Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2004 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session October 12, 2004 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Daigle, Nichols (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Mayor Ridgeway Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Heffernan indicated that he will be pulling Item 9 (Professional Services Agreement to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Barbara Condominiums Project) to get more detail about the project. City Manager Bludau requested that Item 3 be taken before Item 2 because the notice that was mailed to over 6,000 people indicated that this issue would be discussed at 4:10 p.m. Assistant City Manager Kiff noted that the Daily Pilot stated that the item would start at 4:45 p.m. Mayor Ridgeway believed that, since it is not 4:10 p.m., Council could not open discussions. Mr. Bludau noted that the notice was not an official public hearing notice. Acting City Attorney Clauson stated that Council can discuss the item a little early. 3. BUCK GULLY/MORNING CANYON/NEWPORT COAST WATERSHEDS GRANT PROGRAM (ORAL REPORTI. Principal Civil Engineer Stein utilized a PowerPoint presentation. He reported that the Newport Coast Watershed encompasses 10 square miles and includes eight canyons (Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, the Pelican Hills Canyons, Los Trances, Muddy Creek, and Moro Canyon). He stated that parts of Buck Gully and Morning Canyon have too much fuel too close to the homes, erosion and slope failures, and exotic and invasive vegetation that are exacerbating some of the fire and erosion problems. He indicated that there is contaminated runoff in all the canyons. He emphasized that the priority is the extreme fire hazard in Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. He stated that there is high density fuel adjacent to homes and there really isn't a defensible space for the Fire Department to fight a fire. He indicated that they want to propose developing a Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) to help alleviate the hazard in the canyons. He displayed photos of Buck Gully in 1972 and the fire hazard that exists today. Mr. Stein reported that the City currently has a hazard reduction program to clear dead and dying material 100' behind homes in Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. He pointed out that the high density could be a hazard for any house in Cameo Highlands, Corona Highlands, etc., not just the immediate homes. He stated that Newport Coast has an enhanced FMZ in which there are no trees around the development, irrigated low -lying shrubs, thinned native vegetation, and 170' of defensible space around the developments. Volume 56 - Page 1256 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX Mr. Stein pointed out that Laguna Beach did not have a history of fires, but they had the huge fire in 1993. He displayed Laguna's fire footprint which encroached close to Newport Beach. He noted that the Fire Department was able to suppress the fire using Newport Coast Drive as the firebreak. Mr. Stein displayed a photo of an area in Morning Canyon in which Arundo was cleared. He reported that there is a 6' drop in the center of the channel. He also displayed where the ground was four years ago, but stated that it has dropped & and undermining of the bank has started. He reported that, once it goes, the 2:1 slope will be at risk, noting that there is a property at the top of the slope. He displayed the 12' Buck Gully Waterfall that has migrated about 50' upstream towards Coast Highway. He reported that, at the Coast Highway culvert crossing at Buck Gully, there are three 24" lines that drain surface runoff from Coast Highway and is full of sediment. Mr. Stein reported that the City could thank Surfriders and the Orange County Coastkeepers for alerting them about the contaminated runoff problems coming down across the beaches and into the ocean. He noted that there are Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) that run offshore from Corona del Mar to El Morro. He emphasized that State law prohibits nuisance flow down the canyons during the summer; however, 350 gallons per minute of flow regularly go down Buck Gully. He reported that there is a history of steady degradation, loss of kelp beds, and tidepool ratings in the interdial zones. Mr. Stein reported that evasive materials, like Arundo, and a lot of ornamental and exotic plants have come into the canyon and are snuffing out the more native vegetation. He stated that these types of vegetation are high water users and people overwater them. He displayed where the Arundo was removed in Morning Canyon. He reported that Arundo grows in the middle of the stream, forcing the waters to the toe of slopes. He noted that slope failure occurs when there is erosion at the toe of slopes. Mr. Stein stated that possible solutions include developing a plant palette that meets Fire Department requirements and are drought - resistant plants; encouraging homeowners to remove exotic plants and replant with the new plant palette; encouraging the installation of controllers that sense the water moisture in the soil and meter the water so there is no runoff going into the canyons; considering establishing an FMZ in Morning Canyon and Buck Gully; and stabilizing the canyons with detention basins and drop structures. Mayor Ridgeway asked if the City only has an easement right at the bottom of Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Mr. Stein reported that there is an easement in Morning Canyon, but not tracing the canyon flow. He noted that the easement in Morning Canyon is 22' and tends to be on one side of the slope. He stated that the easement is about 50' in Buck Gully. Fire Chief Riley added that most of the properties in Buck Gully and Morning Canyon are privately owned almost all the way down the gully. Mr. Stein confirmed for Council Member Nichols that Buck Gully splits into three streams and the easement does not cover the flood flows. Chief Riley reported that fuel modification is really a