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) LAND USE PLAN — LCP AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093). Mayor Ridgeway announced that he was on the Local Coastal Program Certification Committee (LCPCC) to draft the LCP, along with Council Members Bromberg and Webb, and reported that it took two years to generate. Senior Planner Alford utilized a PowerPoint presentation to explain the Coastal Act which was adopted by the legislature in 1976 and established the California Coastal Commission (CCC). He reported that the goals of the Coastal Act are to protect, maintain and enhance natural and artificial coastal resources; balance the utilization and conservation of coastal resources; maximize public access and recreational opportunities; and make coastal dependent and related development a priority. He displayed the City's coastal boundary and explained that the preparation of an LCP is the primary method in which Coastal Act policies are implemented. He reported that each local government is required to prepare an LCP for the portion of the coastal zone that lies within their jurisdiction, it must be certified by the CCC, and it consists of the land use plan and an implementation plan. Mr. Alford explained that this is mandated by SB516 which requires the City to submit an application to the CCC to allow the continued use of the Newport Coast LCP after annexation. He noted that the LCP was supposed to be submitted by June 30, 2003; however, he explained that staff had a draft prepared in November 2002 but it was determined that extensive public outreach was necessary. He reported that the City is currently paying a $1,000lmonth late fee to the State Coastal Conservancy and, if the City fails to do this, the CCC could impose an LCP just as they did in Malibu. Mr. Alford reported that, after certification, coastal development permit authority will be delegated to the City; the CCC would retain permit jurisdiction over certain areas like tidelands; and the CCC would continue to serve as an appellate authority over coastal zone permits that are approved by local governments in specific geographic areas. He stated that the LCP is to be used to review coastal development permits and not to approve something that is inconsistent with the zoning code or general plan. He added that the CCC wants language in the LCP to indicate that, if there is a conflict between the LCP and a city policy, the LCP would take precedence. He explained that the CCC wants to be able to review the project against the LCP and not any other ordinance. Mr. Alford noted that the City has a detailed general plan that has narratives and tables that describe land use entitlements. He stated that the CCC doesn't need to see this but only needs the relevant portion of the general plan that is enough to convey information on land use type, location, density and intensity. He indicated that they tried to condense this information in the form of a Coastal Land Use Map to convey the information without reproducing the entire Land Use Element in the LCP. Mr. Alford reported that all R -1 and R -2 developments, with the exception of the first row of lots adjacent to the shoreline, are under a categorical exclusion that has been in effect since 1977. He stated that, under the Volume 56 - Page 931 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX Coastal Act, all categorical exclusions expire upon certification of the LCP. However, included in the LCP is direction to immediately proceed with a new categorical exclusion which continues the current exclusions and expands it to include the commercial strip on the south side of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. He reported that this was discussed with CCC staff who indicated that they would support this proposal and would also support this being done concurrently with the certification. Mr. Alford reported that the CCC commented that there is an overemphasis on general commercial land uses in the coastal zone and they wanted to see more dedicated commercial designations in the City that lean more toward visitor- serving uses. He stated that the LCP addresses this through a visitor - serving designation. Further, the City has made the case that the existing general commercial uses are visitor - serving and used the information from a retail market analysis from 2002 to prove it. He reported that the analysis shows that a high percentage of the general commercial areas in the coastal zone are dedicated to visitors of the coastal zone. Mr. Alford reported that the current ban on onshore oil and gas operation facilities is included in the LCP, as well as the opposition to additional offshore operations. He noted that this is also included in the City's charter. He stated that the CCC has indicated that an outright prohibition would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act since those uses are permitted uses in the coastal zone. Regarding Banning Ranch, Mr. Alford reported that this area has oil and gas operations, contains a number of sensitive habitats, coastal bluffs and other natural features. Additionally, this area is under discussion by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) regarding future land uses. He indicated that, rather than try to address these issues in the LCP or translate the existing land uses from the general plan, they decided to submit this as a deferred certification area which is an area that would be excluded from the LCP for now so it does not hold up the certification for the rest of the City's coastal zone. He stated that this could be addressed later through an LCP amendment or adoption of a separate LCP segment for that area. Mr. Alford stated that the California coastal trail/oceanfront boardwalk is an issue that came up late in the process. He noted that they received statements of support for extending the oceanfront boardwalk from 36th Street to the Santa Ana River as part of the California coastal trail. He reported that the LCP calls for the City to cooperate with the State to develop the coastal trail through the City; however, public access in that area is still shown to end at 36th Street and follow onto Seashore Drive to the Santa Ana River. He believed that they can continue cooperating with the State but it does not necessarily involve extending the boardwalk. Mr. Alford reported that Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) stem from the fact that the current LCP land use plan uses this term to designate very large geographic areas to indicate that some or parts of them may contain ESHAs. He stated that the Coastal Act has severe Volume 56 - Page 932 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX restrictions on development within ESHAs and severe land use controls. He stated that this is addressed in this draft of the LCP by separating out the geographic areas that were identified in the current LCP and identifying environmental study areas where there are narratives describing the various resources, rather than using "ESHA" to describe them. He reported that there is a separate section that outlines the process for designating area ESHAs, but they do not designate any areas in the LCP as an ESHA. He stated that this will be a separate process that will be handled on a project -by- project basis. Regarding eelgrass, Mr. Alford indicated that some people believe that eelgrass should be designated as an ESHA and some people believe it is more of a nuisance and should be eradicated. He reported that this is addressed in the LCP by shifting the current policy to a more baseline approach in which they could maintain a critical habitat of eelgrass in the harbor to allow other projects to proceed as long as the baseline is maintained. Mr. Alford noted that the Bayview Landing project had issues regarding where wetland boundaries were in that area. He stated that they set up procedures for establishing definitions for wetlands and a procedure where they could modify the definitions, if necessary, when there are ambiguities on various parameters that are used to designate a wetland. He indicated that they feel this is consistent with the CCC's recent actions and feel that something like this should be incorporated in the LCP. Mr. Alford reported that the current LCP land use plan and general plan call for the protection of coastal bluffs and this has been carried over in the draft LCP with more detail. He indicated that the major difference from the current policy is that they recognize that there are two types of coastal bluffs in the City — natural state bluffs and ones within existing developed neighborhoods that have been altered over time. He stated that there is basically two standards in which the more pristine bluffs will be protected from any type of development, except development for public safety or public facilities. He added that the bluffs in developed areas would have limitations that would restrict them based on the predominant line of development. Mr. Alford referenced the slide regarding public outreach, highlighting that the LCPCC held 17 hearings over 18 months; the LCP was reviewed by the City management staff in 2003; was reviewed by City committees and commissions; and was reviewed by community, advocacy groups, and individuals. He noted that the LCPCC incorporated a number of revisions into the later drafts of the document. He reported that copies of the draft LCP were placed at all the libraries, sent to adjacent cities and the County, posted on the internet, and made available for loan or purchase. He added that over 200 notices were mailed to community groups, business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals. He stated that the Planning Commission held three public hearings in March and April, and