HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 07-25-2000August 8, 2000
Agenda Item No
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes D����
Study Session
July 25, 2000 - 5:05 p.m INDEX
ROLL CALL
Present: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil (arrived at 5:20 p.m.),
Mayor Noyes
Absent: Debay (excused)
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
In response to Council Member Glover's questions regarding Item No. 17
(Staff Support for the Arts Foundation), City Manager Bludau reported that
he received the request from Mr. Gregory but was unable to make these
types of decisions. He indicated that Council Policy A -5 provides exceptions
which can only be approved by the City Council. Council Member Glover
believed that the City Manager should advise any person making these types
of requests to contact a Council Member in order to place the item on the
agenda. Mr. Bludau stated that only the City Council and the City Manager
can currently place items on the agenda.
Regarding Item No. 12 (Traffic Control on Marguerite Avenue at Sandcastle
Drive), Council Member Thomson stated that he spoke with residents and
indicated that he will oppose any action tonight that would delay action
relative to a stop sign. He indicated that he would like to proceed with a
measure that combines Alternatives A and B. Mr. Bludau recommended
that the item be pulled and discussed during the regular meeting.
2. REPORT FROM INVESTMENT ADVISORS.
Administrative Services Director Danner stated that Council requested that
the investment advisors appear before them periodically and indicated that
they used to meet with the Finance Committee. He reported that Kay
Chandler of Chandler Asset Management, Inc. has been one of the City's
investment advisors since 1991 and Rod Olea of City National Investments
was hired in 1997.
Kay Chandler, Chandler Asset Management, Inc., reported that the
investment report is divided into five sections. She stated that the first
section stipulates the City's investment objectives which the firm has
adopted for their performance objectives. She also noted that the investment
objectives for any public agency are also defined in the California
Government Code which limits the types of investments the City can make
to very safe, high quality government and corporate securities. She reported
that the goal was to achieve a return in excess of Treasury bills by a full
percentage point. She indicated that the City recently adopted a standard 1
Volume 53 - Page 491
Investment
Advisors
(40)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
to 3 year market index which is in keeping with the actual strategy that
use in the portfolio.
Ms. Chandler stated that Section II contains information about the market
but indicated that she will not be reviewing this section since it is something
that she will review with Mr. Danner and Deputy Administrative Services
Director Kurth. She noted that their strategy is not overly dependent on
current market conditions since they follow basic principals that create good
returns in fixed income portfolios (i.e. the longer the average maturity that
can be supported in the portfolio, the greater the expected return). She
indicated that they try to keep the portfolio at a stable duration which is
about the same as the duration of the 1 to 3 year benchmark.
Ms. Chandler referenced the Compliance with Investment Policy (Section
III) and emphasized that this is the document that would probably be the
most valuable to the Council since it takes the City's investment policy,
breaks it down, and states whether or not Chandler's management is in
compliance with each element of the policy. She indicated that this
document is also provided with the City's monthly statements. She reported
that the Portfolio Characteristics shows some of the more important
characteristics of the portfolio from June 30, 2000 and compares it to
March 31, 1991. She noted that the duration is usually about 1.6 years and
that the modified duration on March 31, 1991 was 1.62 years, but is now 1.55
years. She added that the average book yield of the portfolio is currently
6.27% which represents the average yield of all the investments given what
the City paid for them and the value at which they will mature. Further, the
average rating is very high (AAA) and the total value of the portfolio is in
excess of $16 million, which is $2 million more than it was on March 31,
1991. She reported that the City did contribute $2 million to the portfolio
during that period.
Ms. Chandler clarified for Council Member Ridgeway that the average book
yield is gross of their fee which is about 14 basis points.
Regarding Section V, Ms. Chandler reviewed the types of securities that are
in the portfolio and indicated that they tend to emphasize the higher
yielding sectors of the market, including the agency and corporate sectors.
She reported that the City's portfolio is about 44% in securities that are
issued by agencies like the Federal Home Loan Bank, Freddie Mac, and
Fannie Mae, and about 24% in corporate securities rated A or higher. She
pointed out that the rating is a requirement of the Government Code.
In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions regarding corporate
papers, Ms. Chandler indicated that the papers are nothing like junk bonds
but are issued by major corporations that have achieved a rating of at least
an A. She added that these could either be secured or unsecured, but they
mostly purchase unsecured papers that are based on the full faith and credit
of the issuing corporation. She stated that the average corporate bond in the
5 year area would yield around 7 3/4% if purchased today and that they can
buy corporate bonds up to the 5 year maximum duration. She noted that
5 years is the maximum maturity allowed in the City's portfolio. She
reported that there are corporate bonds that are issued for 2 years and
Volume 53 - Page 492
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
above, and that they can also buy them on the secondary market after they
have been issued for any maturity. She stated that their target is an
average duration of 1.5 or 1.6 years. Ms. Chandler indicated that the next
page shows the duration distribution which is similar to a maturity
distribution. She reported that the City's portfolio is currently evenly
distributed with about 40% of the portfolio being under a year and the rest
being allocated between 1 year and 5 years.