changing of the plant landscaping to reduce fuel spread from a wild area to an urban area. He noted Volume 56 - Page 1257 It City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 that there are four zones. He stated that they really don't require too much landscape change in the 20' Setback Zone (Zone A). In the 50' Modification Zone (Zone B), he reported that they remove all combustible, non - native vegetation and replace it with fire resistive plant material. He noted that this area does require some irrigation to maintain the plant's health and fire resistive capabilities. He reported that Zone C and Zone D are also 50'. He stated that they would remove about 50% of the live vegetation and all of the dead and dying vegetation in Zone C, and remove about 30% of the live vegetation and all of the dead and dying vegetation in Zone D. He explained that, if a large fire occurs in the canyons, it would reach less and less fuel as it climbs up the slopes. He added that they also want to change the plant palette in Zone B so it is also drought - tolerant to try to help with the erosion and the runoff problems. Regarding jurisdiction, Chief Riley stated that the City could adopt an ordinance that required property owners to conform to a new fire regulation, noting that this was done in Newport Coast. He indicated that the City could also look at grant funding to do the initial conversion from a brush clearance program to a fuel modification program, and then work with the property owners on how to maintain it. He added that a third option is to create an assessment district to pay for the installation and maintenance. Mr. Stein reported that, in Morning Canyon, the toe of slope falls in Zones B and C. He stated that there would need to be a compromise to protect the toe of slope from being denuded of vegetation, which actually has a stabilizing influence in the canyons. Mr. Stein reported that the City is engaged in a stabilization project in Morning Canyon, the Arundo was cleared last month, they will conduct a survey proceeded with engineering studies, and provide recommendations for a final design with the potential of constructing a stabilization project. He stated that, in Buck Gully, they are conducting a study to possibly construct a detention facility to capture the peak storm flows. He indicated that this would allow them to construct a series of drop structures so the flow would be controlled through this area to the ocean. He stated that this would also provide them with the opportunity to replant the area with wetlands -type species. He reported that MiOcean has expressed an interest in helping the City fund the project. He believed that, once this is implemented, the City will have a nice attraction for citizens and tourists. He added that part of the Buck Gully project will include access for the community. Mr. Stein reported that other projects are with the Surfriders, IRWD, and the Regional Board to clean up the water in Buck Gully and improve habitat. He indicated that the $1.1 million grant for the Newport Coast Watershed Program is to install stabilization projects, remove Arundo, and cut down nuisance flows. He stated that a big component of this is to get public input, noting that they have received positive communication from the public. Mr. Stein reported that, in Morning Canyon, property owners have been supportive once they understood the motivations. He added that the residents also want to see restoration in the. canyons. Mr. Stein reported that the Coastkeepers and Surfrider have offered a lot of assistance with monitoring, education, and intergovernmental coordination. He noted that this watershed is actually going to attract Statewide and National attention because it's a small watershed, but the City will be achieving results in a short amount of time. lie believed that this will also help the City receive future grant funding. He stated that they have draft ordinances from Santa Monica and Malibu for landscaping and irrigation. He indicated that they have outlines for Volume 56 - Page 1258 IW City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX additional grant funds, received offers from the community to help write the grants, and received offers from other agencies to partner with the City on these efforts. Mr. Stein stated that people can get more information by visiting the City's website (www.city.newport - beach.ca.us) or calling him (644- 3311), Fire Prevention (644- 3106), or Code and Water Quality (614- 3215). Mayor Ridgeway asked how wide Buck Gully and Morning Canyon are at the narrowest point. Mr. Stein reported that Morning Canyon from top to top is less than 200' and the slope is sometimes sleeper than 2:1. Council Member Webb stated that most of the slopes were originally constructed at 1.5:1. Mr. Stein stated that Buck Gully is about 10 times wider with 2:1 slopes. Mayor Ridgeway noted that, if there was a fire in Morning Canyon, it could move rapidly up the slope to the homes. Council Member Nichols noted that there are several storm sewers coming down into Morning Canyon, particularly closest to the highway, that have no energy dissipation. He asked if the City is going to try to do something temporarily to dissipate some of the energy. He noted that there is also a major slope failure at that point. He asked if something can be placed there. Mr. Stein reported that any actions that involve motorized equipment will require permission from the permitting agency, noting that they consider an emergency to be a house falling into the canyon. He stated that it would probably be a year before the proposed stabilization project can be implemented. He indicated that, at that time, they would put in energy dissipaters and stabilize the slopes. He noted that the City does not have easement agreements with any of the property owners. City Manager Bludau indicated that we need a master plan and anything that is done, needs to be in accordance with that master plan. Public Works Director Badum explained that they have not removed the root structure of the Arundo because they don't want to make the