they received comments at those hearings from over 60 individuals and organizations. Mr. Alford stated that next they will complete the adoption of the land use plan, make a formal application to Volume 56 - Page 933 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX the CCC, the CCC will hold public hearings, and revisions will be sent back to Council for final adoption. He reported that the implementation plan process will begin after this which involves hearings with the Planning Commission and Council before sending the application back to the CCC. Council Member Heffernan asked what happens if the City doesn't like what the CCC sends back or doesn't have an implementation plan. Mr. Alford clarified that SB516 calls for the submittal of a complete application; which includes an implementation plan, and only having certification of the new land use plan will not be sufficient. He pointed out that SB516 only requires the City to submit it to the CCC and have them deem it to be a complete application, but the City is not under obligation to formally adopt it. City Attorney Burnham stated that there is an expectation on the part of the legislature and the CCC that the City would act in good faith relative to the submittal of a land use plan and implementing ordinances. Council Member Heffernan stated that, given the fact that Newport Beach is a coastal city and it does not have an LCP, he asked if there is historical basis in the City that leaves us where we are today. Planning Director Temple stated that the City initiated actions to commence the final certification through the adoption of an implementation plan three separate times before this effort. She indicated that the three reasons they stopped were due to an initial belief that adoption of the plan would increase the level of bureaucracy by adding an additional permit layer; the level of detail that the CCC was asking for in the implementation plan was thought to be beyond what was reasonable; and CCC staff identified an issue related to extending or readopting the existing categorical exclusion which could result in many R -1 and R -2 projects being subjected to a coastal development permit public hearing process where none exists today. She indicated that they did think they would continue on with the implementation plan, but it was delayed due to loss of staff in the Planning Department in the mid- 1990s. She confirmed that, if someone needed a coastal development permit, they currently would go to the CCC to get it; however, if this is implemented, the City would make the decision in most cases. She stated that not wanting to be the decision -maker was never a leading reason for prior Councils to not pursue implementation. Council Member Nichols requested and received clarification from Mr. Alford relative to the locations of the categorical exclusions. He stated that the current exclusion only applies to R -1 and R -2 properties and they are proposing as policy that the categorical exclusion include the south side of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. City Attorney Burnham added that they are not establishing the City's coastal zone boundary in this document, noting that this has already been established by State law. He reported that the map is also on the internet in the event they are questioning whether their home or property is in the coastal zone. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the coastal zone has been around since 1972 and was adopted by the legislature in 1976. Council Member Nichols believed that people need to review this document, noting that he was not aware of some of the things mentioned Volume 56 - Page 934 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX tonight. He stated that he does not understand why the City does not say the harbor is a working harbor and, since it is a working harbor, eelgrass is not a problem here. He indicated that Redondo Beach has taken this position. Council Member Bromberg explained that Redondo Beach did not have to deal with this issue because they do not have eelgrass. Mr. Alford explained that the issue of eelgrass goes beyond the State and is a Federal issue. He reported that the LCP does recognize shortcomings and they are trying to set up a strategy to deal with the eelgrass issue through the establishment of a baseline. He explained that the baseline concept would establish a minimum acreage in the harbor in order for the eelgrass to fulfill its habitat function. He stated that, as long as the baseline is maintained, other areas containing eelgrass could be developed. City Attorney Burnham stated that the mitigation requirement is a CCC, Department of Fish and Game, or Army Corp of Engineers requirement since they issue permits for dredging. He explained that the proposed plan seeks to establish a strategy for addressing issues related to eelgrass in a manner consistent with the protection of the environment and the desire of property owners around the bay to be able to maintenance dredge so the harbor can continue to function in an effective way. Mayor Ridgeway pointed out that the LCP is not trying to address eelgrass but is trying to set a future policy. Council Member Nichols asked if the City will continue to pay fines if the Banning Ranch issue is deferred. Mr. Alford explained that addressing the area as a deferred certification area will fulfill the City's requirement under the Coastal Act. Further, SB516 only requires the City to address the portions of the City that were in the City as of 2000. He noted that most of Banning Ranch is outside the City's limit, but is in its sphere of influence. He added that CCC staff feels that some of the land use policies on Banning Ranch are premature and indicated their support for declaring it a deferred certification area. He emphasized that the Coastal Act encourages the City to work closely with the CCC staff throughout the drafting of the document. Council Member Nichols noted that the LCP takes precedence over the general plan. Mr. Alford reported that the document also includes a statement that it could not be used to approve a development that is more dense or intense than what the general plan allows. He clarified that a large portion of the implementation plan will include the zoning code. City Attorney Burnham confirmed that which ever is more restrictive between the Land Use Element or LCP applies. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, stated that his father helped put this together in 1976. He believed that the City says it has failed to keep proper records, and is now planning to take over more responsibility and police themselves. He expressed the opinion that the City has not proven to be a custodian but the County has, and believed that the City should amend its agreement with the County and pay them more for their services. He reminded Council that the Harbor Department is in conjunction with Seal Beach. He stated that he has yet to see SB516, it is new to him, and wondered why. He believed that the Grand Canal could be filled in because of moving eelgrass. He also reminded Council about Volume 56 - Page 935 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX the oil derricks his father helped the City obtain on the other side of Superior between the Santa Ana River, and asked if this is the Banning site. He expressed the opinion that this is lucrative and vaguely presented to the public, believing that this is being pushed through quickly. Council Member Rosansky noted that many members of Council own property in the coastal zone and asked if anyone has a conflict. City Attorney Burnham stated that he does not believe anyone has a conflict since the document will affect the public generally. Vicky Edwards Ziesche, Newport Beach, stated that she finds it distressing that Council would approve the LCP tonight and questioned why the Planning Commission and Council would give control of their property to the State. She indicated that there are examples of bad City decisions like the John Dominus structure. She stated that her taxes increase yearly yet her property rights decrease. She strongly urged Council not to vote tonight to approve the new LCP. She noted that 200 individuals were notified but only 60 responses were received. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the notification also included community associations. Fleetwood Joiner, Corona del Mar, stated that he is a resident of Irvine Terrace and thanked the Planning Commission and staff for keeping the Irvine Terrace property in its entirety as an exempt neighborhood in the LCP, and for maintaining the categorical exclusion for all R -1 and R -2 residential properties. In response to Mr. Joiner's questions, Mr. Alford stated that language was added in the LCP which indicate that the bluffs along Bayside Drive from Promontory Point to Irvine Terrace do not meet the definition of coastal bluff and would not be subject to the policies, but would be covered by the categorical exclusion. He indicated that they would be exempt from needing a coastal development permit regardless of the project and, therefore, the policies of the LCP would not apply. He noted that there is a section that deals with coastal views from public roadways but those would only be reviewed on a development that is subject to a coastal development permit. Gary Ziesche, Newport Beach, stated that he that assumes all the bluffs along Mariners Mile are part of the protected bluffs. He expressed concern that many people residing on the bluffs don't exactly know what's happening and that he does not know to what extent they will be affected. Further, some power may not allow him to do something but the provision may not actually kick in for years. He asked why Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point get a free pass and where the LCP is located on the internet. Mr. Alford reported that the LCP can be found at http: / /www. city. newport- bgach.ca.us /Pln /LCP[LCP.htm. He referenced the coastal zone map, noting that most of West Newport and areas along Coast Highway and the bluffs are not in the coastal zone and are not subject to the policies of the LCP. Mr. Alford reported that, in addition to the normal noticing that goes in the newspapers, they also had a display ad identifying Planning Commission and Council public hearings, mailed notices to community and business associations, as well as any advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals who asked to be on the mailing list. Volume 56 - Page 936 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX In response to Council Member Nichols' question, Mr. Alford indicated that Corona del Mar is a different case because most of the bluffs are adjacent to the shoreline and are not covered under the categorical exclusion. He confirmed that the properties that are not covered by the categorical exclusion have to get a coastal development permit through the CCC, not the City. He reiterated that the current categorical exclusion includes R -1 and R -2 properties that are behind the first row of lots along the shoreline and that the City will apply for a new categorical exclusion to continue this after the LCP is certified. He stated that CCC staff has indicated that they would support the City with a concurrent filing and hearing on a new categorical exclusion or to continue it after the LCP is certified. Council Member Webb stated that people think the City has the option to not adopt the LCP; however, every agency within the coastal zone has to adopt an LCP. He pointed out that, if the City does not adopt an LCP or has a different opinion than the CCC, the CCC will adopt an LCP for the City and the City will be required to accept it. He stated that the City is trying to put together the best document possible to help as many residents work through the process and, once a plan is adopted, a very large portion of the community will not have to get permits from the State. He believed that the process is an overall benefit for the City in the long run. Mr. Alford concurred and added that the major reason for developing an LCP is to have local influence on the policy document. He noted that the findings of the State legislature requires that the development of LCPs rely heavily on local input. He stated that, in addition to having the document drafted by the City, permanent authority would be shifted from the State to the City so coastal development permits would be reviewed by City staff, not State staff. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's question, Mr. Alford clarified that Proposition 20 set up a temporary Statewide coastal commission and a series of regional commissions whose charge was to develop the Statewide plan for the protection of the coastline. He stated that this plan basically became the Coastal Act through its passage by the legislature in 1976. Jan Vandersloot, Newport Heights, indicated that he was not notified of this meeting and believed there were many others who were not notified. He stated that he would like the opportunity to read the final draft before Council makes a final decision. He believed that it is not sufficient to say that the document is on the web and, therefore, people have been noted. He stated that Council should abide by what the Coastal Act says about wetlands and not allow ambiguities to creep into the definition of wetlands. He indicated that he is opposed to any kind of categorical exclusion to what was originally coastal bluffs. He stated that most of the coastal bluffs have been modified to some degree. He noted that when there is a discretionary action of whether or not to allow a development to cascade down a hill on a coastal bluff, then you have that property categorically excluded and it takes away from protection of what the coastal bluff is. He suggested having an even - handed policy throughout the City and not have any categorical exclusions. Dr. Vandersloot reported that there are reasons why eelgrass does not grow in the City's proposed mitigation sites, like pollution in the Rhine Channel. He stated that people should be more Volume 56 - Page 937 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX appreciative of what the eelgrass offers as an environmental benefit to the foraging areas of endangered species of birds and a nursery for the fishes. He emphasized that the reason we all love Newport Beach is because of its natural settings. Mayor Ridgeway reported that the Harbor Area Management Plan which attempts to deal with eelgrass is not part of the LCP, and has not been adopted by the Department of Fish and Game, the CCC, the City, or the Army Corp of Engineers. He added that there was never and has never been a proposal to try to plant eelgrass in the Rhine Channel. Terry Welsh, Chairperson of the Banning Ranch Park and Preserve Task Force, stated that they have been around for four years and are a local Costa Mesa/ Newport Beach group. He stated that they would like to see the property purchased for a fair price from the owners and would like to see the entire Banning Ranch become a park. He invited Council and everyone to a presentation of their vision for Banning Ranch on June 2 at 7 p.m. at the Costa Mesa Community Center. He stated that, if you compare the coastal bluffs on the Banning Ranch property to other bluffs in the City, you can see that they are the most unaltered coastal bluffs in the City and he would like to see the final LCP insure that they have the most protection. Mr. Welsh stated that he attended one Planning Commission meeting regarding this and requested that these meetings be known to more people. He noted that the GPAC survey indicates that the most popular option is to purchase the property even if it means an increase in property taxes. He presented his email address so that he can be made aware of the meetings. He emphasized that Council has a wonderful opportunity to affect the future of Banning Ranch. Mayor Ridgeway reiterated that Banning Ranch is a deferred certification area, the City is not taking any action on it, and it will remain as -is at this point. Laura Kern, Corona del Mar, stated that she read about the LCP but was not aware of the meeting until she received a notice last week. She agreed that it would be helpful to have the same publicity as there was for the Visioning Process and other activities that are highly publicized. She referenced Section 4.1.5 and noted that the language about the Dunes was changed which points out the importance of having native California plants. She stated that she would like to see the intent of this provision be extended to the bluffs, whether they are natural or manufactured. Further, she would like to understand how the City will promote the restoration of native habitat. She reported that the City can take the leadership role in educating the public about the importance of native habitat and change how the City plants at beaches. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing. Council Member Bromberg stated that he sits on the LCPCC and he has looked at what other cities do regarding outreach, and no one compares. He added that there was also a committee update at every Council meeting. He believed that there also needs to be a certain amount of citizen responsibility. He indicated that people show up to the meetings when they have an interest in an issue; however, there is always someone Volume 56 - Page 938 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX who won't get the word about the meeting. He emphasized that the City did not ask for or want this task, but it will do the best possible job. He stated that they are looking out for the overall good of the City, but there is always going to be some part of the community that will be upset with the City no matter what it does. He believed that, when this is done, the City will have the best LCP in California. He reported that they have gone through four major drafts of the LCP. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -41 approving the Coastal Land Use Plan with the deletion of the sentence "Such easements should extend from the mean high tide line landward to a point fixed at the most seaward extent of development" in Section 3.1.1 -11, and authorizing submittal to the Coastal Commission for formal review and approval. Council Member Webb emphasized that, by adopting this, submitting it to the CCC, and getting it approved by the CCC, the City is really getting local control over the issuance of coastal permits within the City which will be a great benefit to the City and its citizens so they don't have to attend CCC meetings throughout the State. Council Member Nichols asked if this could be continued for one meeting and whether this requires a second vote to pass. City Attorney Burnham indicated that this does not require another reading to pass. Substitute motion by Council Member Nichols to continue this item to the June S, 2004 Council meeting. Council Member Nichols stated that he made the motion so citizens have one more chance to see this since it is as important as the general plan. He reported that it is on the web and now people have been notified. He stated that he received the report earlier than most people, but he hasn't been able to go over all of it. Council Member Heffernan stated that ordinances and other things have two hearings. Further, as important as this is and since the City has been reluctant to adopt a coastal plan for years, he believed that the citizens deserve a second meeting. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he will not be supporting the substitute motion. He indicated that he chaired the LCPCC and has made a report at every Council meeting for the last six months. He stated that Dr. Vandersloot testified at the Planning Commission meeting and that the document is not much different than what was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Ridgeway pointed out that the public also has an opportunity to speak at the CCC meetings. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote: Aves: Heffernan, Nichols Noes: Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Mayor Ridgeway Abstain: None Volume 56 - Page 939 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 Absent: Adams Council Member Bromberg's motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Heffernan, Nichols Abstain: None Absent: Adams 22. NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 500 -540 SUPERIOR AVENUE, AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 3679, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2003 -001 (PA2003 -122). Senior Planner Campbell reported that this project was approved by the Planning Commission and was called for review at the last Council meeting by Mayor Ridgeway and Council Member Nichols. He stated that the project is a request by Newport Technology Center, LLC to lease the buildings for office uses. He stated that the buildings were constructed in 2002/2003 as a research and development (R &D) project. He indicated that they want to change the mixed uses that occupy the project site, noting that the applicant has a 50% office ratio. He reported that they reevaluated the traffic generation for the project pursuant to the traffic phasing ordinance (TPO). He stated that the traffic analysis concluded that no additional impacts at area intersections would occur and no mitigation measures are required. He reported that they conducted supplemental analysis on some intersections in Costa Mesa and found that those would operate at acceptable levels of service. He stated that they feel that the findings have been met. He added that there is also an amendment to the use permit associated with the application, noting that there were several conditions of approval that related to the prohibition of office with the previous use permit but those have been amended. He reported that additional consideration with the use permit involved the building bulk, adding that this was overlooked in 2001 when the buildings were constructed. Mr. Campbell reported that they received a letter from Phil Arst of Greenlight who believe that the project would be inconsistent with the general plan and criticized some of the traffic and zoning analysis. He stated that these issues were presented to the Planning Commission at the last hearing, but it is staffs position that the project does meet general plan and zoning requirements. He noted that the property also meets the industrial designation and pointed out that it is also in the M -1 -A zone. He reported that offices, businesses, and professional uses are permitted uses and that allowing offices in the M -1 -A zone has been a policy since 1966. Council Member Rosansky noted that the City worked with Costa Mesa on the impacts of their intersections, but pointed out that Mr. Arst's numbers were significantly different. Public Works Director Badum reported that they contacted Costa Mesa today and talked with Dave Sorge, the supervisor of the traffic engineer, who indicated that they do not support Mr. Arst's numbers and are satisfied with the work that has been done so far by staff. Volume 56 - Page 940 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX Mayor Ridgeway asked if the traffic study by Kunzman Associates and the additional intersection studies were given to Costa Mesa. Mr. Campbell stated that the analysis and data used for the supplemental analysis came from Costa Mesa. Mr. Badum indicated that he is not aware of any conversations, but the basis of the analysis came from Costa Mesa and speculated that they would be in agreement with the City's numbers. He added that they spoke with Costa Mesa this afternoon so they were aware of the meeting. Mr. Campbell reported that a Costa Mesa staff member was at an earlier Planning Commission meeting in which the item was continued, and they did have conversations with that staff member; however, he does not know if the traffic analysis was transmitted to them. Mayor Ridgeway reported that on November 29, 2000, Costa Mesa sent a letter and asked the City to study some intersections but the letter was ignored. Mr. Campbell indicated that they did not ignore the letter but reviewed it and looked at the intersections in conjunction with the negative declaration. He added that they prepared responses to comments, they were shared with Costa Mesa, and they did not disagree with the analysis. Mayor Ridgeway reported that the letter mentioned that the traffic analysis for the old Raytheon site was done over a 24 -hour period because they operated 24/7. He believed that the numbers in terms of the employee -base are based on a 24/7 operation instead of an 8 or 10 hour day. Mr. Campbell reported that the analysis they did with the negative declaration rested on the prior TPO analysis for the former R &D. He stated that they had a high number of employees and they looked at the peak hour analysis. He reported that they still find that there is no impact to area intersections even with the increase in traffic they anticipate with this project. Mayor Ridgeway asked if some of the floor area ratio (FAR) numbers were based on an employee ratio. Mr. Campbell explained that the FAR analysis was based on the implementation of the zoning code and this is how they limited the project site to 43% office and 57% R &D. He reviewed the FAR analysis on handwritten page 7 and explained how the weighted factor was determined per Section 20.63.040. Ms. Temple reported that Section 20.63.040 was adopted in 1990 subsequent to the adoption of the general plan update in 1988. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that he is not sure if he understands the difference between R &D (.75 FAR) and office (.5 FAR). He stated that R &D gets a bonus of .25 FAR when you subtract .5 from .75, and asked about the methodology. Ms. Temple indicated that she does not know. Council Member Webb believed that they are trying to come up with a situation because R &D normally needs more space per person and should be allowed more square footage because they produce less traffic and less need for parking. Mayor Ridgeway noted that R &D now is a more intense employment use than in 1988. Mr. Campbell confirmed for Council Member Nichols that there is a multi- level parking structure there. He indicated that what was missed in 2001 was that the project was allowed to exceed the basic building bulk standards. He reported that the project couldn't be built out as 100% office since that would've violated the FAR and been inconsistent with the general plan. Council Member Nichols believed that, when they took down Volume 56 - Page 941 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX the manufacturing, they could've put less offices and more parking and met the .5 FAR. Mr. Campbell clarified that, if the project was 100% office use, it would've had to be built at .5 and a much smaller project would've been built. Council Member Nichols stated that the use was also industrial manufacturing which is less than the typical R &D use for parking per square feet. He believed that the R &D supported the original zone as a manufacturing site; however, when it went to predominantly an office site, it did not have sufficient parking. Mr. Campbell stated that the prior use did have aspects of manufacturing, as well as office, but he is not aware of any manufacturing occurring in the current project. He emphasized that the current use permit does not allow any office use which is the purpose of this application. He reported that the site actually has a surplus of parking according to the current standard for office of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and added that R &D is 2 per 1,000. Mayor Ridgeway stated that traffic assumptions are based on 1,965 employees. Mr. Campbell confirmed that they want to limit the overall project by the number of employees if it stays R &D based on traffic assumptions, that the employee number was taken from the old Raytheon project, and the numbers were taken over three shifts. He noted that they evaluated the peak hour trip generation not average daily trips. Mayor Ridgeway noted that, if you back into the numbers over a 24 -hour shift, the building could be about 470,000 square feet; however, he does not know what the number is if you factor it back to a building that has a daytime workforce that is less than 1,965 employees. He stated that he is not comfortable with the square footage, but the application for the modification of the TPO fits within the current code. Mr. Campbell explained that, since the original approval, the City permitted the project under the premise that office uses can only be ancillary to a manufacturing use; however, this was a false premise. He stated that the general plan uses the term "professional service offices" and they believe that to be a descriptive list, not a limiting list. Further, if you go to the M -1 -A zone, it talks about offices, business, and professional uses and the term has been on the books since 1966 as a permitted use in the M -1 -A zone. He reported that the general plan does not talk about these uses being ancillary or accessory to any other use. He stated that this comes out of a provision of the zoning code in the M -1 -A zone that was created in 1988. He believed that, although there are