Regarding the Investment Performance (Section IV), Ms. Chandler reported
that the performance differs in that it shows the actual change in the value
of the portfolio as a result of their management, not the City's contributions
and withdrawals to the fund. This also includes the interest earned and
changes in market value. She noted that the City's portfolio had a return of
1.79% for the quarter and compares favorably to the 1 to 3 year Treasury
bond which had a return of 1.72 %. She reported that the portfolio had a
return of 5.17% for the latest 12 months compared to the 1 to 3 year
benchmark of 4.91 %. She indicated that there was a period of rising interest
rates during most of the 12 month period. Ms. Chandler reported that, since
inception in 1991, the return on the City's portfolio has been 6.19% on an
annual basis, which is very similar to the 1 to 3 year Treasury benchmark.
She stated that the City should expect a similar return as the market since it
is a high quality portfolio and the City is taking about the same level of risk
as the market. If the return were far in excess of the benchmark, she stated
that the City would wonder what risk it was taking to achieve the greater
return.
Regarding short term securities, Council Member Thomson asked if she has
generated a projection or graph of what type of yield would have been
achieved if Chandler had not met the 1 to 3 year securities to term.
Ms. Chandler indicated that she does not have a specific answer but stated
that it is not their strategy to do a lot of buying and selling of securities. She
reported that they tend to hold onto the security until they find a better
opportunity. If a security is sold, she stated that it is not because they think
there is going to be an advantageous short term change but rather because
they can sell one bond and buy another that will have a higher yield and
provide a clear economic benefit to the portfolio. She indicated that the
turnover rate is about 30% a year. She further clarified that their fee is not
based on transactions but on the asset.
In response to Council Member Ridgeway's statements, Ms. Chandler stated
that they try to look for securities that have more value. She noted that,
since Treasury bonds are getting more expensive, it has been their strategy
to sell Treasuries and buy higher yielding, cheaper securities like agency and
corporate bonds. However, every security they buy, they buy because it is
the best security in the market at that time. She further explained the
relationship between the bond value increasing and the yield decreasing.
Rod Olea, City National Investments, stated that they do look at the market
and try to find value, given changes in interest rates or anticipation of
changes in the interest rates, while not applying too much risk to the
portfolio. He believed that they effectively manage risks well and adhere to
the investment policy.
Volume 53 - Page 493
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
Mr. Olea reported that the Economic/Market Overview (Section I) includes
two charts that show what is happening with the economy. He stated that
the economy is doing well and the Federal government has raised rates six
times since last June to hopefully slow down the economy and curb the
perception of future inflation. He reported that inflation has not shown up
in large numbers yet, but the headline inflationary numbers (i.e. consumer
price index) are growing at about 4 %. He indicated that the economy is
growing mainly because unemployment is at a 30 year low which is causing
the Federal government some alarm. He indicated that the FOMC will meet
on August 22 to determine if they will be raising rates 25 basis points,
adding that they believe the Federal government is near their interest rate
hike cycle. He added that City National has added value by being relatively
conservative in the rise and interest rate environment.
Mr. Olea stated that Page 1 of Section II contains the City's investment
policy and some investment parameters, and Page 2 contains the asset
allocation breakdown. He reported that the City is 71% invested in fixed
income bonds and about 29% invested in cash and cash equivalents.
Further, the asset value is $14.118 million. He indicated that Page 3
describes the fixed income characteristics. He noted that the yield and
maturity of the portfolio is about 7.12% for the bonds and the average
maturity of the portfolio is 2 years; however, the average maturity is about
1.5 years when the cash and cash equivalents are taken into consideration.
He reported that they are looking to extend the average maturity close to the
August meeting or late summer /early fall since most of the damage of the
rising interest rates and the short end of the yield curve will have been in
affect to buy higher yielding, lower priced bonds.
In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Olea stated that
their fee is at 17 basis points. Mr. Danner noted that all of the investment
fees are relatively similar. He reported that City National acts as a bank
and a custodian, and that their fee includes both the management fee and
custodial fee. Council Member Ridgeway noted that the City earns money
with custodial fees, believing that their fees should not be .17% since City
National is a bank and the City has a compensating account at their bank.
Mr. Danner reported that the City has to have a separate custodian and
cannot allow the investment advisors to have access to the funds. This is a
separate division of the bank, similar to how the City uses Wells Fargo as
the investment advisor and a trustee. He stated that the City also hires
Bank of America to do the management for Chandler Asset Management
and Bank of New York to do the management for PFM since they are private
companies. He clarified that the custodian account is more of a trustee
account. Mr. Olea explained that a custody arrangement makes sure that
the accounting statements show up in the portfolio. He stated that, aside
from the portfolio, they maintain the receipts of all the cash flow (i.e. bonds
paying income, wires going in and out) and they also account for all the
money. He stated that those services do cost money for the companies. He
noted that any money invested in bonds does earn a money market yield
which is currently at 6% or higher, and trust companies or custody
companies charge 3 basis points a year for transactions and holdings. He
reported that their 17 basis point fee includes the management and custody,
which is equal to Bank of America and Bank of New York. Mr. Olea clarified
Volume 53 - Page 494
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
SID/'/
for Council Member Ridgeway that the extra .03% fee is based on the total
portfolio value because the portfolio is custodied at City National. Council
Member Ridgeway stated that the custody amount at any time is no more
than $2 million and asked why they do not charge .03% on just a custody
account. Mr. Danner added that the City does not get charged for wires
because it is included in the custodial fee. Further, the bank does not have
any of the City's money since it is placed with the trustee.