area more unstable. He stated that the reason for getting rid of the green part of the Arundo is so they could go in and assess what they have. He noted that most of the properties are private property and they've been sending notices for the property owners to inspect their property or hire someone to assess their property. He stated that, at this point, without a General Plan or an overall master plan, the City doesn't have any options to do work since they're still assessing the situation. Council Member Nichols indicated that the residents are arguing they cannot get permits. Mr. Badum reported that several property owners are moving forward with their projects. He added that the slope failure incident is in plan check and they're moving forward. He stated that his staff is ready to assist anyone that requests help in processing permits. Mayor Ridgeway asked what agencies are involved jurisdictionally with Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Mr. Stein indicated that the co- applicant on the grant application is the County. However, the jurisdictional agencies include the Corps of Army Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commission, and the County (Buck Gully only). Mayor Ridgeway asked if the drainage from the houses was designed to drain into the streets, curbs, and gutter where the City captures and channels it, or was it Volume 56 - Page 1259 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX designed to drain into the gullies. Mr. Stein indicated that this is a gray area. He noted that the new homes still drain into the canyon and they are not sure why this is happening. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that, one way or the other, the flow is going to the canyon regardless if it's captured in the City's system or going directly in. Mr. Stein agreed; however, their goal is to eliminate all nuisance summer flows and only use the storm drain system for the storm flows. Council Member Nichols stated that the City used to have easements in the gullies that allowed them to have a road at the bottom to fix things. Mr. Badum reported that the current easement in Morning Canyon was probably put in place after the realization that at some point in time, if there was development upstream, they'd have to construct some type of drainage facility. He indicated that this is only above the highway. He stated that the City never really had control over the drainage, noting that this was a paper easement probably to construct a future facility. He indicated that he does not believe that the City has ever had easements in Buck Gully. Further, there were roadway right -of -ways that were vacated for whatever reason. He emphasized that the key issue is that the people who live along these drainage areas don't have the ability to build a facility that's going to work for everyone and that the City is probably the best equipped to be the leader to come up with a solution that works for everyone. He stated that this ultimately may mean that the City gets some type of easement or control of the drainage courses in order to put in control structures, water quality facilities, etc. because the City will have to build the facilities and maintain them to make sure they're operating properly. In response to Mayor Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Badum indicated that, in Morning Canyon, RBF is assessing all the information they can gather. He noted that all the current developments were approved under codes that were in place at the time. He agreed that more research needs to be done and consideration of all the issues needs to be formulated into the solution. Mr. Stein stated that the RBF study is ongoing, but they will be coming back to Council with specific engineering design recommendations in November and to ask for funding for the final design. He explained that this study is to stabilize the channels so there won't be further erosion, adding that the long term goal is to cut off the nuisance flow. Council Member Nichols stated that the homeowners' storm drains flow into Morning Canyon, but noted that the flow also comes from the golf course. He indicated that the homeowners having total responsibility for their property is different than controlling the storm flow from the whole subdivision. Everett Daly stated that he owns a home at the top of Buck Gully. He believed that, if a fire were to come down from the Pelican Hills Golf Course, his house would be the first one that the fire would reach. He stated that The Irvine Company owned Evening Canyon, turned it over to the County three years ago, and the County cleared the brush. He stated that this eliminated critter noise for about a year, noting that the crickets are back but not the frogs. He believed that there is less water in Buck Gully than what has been reported. He expressed the opinion that the City's proposal would kill Evening Canyon, even though it is very well meaning. He stated that he is not concerned with fire, noting that there has historically not been a fire in that area. He indicated that he had a geological survey done before he bought his house and was told that his house would only fall down the hill if all of Corona Highlands disappeared into the sea. Volume 56 - Page 1260 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX Mr. Stein agreed that the City is not an expert in some of the new types of habitat restoration and modification procedures, so they have formed a technical advisory committee composed of university professors and local marine biologists and geologists. Laura Curran believed that this is an opportunity to restore habitat in Buck Gully, but noted that there are a lot of plants that are native -like, i.e. drought - tolerant or from Northern California. She stated that it is also important to put in habitat that is consistent with the Crystal Cove area. She reported that, if the plant habitat is replaced with habitat that is consistent with the environment, the food supply for the animals will increase. She stated that, if the City looks at the educational opportunity and makes this a