different terms, they are talking about the same types of uses. He explained that if a general office is now not permitted in the M -1 -A zone, that would be new territory for the City to implement. Mayor Ridgeway asked if there is historical record about the 1966 code regarding office use and ancillary office use as it relates to R &D. Ms. Temple reported that she researched the March 1966 staff report and ordinance. She stated that the staff report described the changes as generally being clarifications of the uses permitted in the district. Further, it indicated that the proposed changes were suggested through a land use committee that included planning staff and property owners. She reported that the staff report noted that the most important change was that restaurants would now be required to have a conditional use permit. She stated that she can only guess that they considered the establishment of administrative and professional offices as an expressed permitted use, as Volume 56 - Page 942 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX opposed to a use which must be ancillary to other uses principally allowed in the district. Council Member Nichols stated that he worked in a similar building that had manufacturing, R &D, and a restaurant. He stated that when this type of building shifted to an office structure, the R &D had to have the ancillary to make it balanced. He believed that the structure never would have passed under the present zoning rules. Council Member Webb asked if past uses are consistent with the general plan. Mr. Campbell stated that they believe that the project is consistent with the general plan and offices in the M -1 -A zone have been something that the City has been looking at and permitting since 1966. Mr. Campbell indicated that the traffic engineer found that, based on the traffic study, increased uses and peak hour traffic does not impact any intersections. Council Member Webb stated that documentation has determined that the project meets the code. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern about stating that R &D is almost 2:1 these days, believing that the City is going 6:1 for medical. He believed that they will eventually have to change to all offices. He believed that R &D is never 2:1 these days and this will create a huge crag mire as far as use because there is inadequate parking and this will create more traffic than calculated. He recognized that planning's hands and the Commission's hands are tied based on the current definitions. Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing. Carol Hoffman, Government Solutions Inc., stated that she has represented the property since its original approval and has always worked with staff to ensure they meet the requirements and are consistent with the general plan. She indicated that her clients are responsive and willing to live with the constraints on the number of employees. Further, if there was a question about the use, they went through a detailed rationale with staff to demonstrate that it was R &D. She reported that they met with the Planning Director and looked at the floor plan, layout, and the amount of space that was going to be used for the number of anticipated employees. She agreed that things changed since 2001 when the project was approved and this is why they looked at a detailed traffic study. She stated that it took over a year for the traffic division to hire an outside consultant and assured everyone that they want to be sure they were consistent with the general plan and Greenlight. She explained that the traffic study was done again when Costa Mesa was doing additional traffic counts in order to verify the figures at the intersections. Ms. Hoffman stated that they made the findings to allow increased height on the buildings at the time of the original approval and that, if you look at the findings required for bulk, they're almost identical. She indicated that they would've met those findings in 2001 if it was included in the staff report. She noted that the Planning Commission looked at the findings and agreed that the bulk and FAR issues were covered. She agreed that the calculations for .5 and .75 are complicated; however, they went through the analysis again in every effort to ensure that they are meeting the requirements and are confident Volume 56 - Page 943 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX that they have gone through the calculations. Ms. Hoffman stated that manufacturing did exist originally, but manufacturing now takes a slightly different form. She noted that sometimes it could take one person on a computer when it used to take five people to assemble in a manufacturing area. She pointed out that, although there are offices connected with manufacturing, there are also offices connected with warehousing and R &D. However, a true office separate from R &D is a category they wanted to make sure was permitted by the traffic. She stated that it was most important to them to do the traffic analysis and show that traffic impacts were not going to occur. She reported that, if the outcome was 42% or 40 %, they would've accepted the limitations. She stated that they are willing to live with the requirements of the original use permit for either office or R &D use and understand they have to go through a set of criteria to demonstrate that. Further, they are willing to continue to demonstrate that they will comply with the number of employees on the site. She noted that the Planning Commission approved their request on a 7 -0 vote and, if Council has additional conditions they wish to impose, they will be happy to consider them. Noting that Ms. Hoffman is on the Hoag Hospital Board, Council Member Heffernan asked if the hospital has signed off on the traffic impact. Ms. Hoffman stated that this did not officially go to the Hoag Board although there was discussions between her client and Hoag. She noted that she was not a part of any discussion to avoid a conflict of interest, but reported that the discussions have been terminated at this point. She indicated that Hoag has not taken a position but has been monitoring all the approvals and representatives have attended the hearings. Council Member Heffernan noted that he appealed the matter when this was in the design phase because of the traffic condition on Hospital Road. He added that this was satisfactorily addressed at the time. Council Member Nichols believed that the Newport Technology Center will be holding the total number of employees to 1,965. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that 43% is deducted from 1,965, which gives the R &D a maximum of 845 employees. Council Member Nichols stated that the ratio of the whole building is 200 square feet per employee which will almost give each employee executive -sized offices. He noted that the City can't control the number of people in a house and questioned how the City is going to control the number of employees to have reasonable parking. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that this is a staff condition and the enforcement becomes a City obligation. He noted that there is a review by the Planning Director as to R &D use. Ms. Hoffman added that tenant improvements have to be looked at and business licenses have to be assigned, and that there are a couple of ways they can indicate the number of employees during these processes. There being no further public testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing. Council Member Bromberg noted that the Planning Commission voted 7 -0 on this issue. He stated that be studied their minutes very closely and Volume 56 - Page 944 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX indicated that the Commission spent a good amount of time laboring over this. He added that he agrees with everything Council Member Heffernan said regarding R &Ds and ratios. He pointed out that the use is consistent with what the City has been doing for many years and is consistent with the general plan. He added that he is comfortable with the Commission's findings because any occupant is going to have to demonstrate that their plan is consistent with the development restrictions, which will be pled directly to the Planning Director. Motion by Council Member Brombere to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the amendment to use Permit No. 3679 and Traffic Study No. 2003 -001. Council Member Rosansky stated that he will be voting in favor of the motion, but believed that converting 43% of the building to office space will not be the savior of this project. He noted that they had two years to lease the other 57% for R &D but they only have one small tenant now. He indicated that he does not like the idea that the City is going to have to monitor this property to make sure they do not exceed the number of employees. Further, 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet for R &D space is ridiculous these days. He suspected that the City will be seeing this again as the applicant finds that the project will not be successful. He recommended that the Planning Department review the codes and take a 21st century look at what the requirements will be for parking, traffic, etc. He believed that the Costa Mesa figures are suspect, but he is not a traffic engineer. He noted that those intersections are impacted in Costa Mesa and another 1,000 employees is just going to add to everyone's burden. Council Member Nichols stated that the Greenlight data shows that there are three Class E intersections with traffic over .9. Council Member Webb noted that staff talked with Costa Mesa's staff today who indicated that the numbers in the Greenlight letter are not correct so Council should not be considering them. Council Member Heffernan stated that