In response to Council Member Thomson's questions, Mr. Olea reported that
the total balance on the City's account is $14.118 million. He stated that the
portfolio last year was around 3.89% and, for the year to date, the portfolio
which includes the income levels, plus appreciation and less depreciation,
earned 2.92 %. He reported that they compared the 3.89% against Lehman
Brothers 1 to 3 year treasury last year and noted that the City's portfolio
outperformed by about 100 basis points. He explained that they were able to
retain most of the market value due to a conservative structure and a rise in
the interest environment.
Council Member Thomson asked why the City would settle for 3% when it
could be getting 5 %. Mr. Danner explained that, on a day to day basis, they
need certain liquidity to manage the City's finances and that they estimate
what that number should be. He stated that the reason the portfolio has
been so high around June 30 is because that is the high point in the receipt
cycle. He added that the City will not be receiving its fast property tax
payment until about December 10. He pointed out that the portfolio will be
reduced significantly as the City meets its cash flow needs. He stated that
they let the advisors know how much they will need to withdraw, but that
the funds are returned starting in December.
Council Member Thomson expressed concern that the City is getting less
than a money market yield on the money used to pay the City's bills.
Mr. Olea stated that a cash account versus a 5 year security is an inverted
yield curve. He explained that it is a short term anomaly because the
Federal government has been raising rates to slow down the economy (175
basis points since last June). He stated that the only thing this affects are
overnight rates. The rest of the market reacts due to the perception for
future inflation. He explained that the 3 year treasury yield is currently low
because there really is no fear that there will be future inflation. He stated
that the Federal government can really only change the short term interest
rates which are currently very high and slows the growth of the economy. If
a recession does occur, the rates will go down and the price of the bonds will
increase to attract the economy to go faster. Further, when the rates go
down, the asset prices of the bonds increase. He stated that the City will
then see the 6 and 7% that it has seen in previous years.
Council Member Thomson suggested going into short term rates since they
trade everyday. Mr. Olea stated that they are looking at a more long term
point of view. He noted that bond rates have dropped 10 to 20 basis points in
yield in the last week. He stated that no one knows how the market is going
to react and that they have to make educated guesses and manage interest
rate risk. He reported that they take gradual steps and become defensive as
rates increase in order to have higher returns to get a longer average
Volume 53 - Page 495
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
maturity, higher yields, and appreciation potential so that the City receives
the higher total return that was reflected in previous years.
Mr. Olea reported that they manage over $5 billion of assets in his
investment advisory division of City National Bank, and custody and
manage over $15 billion as a bank. He noted that fixed income securities is
probably 2/3 of the money. He reported that he oversees the fixed income
units ($900 million in individual accounts and $2.5 billion infixed income or
money market mutual funds), but he has many managers helping him in the
process.
Regarding the performance summary, Mr. Olea reported that they are about
equal to the indices of the Lehman Brothers 1 to 3 year index (2.9% for the
year) and that the following pages contain the City's asset holdings. He
stated that they agree with the Chandler strategy relative to the government
agency market since many of them have safe credits and high yielding
assets.
In response to Mayor Noyes' question, Mr. Olea indicated that they believe
that the Federal government will raise rates about 25 basis points in August
and probably have some surprises relative to inflation since the economy is
not slowing down.
Mr. Danner pointed out that the City has different advisors with different
styles, and that the City has changed advisors over the years. He indicated
that it was their intention when they first started doing this that they would
see how the advisors were doing and possibly make changes. However, they
found that different advisors do better at different times of the year. He
stated that they are very happy with the diversity and believed that the City
may need a filth advisor if the portfolio continues to grow.
Council Member Glover commended Mr. Danner and Mr. Kurth, reporting
that she sits on the governing board of the Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) which looked at six different institutions/cities. She stated that
they found that Newport Beach was getting the most return and that the
City was the only one taking this type of approach. She expressed the
opinion that this has worked very well.
Mr. Danner confirmed for Council Member Glover that the City was still
keeping some money in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) for daily
purposes. He reported that the City's policy allows them to keep up to 10%
of the portfolio in LAW and that they were near 10% through June and
currently is around 7 to 8 %. He added that the City is earning 6% from the
LAIF. He reported that the City also has a money market account with City
National Bank that is also used for daily liquidity. He stated that they try to
predict which checks will clear that evening when they come into work in the
morning and, if there are excess funds, they wire the funds out. However, if
they need money, they will wire funds in. He reported that, with the
custodian fees and other fees, the City is only paying $50,000 to $60,000 a
year in management fees. He pointed out that this is probably a bargain
compared to having another staff member who is well versed in investing.