pilot project for habitat restoration, it can be a model for doing this in other communities in the City. She stated that native species will help reduce the amount of water . that's required, runoff will be reduced, and the use of pesticides will also be reduced. Mayor Ridgeway noted that everything that Ms. Korin said is what is being proposed. Ms. Korin commended staff for putting all the staff:reports online. Robert Butnik encouraged doing the landscaping with drought - tolerant and native plants that are suitable to Southern California. He noted that there are a number of large trees in the middle of the slopes that could catch fire and asked if there is a way to expedite that part of the plan so those fire hazards could be eliminated from the canyons first. Herb Lee expressed concern about the proposed FMZ because he has planted over 200 fruit trees and 150 grape vines that are not indigenous to the area. He stated that he filed for a special exemption from the Fire Department to exempt the fruit trees when they cleaned the area. He noted that he kept all his plants out of the City's 22' easement. He stated that he already intended to fence off the face of the canyon, but he held off doing this because of the activity regarding the drainage. He indicated that transients sleep in his backyard and kids smoke in the canyon. He believed that it would be better if people weren't allowed in the canyon. Kevin Klein stated that the water table needs to be studied more because some of the demand on Buck Gully comes from the golf course and from people irrigating the front lawns. He agreed that there has been an increase of water. He stated that, when he bought his house, he cleared the slope, planted more tropical landscaping, and elevated the irrigation up to 4'. He reported that Buck Gully's landscapting provides a noise buffer from Coast Highway. He noted that there is a plan to put up a soundwall on Coast Highway; however, the soundwall will stop before Buck Gully starts. Philip Bettencourt, President of the Newport Coast Community Association, reported that they believe that they are in full compliance with all of the City's fuel modification guidelines and have had an intensive inspection of their slopes. Further, their association has an aggressive inspection program of their storm drain system. Jim McDonald stated that the increase of water is not from the homeowners on the canyon, but from what has happened in Newport Coast. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that they are researching this. Volume 56 - Page 1261 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 David Michael stated that he lives in Morning Uanyon and that, prior to purchasing the home, there was slope failure. He expressed concern that there will be additional slope failure because of this plan. He believed that the City has neglected its obligation to maintain its easement as stated on his deed. He believed that, since the City has not maintained its obligation, the City shouldn't use this to drive a political, social, and environmental agenda down the neighbors' throats. He stated that the City cannot tell him what he can and cannot plant on his property. He indicated that he is almost resentful that the City has allowed this gaping hole and is using this as a way to push FMZs and proper habitat. He believed that, now that the residents along Morning Canyon know what the agenda is, they might not be so unanimous. Jack Butefish, Newport Coast Advisory Committee member, stated that it was their understanding that the residents had a 10' to 12' space, and then the FMZ began. Further, they believed that, from that point to Buck Gully, it was the County's responsibility. He stated that some of these problems need to be shared with the County. He indicated that there are five runoff drains from Newport Ridge Vistas that pick up all of the service water and runs it into Buck Gully. He believed that the runoff should be distributed rather than have it go down those limited pathways. Mr. Butefish indicated that there are several areas in the FMZ that are barren and there has been no effort to replace the vegetation. Council Member Nichols reported that, when The Irvine Company turned over the property to the County, the County declared it wilderness and basically has no budget for maintenance. Assistant City Manager Kiff displayed where private property begins and where the County -owned area (Coastal Greenbelt Authority) is located. He noted that the Coastal Greenbelt Authority is a joint powers agency between the County and other land - owning agencies that hold land in the reserve. He reported that the City is not a voting member of the Coastal Greenbelt Authority because it does not own land in the Authority. He agreed that they have a fairly small budget for maintenance. He added that the County has told the City that the budget is what it is, but said that the City could fund the extra maintenance if it was willing to. Chief Riley reported that the portion of Buck Gully that is owned by the County and is below Newport Coast falls under the Hazard Reduction Ordinance which requires that the fuel be reduced to a manageable size based on the design criteria for the first 100' adjacent to the properties. He stated that the County's money is principally used to meet the requirements of the Hazard Reduction Program and they annually clear their areas up to 100'. However, the vegetation below that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the ordinance. He pointed out that they do not have any enforcement capability and there is no obligation for the County in the basic fire code to do anything different. Council Member Nichols asked if it was possible to make a road that can be used for maintenance or inspecting the area. Chief Riley reported that they are not required to maintain that area nor do they require any fire access roads in the base of the canyon. He stated that their principal fire protection is for structural protection as it abuts wild land areas. He indicated that there used to be a road or maintenance easement at the base of