no one needs a traffic engineer to know that those intersections are bottled up. However, that issue is not before Council. He indicated that, if the City is going to update the general plan, it can do something about the ratios then. He stated that the applicant has spent a lot of money and time, and has been bitten by the market, believing it is not fair for the City to change the rules on them. He added that he is moved that Hoag has not weighed in to oppose this, even though they will be directly impacted. Mayor Ridgeway believed that the 1966 and 1988 codes are archaic, needs to be evaluated by staff, and this should not wait for the general plan amendment process to take affect. He stated that R &D is a different animal today than in 1988, noting that the City's ordinance supports this project. He indicated that he wished Mr. Kunzman would've been here. He questioned the traffic study which indicates that 170 Street and Newport Boulevard is working at a level Service D; however, this is not before Council. He expressed the opinion that the 43% will not change anything. Volume 56 - Page 945 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Nichols Abstain: None Absent: Adams Mayor Ridgeway recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.rrL and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. with all members of Council present. Without objection, Council Member Webb requested to take Item 25 out of order. O. CURRENT BUSINESS 25. DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS ORDINANCE. Mayor Ridgeway explained that this item is being taken out of order due to the safety concern associated with having guns in the Council Chambers. Deputy City Attorney Ohl reported that the ordinance proposes minor changes to the current code to allow the City to prohibit the discharge of air soft guns. He stated that the current ordinance does not cover these types of devices, noting that these are fired with a mechanical device as opposed to pressure at the breach. Police Chief McDonell stated that the existing ordinance covers weapons that are actuated by compressed gas; however, those that are operated by mechanical means (spring action, electronically, or by battery) are not covered in the code. He noted that this will not prohibit people from owning them or carrying the weapons, but only prohibits them from discharging them within the City limits. He utilized the guns on the conference table to demonstrate how hard it is to determine which are real and which are air soft guns. He noted that the issue is whether a police officer can tell in a split second. He pointed out that some of the guns are designed to fire automatically. He reported that some of the weapons on the table were taken during a La Palma incident in which young men were jumping over fences onto school grounds. He stated that the neighborhood called the police, officers arrived, and one of the men was almost shot because he wouldn't drop the weapon at the officer's command. He reported that, at the last legislative session, the air soft industry was successful in creating an amendment to State law that basically took the guns out of the classification of imitation firearms. He stated that this eliminates the requirement to have them distinctively marked with some type of coloring. He indicated that this creates a problem for the police officers and the community, noting that they receive calls on a regular basis about young people engaged in war games. He concluded by stating that the ordinance would essentially preclude the spring - loaded air soft weapons and those that are fired electronically from being discharged within City limits. In response to Council questions, Chief McDonell emphasized that the purpose of the ordinance is to save the lives of the people carrying the Volume 56 - Page 946 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX weapons because this is a tragedy waiting to happen. He indicated that the State is considering bringing these weapons back under the imitation firearm requirement. He confirmed that the ordinance makes it illegal to discharge any type of air gun or pistol, as long as it is a result of pressure exerted at the breach from a barrel. He noted that a person needs to be 18 years old to purchase a gun but parents can purchase it for their children. He added that they are also being purchased over the internet. City Attorney Burnham reported that that penal code preempts local agencies on all issues regarding guns (i.e. possession, sale), except discharge. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, believed that brandishing a weapon in front of a police officer is already against the law and that the ordinance does not preclude anyone from carrying the weapons or having possession of them. He suggested doing a public outreach to people who have children who want to play with these. He expressed the opinion that the City does not need an ordinance that says people can't discharge these weapons, but it needs people to tell parents that these weapons could be life threatening to your children if you let them play with them in City limits. He asked if this also precludes people to have dart board pistols. He also asked where does the limit stop as to the restriction of freedom and if this is to protect the general public or the police officer from accidentally shooting someone. He talked about the state of paranoia, but emphasized that people need to know their neighbors. He noted that poking your eye out is also a possibility and asked if paint balls guns are included in the ban. Louise Fundenberg, thanked the Channel 2 News at 6:00 p.m. for highlighting the Newport Beach Police Department and showing a reenactment of the La Palma incident. She stated that, if she is playing cops and robbers and is into the game, she may end up pointing it at a policeman and getting shot. She noted that she couldn't tell the difference on television and can't tell the difference with the guns on the table. She expressed hope that the City passes as much legislation as it can. Motion by Council Member Webb to introduce Ordinance No. 2004 -11 and pass to second reading on June 8, 2004. Council Member Nichols indicated that he is not going to vote for this. He stated that he has a friend who lives in Kennesaw, Georgia, where there is an ordinance that requires at least one person per household to have a gun and be trained in its use. He indicated that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city in that area. He asked if it is legal to use a weapon in self defense against an intruder. Mayor Ridgeway clarified that the issue before Council deals with air soft guns, not real weapons in a home and exercising self defense. Council Member Nichols believed that the ordinance makes it against the law to discharge a weapon in the City for any reason. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the law is not directed towards the protection of life and limb in the home, pointing out that the air soft guns are used by young people who are carrying them around the City. Council Member Bromberg emphasized that, if children are shooting these in the City and an officer believes it is a real weapon, something really bad could happen. He stated that the ordinance will take it out of the loop completely and has nothing to do with defending the homestead. Council Volume 56 - Page 947 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 Member Nichols indicated that he thinks the City should support the Second Amendment. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: Nichols Abstain: None Absent: Adams K. PUBLIC COMMENTS Louise Fundenberg thanked the City for the new City Hall sign. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, referenced the City's webpage, particularly the fourth paragraph of the key points. He stated that the letter is a complaint about a float which he believed the City calls a platform that berthed a sea doo. He displayed photos, stating that the float is no longer being used and the sea doo is no longer in the harbor; however, the paragraph indicates that the complaint was about a platform in relation to a pier. He indicated that the platform is not in the way of navigational concerns even during dredging. Linda Grant asked that someone on Council reopen the motion that was passed at the last meeting regarding not allowing R -1 districts to have weekly rentals. She believed that the public has not been properly notified and that this will impact a lot of business owners. She stated that her friends near the Wedge rent out their house during the summer when they go on vacation and the money supplements their income. She believed that people don't know they need a permit to do this. L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Mayor Ridgeway requested a waiver from doing the reports so Council can move on to other items. M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT 23. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MAY 20, 2004. Planning Director Temple reported that Item 2 was an initiation of a code amendment to the Mariners Mile specific plan and design overlay to reconsider the tree and hedge treatments. She stated that Item 3 was the first consideration of a proposed code amendment regarding recovery facilities in residential zones. She indicated that City Attorney Burnham and a consulting attorney have worked on this for quite some time. She stated that the Commission requested consideration of several changes to the findings and indicated that this item was continued to June 17. Ms. Temple stated that Item 4 was for a use permit for an alcoholic beverage outlet in Fashion Island. She reported that it was approved. Regarding Item 5, she stated that this was an appeal of a Modifications Volume 56 - Page 948 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 Committee decision of a permit at 1931 Port Laurent. She reported that the Commission determined that the requested determination was minor, given the location of the lot and compared to the other lots in the neighborhood. She stated that the Commission approved the request as originally applied for by the applicant. Ms. Temple reported that they considered an amendment to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community Development Plan which addressed the speck locations for medical offices within the planned community and included a readjustment of the parking requirements for the overall planned community. She reported that this item was recommended for approval and will come before Council automatically. Ms. Temple stated that the last item on the agenda was the first public hearing on the general plan amendment, zone change, and use permit for a proposed expansion of the _St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. She indicated that the hearing was very extensive and there was much testimony on both sides. She reported that the Commission asked for an extensive amount of additional information, so the item was continued to June 3. Council Member Heffernan asked about the status of the medical parking ratio change to 6:1. Ms. Temple stated that they are concluding their studies and will be bringing it to the Commission as soon as they complete the report probably at the end of June, beginning July. N. CONTINUED BUSINESS 24. PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY ORDINANCE. Public Works Director Badum reported that issues were raised by several utility companies about Section 13.20.290(A), Opportunity to Cure and Correct, which directly conflicted with emergency provisions. He stated that the previous ordinance indicated that, if they identified a situation where there was a safety hazard that needed to be corrected immediately, they would not give notice to the curer. However, the amended ordinance modifies the statement so it is not in conflict and reads, "Not less than fourteen (14) days following receipt of written notice by Director, or such shorter period as may otherwise be provided in this chapter." City Manager Bludau reported that there was some testimony at the last meeting in opposition to this; however, Jennifer Gonzalez of Southern California Gas Company was here earlier tonight and indicated that the Gas Company no longer has any opposition. Further, the Edison Company is also in support of this. In response to Council Member Rosansky's statement, City Attorney Burnham concurred that "not less than 14 days" should actually state, "not more than 14 days ". He also confirmed that the ordinance should be reintroduced. Volume 56 - Page 949 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 110113 D►1 Motion by Council Member Bromberg to reintroduce amended Ordinance No. 2004 -9 pertaining to use of the public right -of -way. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, believed that the section states that the Director may notify the general public in the vicinity that work is going to be done. He stated that, if people are going to be affected by work down the road, they should know what's going on even if it is an emergency and not notified after the work has been done. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams P. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Webb asked if testimony on the Consent Calendar can be limited to two minutes due to the late hour. Council Member Rosansky stated that he is getting uncomfortable with limiting the comments all the time. He indicated that it's different if it's done on an occasional basis, but unfortunately the meetings seem to be running late frequently. He stated that he understands that some people abuse the privilege. Mayor Ridgeway stated that he asked the City Clerk to review other cities' regulations and reported that most other cities allow three minutes and none offer five minute testimonies. Motion by Council Member Webb to limit Consent Calendar testimony to two minutes. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Nichols Noes: Bromberg, Webb, Mayor Ridgeway Abstain: None Absent: Adams 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 11, 2004. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, stated that he will limit all his comments to three minutes. Regarding volume 56, page 905, he indicated that he said more people and realtors weren't speaking in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Further, his statement is missing about a lot of people spending short periods of time and coming down here to visit, as well as Disneyland and other resorts. Regarding volume 56, page 911, he stated that he didn't word the first sentence the same way. He believed he did not say misappropriation of funds but mentioned that the City could not keep records correctly and this is the reason why they lost their jurisdiction. He stated that he wished the City Clerk would record his Volume 56 - Page 950 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 a little bit better. Motion by Council Member Bromber:r to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: Webb Absent: Adams 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. No action taken. 3. CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES ORDINANCE. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, referenced page 6 of the ordinance and stated that the covers are making a lot of noise. He asked if this is part of the underground utilities franchise ordinance to make sure they are in good order and maintained. He believed that the franchise should include noise abatement because of the continual undergrounding utilities. Motion by Council Member Webb to adopt Ordinance No. 2004 -8 relating to cable communications franchises. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 5. INITIATION OF DISTRICTING MAP AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN FOR LIDO MARINA VILLAGE. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern that this is being initiated at the request of someone who does not have an equity interest in the property. He asked what the precedence is, especially since the City is undergoing a general plan update, the Harbor Commission has concerns about this property, and there are accusations about use permit violations since the City is not enforcing its tidelands rights. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that she does not know what the precedence is for initiating something where the person making the request does not own all the property; however, the code does provide that Council has the authority to initiate a change of zoning district and to initiate a specific plan without an application being filed by the property owner. She confirmed that the general plan is being done all together and reported that they are studying the Lido Marina Village area as one of the special study areas for the general plan update; however, she thought this effort could be complementary to what they are doing with the general plan update because they will not be able to be as specific as this potential Volume 56 - Page 951 INDEX Cable Franchises (42/100 -2004) (100/2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX property owner can be since they will be doing more detailed studies to get a specific plan. Council Member Heffernan asked what happens if they never acquire the property. Ms. Wood believed that they could coordinate with the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), noting that they are already doing this in a few areas where the business owner associations have been doing work for some time. She stated that she does not expect City staff to be jumping through hoops, anticipating that consultants will be retained and this will all be done at the cost of the requesting party, not the City. She noted that nothing can be adopted until it goes through the normal public participation process, public hearings, and notification. She confirmed that they have not submitted a plan. Council Member Heffernan asked about the tidelands, the potential for a marina site, and about the City Hall site. Ms. Wood explained that the City does not own the land on the waterfront and suspected that some type of lease for use of that area would be part of this. She stated that, if Council is interested in initiating this kind of a study, they could change the boundaries of the planning area. Council Member Heffernan believed that this is haphazard, especially if the City is trying to get a comprehensive town square and there is talk about a new City Hall. He stated that he is not against this but wondered if it is too confusing to just look at this property and not the tidelands or the City Hall project in general because it is a cohesive entryway to the City. Council Member Bromberg stated that there was discussion in the City Hall building committee meeting regarding looking at all the projects in the area globally and asked if this would impact what they are trying to do. City Manager Bludau indicated that no one has an idea how this property could affect a new City Hall. He stated that the applicants would also be invited to the table to see what they could bring in terms of master planning this area. Ms. Wood emphasized that this just initiates studies. Mr. Bludau stated that Council could pull the plug at any time. City Attorney Burnham agreed and added that Council could design a process to meet its need. Mayor Ridgeway stated that a specific plan ultimately gives the City more latitude in future discretionary decisions on the Lido Marina site. Council Member Heffernan asked if there is talk about the City condemning the properties to make this a cohesive single development. City Manager Bludau noted that this could only be done by Council, adding that staff has not had any discussions about eminent domain. City Attorney Burnham added that, not only has there been no overture or assurances, the only correspondence he prepared confirms to one of the property owners that there have been no commitments or representations. Further, he sent another correspondence just recently to reconfirm the fact that the City has made no commitments and that Council has rarely used its power of eminent domain, but used it very carefully when it has. Mayor Ridgeway explained that cities cannot use it unless there is a public purpose or redevelopment agency. He noted that this is not in the redevelopment agency and is all private land. Volume 56 - Page 952 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX Uouncil Member Kosansky stated that this is an opportunity to plan the entire area and hoped that everyone keeps this in mind especially since the City is looking at doing something with City Hall and J.C. Partners is doing something with their project. He indicated that the developer asked him to look at their project and he told them that it would be great if the area could be master planned to have a cohesive development and to integrate City Hall. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, stated that rumor has it that the City really doesn't want to be on the Peninsula but would rather be located at Fashion Island. City Attorney Burnham requested that Mr. Hildreth address the agenda item. Mr. Hildreth stated that this is supposed to be a thought process of looking into it to see if it is a viable location. Tim Collins, resident, Harbor Commissioner and member of the General Plan Update Committee, stated that the Lido Marina Village has long been considered a strategic property and they see it as pivotal to the revitalization of the Peninsula. He questioned why the City would consider a resolution tonight when processes are well advanced in guiding the planning and redevelopment of the Lido Marina Village, most notably the City is in the advanced phase of the general plan update. He asked why the City should be soliciting specific plans or district map amendments before the process is complete. He believed that taking action will disrupt and possibly circumvent the process which was started by Council to ensure quality and comprehensive planning. He stated that the City and its Planning Department should be leading a visioning process for the redevelopment of the Lido Marina Village, not reacting to a single developer with limited ownership. He believed that the Lido Marina Specific Plan Planning Principals failed to consider the planning and marine heritage conservation guidelines set forth in the Harbor Element. He urged Council to stay the course and reject this resolution. Tim Paone, J.C. Partners, stated that he would like the opportunity to address Council Member Heffernan's questions. He indicated that the request is not to initiate a general plan amendment. He stated that the uses they are proposing are all allowed under the current zoning and general plan. He noted that they are talking about a vision for consolidating properties where a landowner is willing to pay for the planning process, look at a larger area, and undertake the risk inherent with consolidating these properties and making something special happen in an area where there is a general opinion that something much better can be done. He stated that they are willing to work with the City and have the City tell them what the process should be so the City could ultimately make the decision on what will happen there. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, Mr. Paone indicated that there is ownership interest there today, but expressed the opinion that this is irrelevant. He noted that Mariners Mile is a classic traditional specific plan effort. He indicated that specific plans were designed not to deal with properties under single ownership but to encourage consolidation and comprehensive planning. He stated that the plan would enhance everyone's property value. Council Member Heffernan asked if they own Volume 56 - Page 953 City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 any of it, expressing the concern that he does not want this to get started and in six months this is stopped because they don't own any of it. Mr. Paone indicated that the majority of the property is in escrow. He noted that they are coming forward now because they were not ready six months ago and the plans were not complete. Council Member Webb asked if it would be possible to include the marina use issues in the planning process. Mr. Paone stated that he does not know how it would be possible not to include those. He noted that they do not have a plan or a completed process, and everything the City considers relevant will be taken into consideration. He assured everyone that they will comply with the general plan and zoning codes. City Attorney Burnham confirmed for Council Member Nichols that this does not have any legal binding on the other property owners. He reiterated that this just initiates a process which can be stopped at any point. He stated that the City is in charge of the whole thing and the people Mr. Paone represents are individuals that would participate in the process. Mayor Ridgeway added that this is a tool used to master plan a larger area. City Attorney Burnham reported that the City does have interest in property in the Lido Marina Village and there is City interest in the tidelands. He stated that the City is not only in charge of the process, but will have a lot of input in terms of what Council wants to see. Motion by Council Member Webb to adopt Resolution of Intention No. 2004 -40, initiating a Districting Map Amendment and Specific Plan for Lido Marina Village. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 6. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 101 (AREA BOUNDED BY EAST EDGEWATER AVENUE/EDGEWATER PLACE, ISLAND AVENUE, EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD, AND ADAMS STREET AND BUENA VISTA BOULEVARD, LINDO AVENUE, AND WEST BAY AVENUE). 8. MARINER'S MILE WATERFRONT WALKWAY PIERHEAD LINE EXTENSION: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CASH & ASSOCIATES. 12. CLEAN BEACHES — STORM DRAIN DIVERSION SUPPORT SERVICES — APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EVEREST INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 14. ADOPT A NEW COUNCIL POLICY FOR DISPLAYING FLAGS ON CITY BRIDGES. Volume 56 - Page 954 INDEX Underground Assessment District No. 101 (89/100 -2004) C -3548 Waterfront Walkwa; (38/100 -2004) C- 3485(A) Clean Beaches (38/100 -2004) 1 (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX Council Member Bromberg noted that there is a Council policy that states that Council does not discuss any new item after 11:00 p.m., reporting that the last item started two minutes to 11:00 p.m. Council Member Webb noted that Item 10 is time sensitive. City Attorney Burnham stated that Item 13 is also time sensitive. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to continue items 6, 8, 12 and 14. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 10. CASTAWAYS PARK REVEGETATION — COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT (C- 3546). Council Member Nichols noted.that the revegetation has the cones around it and seems sparse. He asked if the cones work with regard to the rabbits and if the contract is completed. City Manager Bludau indicated that they are very happy with the vegetation and it is doing well. He added that the orange cones are stationary and will probably remain there for another six to twelve months. He indicated that there is still a one -year maintenance period. Motion by Council Member Webb to 1) accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, asked if the vegetation adhered, if the work was done, and if the sprinklers were broken because it looks sparse. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams 13. LEGAL PUBLICATIONS FOR ONE -YEAR CONTRACT COVERING FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2004 TO JUNE 30, 2005. Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, stated that the contract with the Daily Pilot expires on June 30, 2004, and that notices inviting bids will be mailed to all newspapers in circulation. He noted that the Wall Street Journal is delivered in the City and hoped to read such things in the paper when this goes through. He suggested adopting something for the City's website to Volume 56 - Page 955 C -3546 Castaways Park Revegetation (38/100 -2004) Legal Publications (32/100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 make sure that it is up -to -date with notifications and to ensure there is access to it by the general public. Motion by Council Member Webb to authorize the City Clerk to publish a notice advertising for bids to be received on or before the hour of 4:00 p.m., on Friday, June 11, 2004 for a one -year contract covering the publishing and printing of legal notices, or other material required to be published and circulated in the City of Newport Beach. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Adams Q. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. R. ADJOURNMENT - At 11:35 p.m. in memory of former Mayor Ruthelyn Plummer and EQAC Member Louis Von Dyl. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 19, 2004, at 2 :15 p.m on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk i4y ' -A WBmj4— Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 56 - Page 956 INDEX City of Newport Beach Regular Meeting May 25, 2004 INDEX LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Volume 56 - Page 957