Volume 53 - Page 496
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 25, 2000
Motion by Mayor Noyes to add an item to the Closed Session agenda to give
direction to the City Manager regarding the price and terms of payment for the
possible purchase of the property at 416, 418, 420, 422, and 424 32nd Street.
He added that negotiations regarding the purchase shall be conducted with the
owner or owners of those properties and any person or firm the owner may
designate. He announced that his motion includes the finding that the need to take
action arose after the agenda was posted in that the information that these
properties were for sale came to light after the agenda was posted. Further, his
motion also includes the finding that there is a need to take immediate action.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Thomson, Glover, Adams, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
Debay
ADJOURNMENT - 5:50 p.m.
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on July 19, 2000, at
3:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 53 - Page 497
11013
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
July 25, 2000 - 7:00 p.nL DRAFT INDEX
— 5:00 p.m. [Refer to
separate minutes]
STUDY SESSION — 5:05 p.m. [Refer to separate minutes]
CLOSED SESSION — 5:30 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED — None.
RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
ROLL CALL
Present: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member O'Neil.
Invocation by Lloyd Dalton, Design Engineer, Public Works Department.
Presentation of Cultural Arts Grants for FY 2000 -01 by Roberta Jorgensen,
Chairman of the City Arts Commission.
Ms. Jorgensen stated that the programs receiving grants will reach approximately
11,000 Newport Beach school children in the 2nd through 12th grades and 4,000 adult
residents. She stated that $120,000 in grants were requested and reviewed by the
City Arts Commission with a recommendation made to the City Council for $40,000
in awards. The groups receiving grants will be expected to give a report on what
they did with the money, how many were in attendance at their programs and what
was accomplished.
Ms. Jorgensen began presenting grant checks to the recipients. She read the names
of all of the recipients and those present in the audience came forward to accept
their checks. The recipients included Ballet Montmartre, Ballet Pacifica, Baroque
Music Festival, Bowers Museum of Cultural Arts, Festival Ballet Theatre, Laguna
Playhouse, Lincoln Elementary School Parent/Faculty Organization, Newport Beach
Film Festival, Newport Beach Sister Cities Association, Newport Harbor Nautical
Museum, Once Upon A Story, Orange County Museum of Art, Pacific Chorale,
Pacific Symphony Orchestra, Philharmonic Society of Orange County, Readers
Repertory Theatre, South Coast Repertory, Southland Opera, Stop -Gap and William
Hall Master Chorale.
CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM):
Volume 53 - Page 498
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
Mayor Noyes announced that he and the City Manager met with the current and
past chairmen of the Newport Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau (CVB),
Henry Schielein of the Balboa Bay Club and Mehdi Eftekari of the Four Seasons
Hotel, respectively. Mayor Noyes acknowledged both chairmen for providing
such strong leadership since the passing of Rosalind Williams. He added that
the CVB would be working at filling the Executive Director position. Mayor
Noyes stated that he, the City Manager and the Administrative Services
Director met with Mr. Schielein and Mr. Eftekari to discuss some of the City's
issues and stated that the CVB works to bring visitors to the City's hotels and
restaurants.
• Mayor Noyes requested that the model being worked on by the Planning
Department for development fees in the airport area be placed on a future Study
Session agenda, possibly in a month. He stated that the City Council could use
the model to establish and implement a policy.
• Council Member Debay announced that Dennis Rodman is not eligible to run for
the City Council because he is not a registered voter.
Council Member Glover stated that two trees on public property in her district
were recently cut down illegally. She stated that she has realized that the City's
policy may need to be strengthened. She requested a clarification of Council
Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, be placed on a future agenda.
Council Member Glover specifically asked for an explanation of what occurs
when someone illegally cuts down a tree and why they are currently not being
prosecuted. She requested that if the Policy is found not to be strong enough,
that the City Attorney provide information on how to strengthen it. Council
Member Glover stated that too many trees in her district are being cut down.
She added that she understands the preservation of views in other areas, but
can't respect the removal of trees in the interior neighborhoods.
CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
1. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 11, 2000. Waive
reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed.
2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND
full of all ordinances and resolutions
Clerk to read by title only.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in
under consideration, and direct City
3. CORONA DEL MAR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RENEWAL, ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1999 -2000 FISCAL YEAR, AND
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY FOR 2000-
2001 FISCAL YEAR. 1) Approve Corona del Mar Business Improvement
District 1999 -2000 Annual Report; and 2) adopt Resolution of Intention
No. 2000 -67 to levy for 2000 -2001 Fiscal Year and set the public hearing for
August 22, 2000.
Volume 53 - Page 499
INDEX
Res 2000 -67
CdM Business
Improvement
District
(27)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
D6 */.
4.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED RETIREMENT FOR SAFETY
C -563
EMPLOYEES. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 -68 declaring the City's intention
Res 2000 -68
to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of
Enhanced Retirement/
Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System and the
Safety Employees
City Council, City of Newport Beach.
(38/66)
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
5.