upper Buck Gully; however, the County stopped maintaining it. Council Member Webb asked who pays for all these improvements, noting that most of them are on private property. He pointed out that someone was concerned Volume 56 - Page 1262 110171► City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 that, if the area was opened up, people may go into those areas. However, he asked why the City would spend public money if it wasn't going to give the public access. Mayor Ridgeway emphasized that this is about safety and that the City is ultimately the entity responsible for the ASBS. He believed that the initial study and a master plan with solutions should be the City's responsibility; however, he is unsure how payment after that should be handled. Council Member Webb agreed, but wanted to make sure people know that the City is not saying it will be paying for all the improvements in the future and may be looking for private contributions to help protect their properties. Council Member Nichols agreed that the drainage also comes from all of Cameo Shores, Corona Highlands, the golf course, and upstream. He stated that the City has responsibility, but needs to have easement roads in order keep up the area. He agreed that the City also needs some relief from the County. Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg commended the residents for coming out and staff for their work on the issue. He agreed that the County needs to get involved. He stated that he is comfortable with having staff move forward with the action plan and requested that staff talk to the County to see if they could provide some financial relief. Mr. Kiff requested that, if people would like to be placed on a more routine email distribution list for information, they leave a business card or respond to opinions@city.newport-beach.ca.us. 2. POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO MODIFICATION PERMIT PROCEDURES. Senior Planner Alford stated that they are reporting back regarding a survey of modification procedures that were brought about through an amendment that Council reviewed in late 2003. He reported that the amendment addressed a number of concerns Council had regarding the Modifications Committee process. He stated that there were concerns that the modification process deviated from its original intent to provide relief from a strict and literal application of zoning code regulations, it was being used to accommodate individual project designs, it was slowly reshaping the character of neighborhoods, and insufficient attention was being given to maintaining adequate public safety access. Mr. Alford reported that currently the only finding required to approve a modification permit was that it is not detrimental to persons or property in the surrounding area. However, the proposed amended three findings requires that the applicant: 1) demonstrate that physical aspects of the property create the need to deviate from the code; 2) demonstrate that it is compatible with the existing developments in the neighborhood; and 3) demonstrate that there is no negative impact to public safety. Mr. Alford reported that staff was directed to conduct a parallel review of the modification process using the proposed findings. He stated that 47% of the applications would've been denied using the proposed findings versus less than 3% under the current finding. He reported that they met with three architects, Brion Jeannette, Todd Schooler, and Barry Walker, who regularly represent applications for modification permits who stated that they are generally supportive of the amendment. However, they did express concerns with Finding 1 because it requires the property to be unique and would preclude a number of Volume 56 - Page 1263 INDEX (100 -2004) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX modification applications. Mr. Alford indicated that they included a revised Finding 1 in the staff report which removes all references to size, shape, and other unique physical aspects of the property. Mr. Alford reported that, since the Modifications Committee is subject to the Brown Act, members of the committee are prohibited from discussing the applications outside of the open meeting. He stated that this varies from other types of applications where they distribute them to other departments to receive input prior to decision making. He indicated that staff feels that a solution to this is to replace the Modifications Committee with a single staff member, a Zoning Administrator, so this person could consult with other departments prior to the modification hearing. He stated that this method allows interaction without violating the Brown Act. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg's questions, Senior Planner Garcia stated that, if the three new findings were utilized and the Committee's makeup was the same, there would still be a concern about meeting and discussing the application with other departments prior to the hearing. He indicated that the Administrator would have the ability to meet with whomever they needed to depending on the application. He believed that they still would be able to have an in depth hearing with the applicant because the Administrator could ask the representative from Public Works or the Building Department to be present at the meeting if there was an issue or they needed to answer questions. He stated that the Administrator would be one person from the Planning Department. In response to City Manager Bludau's question about the use of "practical" in revised Finding 1, Mr. Garcia stated that it could mean that the building is non- conforming, the property is odd shaped, or it was not practical to make an addition to a garage and make it conform because the lot is not wide enough. Mr. Bludau noted that, under the revised language, Finding 1 is a lot more flexible. Acting City Attorney Clausen stated that the concept deals with physical difficulties as opposed to economic difficulties or the desires of an applicant for something they would like to have. Mr. Alford indicated that the amendment before Council last year included