Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - Minutes - AmendedAgenda Item No. 1 City of Newport Beach February 25, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting February 11, 2014 Council Member Henn noted the opportunity for public discussion during the first reading. Motion by Council Member Henn, seconded by Council Member Petros to conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2014 -2, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California Adding Section 11.08.060 to Chapter 11.08 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Relating to Beach Fire Rings. \ 5. Cl! The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Gardner, Council Me Hill, Council Member Curry, Council Member Henn Noes: Council Member Daigle RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -9 - ACT OF 2014 ". 1100 -20141 Council Member Daigle repc without the efforts of City st Council's binder so she has m slashing employee health -ben 2016 Act has not been writs support identified in the Resc ballot measure and she can be Tem Selich, Mayor "THE PENSION REFORM Park Project would not have happened e Pension Reform Act is not included in `to road -the Act. She added that she cannot support it the)Act has not been put on the ballot and that the ced on the ballot. She asked regarding bipartisan suggested tabling the item until there is a definitive ith a text. Council Member Curry reported that the measure allows bargaining units and cities to negotiate whether or not existing pension systems will be capped for those people who are in it. He noted that it has nothing to do with healthcare. He addressed rising costs of pensions and impacts on how the City provides its services as pensions are eating up the bigger part of budgets. He added that it is backed by Democratic and Republican Mayors alike and is consistent with the direction the City has been going, does not impose on anyone and is done through collective bargaining units. Council Member Daigle reiterated that the text has not been provided for Council to read or consider. Jim Mosher noted there is a pension problem and assumed there are numerous solutions being offered. He believed it is appropriate for Council to give residents accurate, objective information on how the proposals would affect the economics of the City and that it is not appropriate for Council to officially align the City with one particular proposal which has not been provided. He added that it is not appropriate for Council to try to influence an election. Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Henn to adopt Resolution No. 2014 -9, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California Expressing Support for "The Pension Reform Act of 2014 ". The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Selich, Mayor Hill, Council Member Curry, Council Member Henn Noes: Council Member Daigle PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC FIRE ENGINEERING INC. (C -5735) (381100 -20141 Volume 61 - Page 455 City of Newport Beach City Council Regular Meeting February 11, 2014 Council Member Gardner commented on mitigation measures, specifically regarding utilities and service systems related to water, noting that it involves payment of required connection fees. She asked regarding expected environmental impacts and how payment of the fees fixes them. Additionally, she addressed best management practices, street - sweeping and private parking lots noting that street - sweeping is required quarterly with n the document. She added that street- sweeping is a very important part of water quality and felt that it should be changed to weekly or bi- weekly. She commented on the mitigation Cmeasure related to not idling for more than 15 minutes, noting prior recommendations for another\areaTf not idling. more than five minutes and stated that she would recommend (no d1 ng at all asked regarding the provision for idling 15 minutes. � iN ; 1 Community Development Director Brandt considered. Council Member Gardner commented on vie substantial impacts to views. She heask d if additional views. Community Development were used as the basis f'oi of refining that in the nex Mayor Hill that `somethina less than that could be �l ;\ nd,noted that the EIR indicates there are ouncil will have the flexibility of negotiating the views presented are conceptual and ; therefore Council will have the option Larry Van Pelt and Dick Hoagland, speaking on behalf of the Bayside Village Homeowners Association, noted that Baysi 'Village is immediately adjacent to Back Bay Landing and will be most directly affected by the proposed development. Mr. Van Pelt expressed concerns with lot -line adjustments, increased traffic, noise, security concerns, loss of parking and storage. He added that very few of the mobile home sites are on short -term or month -to -month leases and that the vast majority of units are owner- occupied with long -term leases. He added that Bayside Village is documented as a private park, with private roads and a private beach in the Local Coastal Program and the Land Use Plan so that any efforts to alter, divide or take away portions of the park for public access will face strong community resistance. He stated that the owners of the park also own and operate parcels of land immediately contiguous to Bayside Village on three sides and are seeking development on each of those parcels. Mr. Hoagland added that the plan has already been approved as The Dunes Hotel and that the owners of the marina have communicated their intent to expand the marina in the future. He hoped that the City would look after the rights of Bayside Village residents and stated that they have worked with the owners of Back Bay Landing who have incorporated their comments into the EIR. He stated that the Bayside Village HOA supports the project as long as their mitigation and concerns are taken into consideration. Rick Julian commented in support of the project and hoped that Council will approve it. Jim Mosher commented on the response to comments within the EIR noting that it includes serious environmental concerns raised by Coastal Commission staff and by Coastkeeper. He reported that the concerns were "fluffed" off with a statement that the EIR is only about legislative proposals and that it is not about the specific project and felt that when the matter returns to the Planning Commission it will be stated that all of those concerns were addressed in the EIR. He expressed concerns that the EIR is not addressing the specific project. He reported that the architect for this project is the same that brought forward the mansionization project on the lot at the corner of PCH and Dover and stated that residents can look forward to Volume 61 - Page 459 City of Newport Beach City Council Regular Meeting February 11, 2014 throughout California on similar issues and stated that Council has a choice in changing speed limits. He reported that Council can direct staff to change the road classification to local noting that by doing so, it would satisfy several things, which he listed. He addressed the process and asked that Council reclassify the road to local. Gary Blackney noted the matter is a public safety issue. Nancy Fichtner stated there is a school a block away residential neighborhood used by walkers, runners a safety due to increased vehicle speeds and asked Coin the speed limit. Chuck Groux noted there are no sidewalks or concerns with safety due to increased vehicle\spee street is inaccurate and that the road is used by d. Discussion followed regarding Avenue. and this is a local sed concerns with tragedy and lower on that street and expressed that the show of homes on that and cyclists. specifications of other segments of Tustin Edgar Church stated there-are no sidewalks oh either side of his street and there are a lot of cars parked on both sides. He reported that the safety of school children has been understated and commented on the number of children who ride their bikes to the school. He added that he is a skeet shooter Iand has a radar gunland that he has clocked cars going through the area at up to 50 mph. v \ \ ) Bill Lyon spoke in support of'hi' neighbors' comments and indicated that he has been in a few close calls pulling out onto�Tustin. He added there are no street lights on the sti:eet and stressed that it is a safety issue. He asked that Council support reducing the speed limit on Tustin Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Selich commented on conflicting requirements but he supports looking out for the neighborhood and reviewing the regulations to find a way to help the neighborhood. Additionally, he reported reading the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manual and commented on the process to determine the correct street classification as being as much an art as it is a science. He commented on the purposes of different street classifications and though staff has identified the street as a collector, he has gotten no clear answer regarding how that was determined. He discussed the context oQ�sensitivity and livability and noted this is one of those roadways where accessibility and mobility must be analyzed. He addressed California Vehicle Code's definition of "fronting" and stated that it seems to him that the existing residences have a "fronting" aspect to them. He spoke in support of reclassifying the street from a collector to a local. Council Member Gardner mentioned that when the process was reviewed previously, none of the Council Members were happy. She added that Council should address this matter philosophically and consider what is good for the City as a whole when it comes to this specific issue. Mayor Pro Tem Selich noted that some cities go through a regular review process and agreed with Council Member Gardner's comments.. He agreed with taking a broader look at the issue and believed this to be a situation that the City should never have gotten into to begin with. Council Member Gardner expressed concerns specific to Tustin adding that she is unsure that reducing the speed limit will solve the problem. Volume 61 - Page 464