2000 -2001 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT - AWARD OF CONTRACT
C -3351
(C- 3351). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract
Slurry Seal
(C -3351) to California Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. for the total
Project
bid price of $334,340 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute
(38)
the contract; and 3) establish an amount of $33,000 to cover the cost of
testing and unforeseen work.
6.
CENTRAL BALBOA WATER, SEWER & ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
C -3278
AND WEST NEWPORT BEACH SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT,
Central Balboa &
PHASE II - (C -3278) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept
West Newport Beach
the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion;
Sewer Improvements
3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days
(38)
after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with
applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful
Performance Bond six months after Council acceptance.
7.
DOVER DRIVE, WESTCLIFF AND DOVER SHORES STREET
C -3317
REHABILITATION (C -3317) - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE.
Dover Drive,
1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion;
Westcliff &
3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days
Dover Shores
after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with
Street Rehabilitation
applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful
(38)
Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance.
8.
PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE FOR RECREATION SCHEDULING.
C -3361
Authorize the agreement with Sierra Digital for $59,200 for the acquisition
Recreation
of software for recreation activity registration and facility reservations,
Scheduling
subject to prior review and approval by the City Attorney's office.
(38)
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
9.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JULY 20, 2000. Receive and
Planning
file.
(68)
10.
BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -002) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
BA -002
PUMPOUT FACILITY AT FERNANDO STREET DOCK. Approve
Fernando Street
BA -002 in the amount of $36,000 to increase revenue estimates and increase
Dock Pumpout
expenditure appropriations following receipt of State Boating and
Facility
Waterways Grant.
(40/51)
11.
BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -073) TO TRANSFER $125,802 FROM
BA -073
THE LIBRARY LIABILITY ACCOUNT 800 -2248, DONATIONS GIVEN
Library
TO THE LIBRARY FOR DEDICATED PURPOSES FOR THE
Material
Volume 53 - Page 500
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
PURCHASE OF LIBRARY MATERIAL, TO REVENUE ACCOUNT
4010 -6901. Approve BA -073. (City Clerk Harkless noted that the budget
amendment was for the 1999 -2000 budget year and numbered accordingly.)
12. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member
Thomson.
13. ANNUAL RECYCLING REPORT. Receive and file.
14. AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY I -8 REGARDING BIKE, FOOT
RACE AND SURF POLICY. Approve revised Council Policy I -8.
16. PROPERTY INSURANCE RENEWAL. Approve the renewal of the entire
property insurance coverage outlined in Attachment A of the staff report for
FY 2000 -01 for a total premium of $328,604.
16. GENERAL LIABILITY EXCESS INSURANCE RENEWAL. Approve the
renewal of the excess general liability insurance coverage with ICW for FY
2000 -01 for $268,000 in annual premium and for FY 2001 -02 for a total
premium not to exceed $294,800 as indicated by the rate guarantee.
17. STAFF SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS FOUNDATION. Deny request based
on Council Policy A -6, unless Council believes an exception to the policy is
warranted.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the Consent Calendar,
except for the item removed (12), and noting the amendment to the action on
Item No. 11.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
12. TRAFFIC CONTROL ON MARGUERITE AVENUE AT SANDCASTLE
DRIVE (contd. from 7/11/00).
Transportation/Development Services Manager Edmonston stated that
Mr. Bob Curci brought the issues at the intersection to the attention of staff
and attended a meeting of the Traffic Affairs Committee, where the
appropriateness of a STOP sign at the location was discussed. Manager
Edmonston stated that staff conducted counts at the intersection and
reviewed the accident history. He stated that the volume of traffic on the
busiest of the two side streets was only about 20% of what would be needed
to justify putting in a STOP sign at the intersection. He added that the
numbers are based on standardized traffic warrants for arterial highways
and that Marguerite Avenue is considered an arterial highway. Manager
Edmonston stated that it was also found that there were no traffic accidents
Volume 53 - Page 501
INDEX
(40/60)
Recycling (44)
Bike, Foot Race &
Surf Policy/I -8 (69)
Property
Insurance
(47)
General Liability
Excess Insurance
Renewal
(47)
Arts Foundation
(62)
Traffic Control on
Marguerite Avenue
(86)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
in the previous three and one half years involving vehicles exiting
Sandcastle Drive onto Marguerite Avenue.
Manager Edmonston stated that, based on the findings, the Traffic Affairs
Committee recommended street striping to create a "refuge area" that would
allow a car to pull out half way, stop and continue with their left turn when
they felt it was safe to do so. He added that this alternate was acceptable to
Mr. Curci at the meeting, but that subsequent to the meeting, some people in
the community have stated that they would still prefer a STOP sign at the
location.
Motion by Council Member Thomson to delay action on the STOP signs
on Marguerite Avenue at Sandcastle Drive until 180 days after installation
of the new street striping; request that the street striping provide for a
double -wide "refuge area" with a single lane on Marguerite Avenue in front
of Oasis Senior Center in both directions and left turn lanes from
southbound Marguerite Avenue into Sandcastle Drive and from northbound
Marguerite Avenue into Sandcastle Drive and Harbor View Drive; and direct
staff to bring the item back to the City Council if the street striping does not
work or there is opposition to it from the residents.