guidelines, examples, and parameters on how each finding would be administered. Council Member Heffernan asked about a previous request regarding a rectangular lot on the Peninsula in which the owner wanted to reduce the front yard setback since everyone else did it. Mr. Garcia indicated that they treat new buildings differently than remodels to existing buildings. Council Member Heffernan stated that, if the modifications are allowed, the City might as well rezone the whole area and cut the setback to 3'. Mr. Garcia indicated that they would probably deny the request because of the inability to meet the first finding. He stated that the only types of encroachments they have been approving is for architectural -type features, like patios, porches, and balconies, not living areas. Mayor Ridgeway emphasized that they are talking about minor modifications, not rezoning. He added that the City has worked on exception forever. Mr. Alford indicated that the reason for the amendment is to get away from people requesting anything as long as it did not cause a problem. He stated that the amendment requires the applicant to demonstrate the need based on physical practicability of the property. He reported that, if there were standards that deviated from the purpose and intent of the zoning code, those should be properly Volume 56 - Page 1264 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX addressed through a zoning code amendment that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Council Member Heffernan referenced his previous example and asked, since the neighbors have already come out 3', would that be justification for granting the modification. Mr. Clauson reported that just because the neighbors come out 3' is not a basis for approving the modification, and added that this is exactly why staff is proposing additional findings. Council Member Webb expressed concern about setbacks, particularly in areas that only have 3' setbacks because, if they are not clear, there won't be fire access between buildings. He hoped that the new finding would not make it easier to place improvements in any setback. Ms. Clauson indicated that Finding 3 addresses the concern about safety. Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that he likes the idea of the three findings, but is unsure about having a Zoning Administrator versus a full committee. He requested that this come back with at least the three findings. Planning Director Temple reported that having a Zoning Administrator, not a multiple person committee, is probably the most common type of review in the State. Further, most agencies use this format for the reasons that staff mentioned. She believed that there will be more and better participation from the other departments because a whole host of people, including those who currently sit on the Modifications Committee, can be consulted. She added that it is also more efficient with regard to staff resources. In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions, Ms. Temple stated that the Administrator will prepare an informal :report that is adapted from the planning review process used to consult with other departments. She stated that the interchange would be written and could cause the Zoning Administrator to consult directly with affected staff to make sure they were clear about the project and, if important, suggest that the person attend the hearing in order to give testimony. She emphasized that it is the applicant's responsibility to justify whether the three findings were met. She added that the meetings will still be noticed just as they are today. She stated that the appeal process would also still be the same in which it could be appealed by the Planning Commission, appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission, or appealed to Council. Council Member Daigle stated that she has been before a Zoning Administrator in the City of Los Angeles, noting that they have six Zoning Administrators. She agreed that they are powerful; however, they do consult with other departments to formulate conditions and this method reduces their workload. She indicated that Long Beach has one Zoning Administrator. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, Ms. Temple reported that the Modifications Committee and its procedures were established in the mid- 1960s. She stated that the committee makeup has not changed until this recommendation. Mr. Bludau suggested that the examples /interpretations that Mr. Alford mentioned be brought back when this comes before Council. Mayor Ridgeway believed that Council will consider the alternative findings. Mayor Pro Tern Volume 56 - Page 1265 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 Bromberg suggested that this come back with the three findings and leave the discussions about the Zoning Administrator open. Ms. Temple noted that this issue has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. She stated that the study on the findings was done at the request of Council, so this would come back to Council as a public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. Acting City Attorney Clausen reported that a settlement proposal just arrived as she came to the Study Session relative to Wetlands Action Network vs. the City of Newport Beach (San Francisco Superior Court Case No. SPF03503862). She stated that, since the need to take action arose after the posting of the agenda, a motion is needed to add this to the Closed Session agenda. Motion by Council Member Webb to add this item to the Closed Session agenda. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Webb, Daigle, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None ADJOURNMENT - at 5:50 p.rrL to Closed Session. * +e,rxatxxx* � *��x *xr:t:titxx:F:t + +x x� The agenda for the Study Session was posted on October 6, 2004, at 2:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk � Recording Secretary u Mayor Volume 56 -Page 1266 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes October 12, 2004 INDEX THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY. Volume 56 - Page 1267