Council Member Thomson stated that this action should slow the traffic on
Marguerite Avenue.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if Council Member Thomson's motion was
equivalent to Alternate A, as presented in the staff report. Manager
Edmonston stated that Alternate A creates the "refuge area" by eliminating
one of the four lanes. He added that the motion combines Alternate A and
Alternate B, leaving one lane in both directions on Marguerite Avenue from
Fifth Avenue to Harbor View Drive. He stated that this provides for a wider
"refuge area" and has the potential for traffic calming.
Council Member Thomson pointed out that Marguerite Avenue, south of
Fifth Avenue, has a single lane in both directions and STOP signs are used
for traffic calming. He stated that his proposal would continue the one lane
traffic farther north on Marguerite Avenue.
Per Council Member Ridgeway's request, Manager Edmonston stated that
staff concurs that one lane of traffic in both directions would be adequate to
accommodate the volume of traffic on Marguerite Avenue.
Per Council Member Glover's request, Manager Edmonston explained that
staff was made aware of Council Member Thomson's proposal the previous
Friday and feels that traffic would still flow through the area smoothly
under the new plan.
Mr. Bob Curci, a resident in the area, stated that he did petition the Traffic
Affairs Committee to look into the hazardous problem at Marguerite Avenue
and Sandcastle Drive. He stated that traffic has increased on Marguerite
Avenue over the years and affects the safety of the residents and visitors of
the area. He stated that drivers exiting Sandcastle Drive have an obstructed
view due to the curve in Marguerite Avenue, a monument sign for the
Volume 53 - Page 502
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
IN 1
Harbor View Hills Homeowners Association, a berm, a lamppost and, in
some situations, a passenger. Mr. Curci added that commuter traffic and
people not obeying the 40 miles per hour speed limit exasperate the problem.
He stated that a STOP sign was what he preferred, but he was willing to
give the creation of a "refuge area" a try. He stated that he informed the
Harbor View Hills South Homeowners Association Board of Directors of the
compromise, but the Board and the attendees at the meeting did not agree
with the compromise. Mr. Curci referred to the letter of July 7, 2000,
written by Mr. Mike Favrean, President of the Harbor View Hills South
Homeowners Association.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the letter would be a part of the
record.
Mr. Curci stated his support for Council Member Thomson's motion, but
requested that the item be revisited and a STOP sign be considered if the
proposal does not cure the problem.
Council Member Thomson confirmed that his motion does include the item
being revisited if the problem is not solved.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Rena Wills, 5411 Seashore Drive, stated that she wanted to address the
noise issue associated with surfing contests. She stated that she understood
the need for speakers to make announcements at the contests, but felt that
the music being played in- between announcements was unnecessary.
Ms. Wills stated that loud music does not belong on the beach. She proposed
that the problem of loud speaker music be included in the permit process,
holding the applicant responsible and requiring that flyers be distributed
when the permit is issued.
Walt Howald, 318 Apolena, Board of Library Trustees, announced that the
John Cotton Dana Library Public Relations Award, a national award, was
recently received by the City and recognizes the Distinguished Lecture
Series and Panel Series conducted through the library. He stated that he
wanted to share the award with the City Council and express the Board's
appreciation for the support of the City Council. Mr. Howald noted that he
was just appointed to the Board in June of this year.
Council Member Debay referred to a letter recently received from Patrick
Bartolic, Chairman of the Board of Library Trustees, and Lawrence Spitz,
President of the Library Foundation. She read from the letter, noting that
the Board and the Foundation are working on areas of activity that require
mutual planning and are moving in a positive and fruitful direction. Council
Volume 53 - Page 503
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
Member Debay encouraged and complimented the process. Mr. Howald
stated that the Board and the Foundation are enjoying a good relationship
and acknowledged Mr. Spitz for his assistance in orienting Mr. Howald to
the process.
Dolores Otting, a City resident, expressed her concern that Study Sessions
are being held in the afternoon and that action is being taken at the
meetings. She stated that the meetings are not televised and it is difficult
for many people to attend a day meeting. Ms. Otting read from Section
54953.6 of the new Brown Act, which states that a legislative body cannot
restrict the broadcast of its proceedings in the absence of a reasonable
finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without causing a
disruption of the proceedings. Ms. Otting stated that the meetings should be
televised and stated that she would provide the City Clerk with a copy of the
Act.
Jim. Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated his feeling that any opposition to
the undergrounding of utilities will be ignored. He stated that the
undergrounding of utilities does not benefit the community and encouraged
those that were opposed to it to pay their assessments under protest.
Mr. Hildreth added that the sewage transfer station is still emanating a
great deal of smell and that there is a problem with fly infestation in the
area on Little Balboa Island. He questioned the use of the Little Balboa
Island Property Owners Association to aid in the balloting process.
Philip Arst, representing the Greenlight initiative group, stated that a letter
was sent to the City Council on July 14, 2000, requesting a sense of fairness
by redoing the Greenlight ballot measure title to accurately describe it in
comparison to the counter initiative. He stated that a change in the title will
give the voters a fair chance to understand what they are voting on.
Mr. Arst stated that a separate letter was sent protesting the title and
summary on the petition for the traffic planning and improvements initiative
because it contained information that could mislead voters. He stated that
the playing field should be leveled. He requested that the City Council
direct staff to work with the Greenlight initiative group in developing a
ballot title and summary that fairly depicts the initiative.
Joe Catron stated that he belongs to the oldest surfing club in Newport
Beach and that his club has had contests in Newport for the last fifteen
years. He stated that they have two contests per year and have always
complied with City requirements. He stated that their contests are free, are
conducted for the kids and have no amplified sound. He requested that the
City Council allow his club's contests to continue.
PUBLIC HEARING
18. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE
NO. 1237 - NAVAI RESIDENCE - 1201 KINGS ROAD - REQUEST TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION
TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, PORTIONS OF
WHICH WILL EXCEED THE 24 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT RANGING
FROM 1 FOOT TO 9 FEET (JIM NAVAI, APPELLANT) (contd. from
Volume 53 - Page 504
INDEX
Variance 1237
1201 Kings Road
(91)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
6/27/00).
Mayor Noyes stated that he intends to refer the item back to the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Noyes opened the public hearing.
There being no testimony, Mayor Noyes closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Noyes to refer the item back to the Planning
Commission.
Council Member Ridgeway requested that the motion include a requirement
that the applicant submit a project with a change from the previously denied
project.
Mayor Noyes agreed to include the requirement in his motion.
Council Member O'Neil noted that the applicant is in agreement with the
project going back to the Planning Commission.
The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
19. SANTIAGO DRIVE/HOLIDAY ROAD AREA TRAFFIC CALMING.
Transportation/Development Services Manager Edmonston stated that a
meeting was held at a residence on Santiago two weeks prior. He stated that
approximately 200 people were notified of the meeting and over 50 attended.
He stated that the City's consultant was present at the meeting and several
alternatives were presented. Manager Edmonston stated that the
consultant's recommendation was to put up a series of islands on Santiago
Drive and Holiday Road. He stated that the islands are intended to
accommodate pedestrians and also slow vehicular speeds. Manager
Edmonston illustrated the islands with drawings on display at the meeting.
He stated that the concept received a consensus support from those in
attendance at the meeting.
Manager Edmonston stated that staff is recommending that the City Council
approve the concept. He stated that staff wants to know if they are headed
in the right direction before meeting with residents from each of the streets
separately and fine- tuning the concept with a design professional and
possibly a landscape architect. Manager Edmonston added that the
residents have expressed a willingness to be responsible for the irrigation
and maintenance of the planter areas. He concluded by stating that a lot of
details still need to be worked out and cost estimates performed.
Volume 53 - Page 505
INDEX
Santiago Drive/
Holiday Road
Traffic Calming
(85)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
Council Member Glover complimented the work that has been done and
knows staff has attempted to set up a pattern for traffic mitigation as
outlined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. She added that the process was
started several years ago by the prior District 4 council member, Tom
Edwards, who was also in attendance at the current meeting.
Manager Edmonton confirmed for Council Member Ridgeway that the
technique being recommended is used to slow speeds by narrowing the
roadway. He further confirmed that parked vehicles also act to narrow
streets. Manager Edmonston stated that when the project comes before the
City Council for approval, it will most likely include a recommendation to
reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if bicycles were allowed on sidewalks in the
City. Manager Edmonston explained that the California Vehicle Code states
that bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks, but also delegates the ability to
local jurisdictions to designate sidewalks where bicycles are permitted. He
added that the City has a fairly extensive network of those types of
sidewalks. Council Member Ridgeway further confirmed with Manager
Edmonston that the plan was prepared with the concept that the
recreational bicyclist could ride on the sidewalk.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he does not see any effective difference in
the way the bicyclists are accommodated in the proposal and through
existing conditions. He stated that there is currently no bike lane.
Motion by Council Member Glover to approve the concept of using
landscaped islands to reduce speeds on Santiago Drive and Holiday Road
between Irvine and Tustin Avenues; and directed staff to retain a landscape
architect or new consultant to assist in the final design and plan preparation
for the traffic calming measures.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
20. ANALYSIS OF PROTECTION FROM TRAFFIC AND GROWTH
INITIATIVE (contd. from 6/27/00 and 7 /11 /00).
City Attorney Burnham stated that John Douglas of The Planning Center
prepared the raw data for the analysis of the Protection from Traffic and
Growth ( Greenlight) initiative and drew some conclusions. City Attorney
Burnham stated that staff then made an analysis from the information
provided.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that Mr. Douglas outline what he was
asked to do by the City, summarize his findings and then go through each of
the general plan amendments that would have required a vote of the people
Volume 58 - Page 506
O 1 0►,
Protection from
Traffic & Growth
Initiative/
Greenlight
(39/69)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
over the last ten years if the Greenlight initiative had been in effect. He
suggested that each of the amendments be described along with its density
and traffic impact.
Mr. Douglas stated that The Planning Center was hired by the City not to
evaluate the merits of the initiative, but to lay out factual information in a
neutral fashion so that community members could make a decision on
whether the initiative would make good public policy. He added that he was
asked to develop some assumptions and methodology for evaluating the
initiative, to use this in compiling a list of the amendments that had been
approved by the City over the last ten years and then to draw some
conclusions. Mr. Douglas stated that one of the conclusions that was of
interest was the determination on which of the statistical areas in the City
were built -out, or had reached one or more of the thresholds as described in
the initiative. He stated that the second conclusion that was of high interest
was the determination on which of the amendments that were approved by
the City over the last ten years would have required a vote of the people if
the Greenlight initiative had been in effect since 1990.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked Mr. Douglas to provide an overview of what
the Greenlight initiative is for those that are not familiar with it.
Mr. Douglas stated that the Greenlight initiative would require that major
amendments to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan be put to a
vote of the people if they are approved by the City Council. He stated that
the initiative defines an amendment as "major" if it exceeds any of three
thresholds. Mr. Douglas stated that the thresholds are 100 dwelling units,
40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area and 100 peak hour trips.
Per Council Member O'Neil's question, Mr. Douglas stated that the
definition of "peak hour" is dependent upon the local conditions. He stated
that the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual identifies peak hour
as whatever the peak hour of the adjacent arterial roadway is. Mr. Douglas
stated that these were assumptions made in his analysis.
Mr. Douglas stated that the initiative further defines "major" amendment as
not only including the amendment itself but also any amendments in the
same statistical area that were approved in the previous ten years. He
explained that this is referred to as the cumulative provision in the
initiative. City Attorney Burnham corrected him by adding that it's 80% of
previous amendments.
Council Member Ridgeway added that it does not include voter- approved
amendments. Mr. Douglas further clarified that voter- approved
amendments are not included in the tabulation of cumulative amendments.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he'd like people to understand that the
Greenlight initiative does not change any of the current entitlements that a
general plan amendment currently must go through.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if this would include Coastal Commission
approval for amendments in the coastal zone. Mr. Douglas stated that he
did not believe that the issue is addressed in the initiative. City Attorney
Volume 53 - Page 507
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
W1
Burnham stated that the Greenlight initiative does not include the
requirement. Council Member Ridgeway confirmed that the Greenlight
initiative is limited to projects approved by the City Council.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if the Greenlight initiative suggests any
traffic solutions. Mr. Douglas stated that he did not believe so.
Council Member Debay asked for a clarification on when the votes of the
people would take place. City Attorney Burnham stated that the Greenlight
initiative specifies that the vote can take place at either a general regular
municipal election or at a special election called for that purpose if the City
and the project proponent agree to split the costs. City Clerk Harkless
stated that the County usually quotes the cost of a special election as
between $1 and $2 per registered voter, or approximately $80,000. City
Manager Bludau stated that he also understands that the project proponent
can bypass the normal process by going to an automatic vote of the people.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if the environmental impact report (EIR)
review process would also be bypassed. City Attorney Burnham stated that
the Greenlight initiative does not include such a provision, but added that it
is an option that already exists. City Attorney Burnham cited Measure A as
an example and confirmed that land use amendments can be approved by
the voters pursuant to the initiative process.
Mr. Douglas stated that he began the project by looking at what assumptions
and methods should be used to generate the analysis. He stated that a
couple of key assumptions are worth pointing out. First, in tabulating the
amendments, he stated that he used the full entitlement that would be
allowed by the amendment even if it was built -out at a lower intensity.
Secondly, he stated that if an amendment changed the land use, he
calculated the number of trips generated by the existing use and subtracted
it from the trips that would be generated by the new use, which produced a
net evaluation of trips. Thirdly, Mr. Douglas stated that if an amendment
would result in a net reduction of trips, he put zero in for dwelling units,
square footage and trips when the cumulative analysis was done. He
additionally pointed out that no credit was given for land uses eliminated.
Mr. Douglas concluded by stating that if different assumptions are used,
different conclusions will be made. He stated that after he compiled the
assumptions, he researched all of the amendments to the Land Use Element
of the City's General Plan that had been approved in the previous ten years
and that reflected some change in the entitlement for a property. He stated
that this list included fifty -one amendments and are summarized in Table 2,
General Plan Amendment Summary November 1990 to June 2000, of The
Planning Center's report.
Council Member Ridgeway suggested that Mr. Douglas continue with a
broad overview of his report.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that the list of the general plan
amendments that would have required a vote be discussed briefly so that the
public can be made aware of which projects would have been affected, if the
Volume 53 - Page 608
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
had been in effect.
Mr. Douglas continued by stating that Table 3, General Plan Amendment
Cumulative Analysis, is a compilation by statistical area of all the
amendments. He stated that it adds up the dwelling units, floor area and
trips for each amendment and then takes 80% of each of those, as specified
in the Greenlight initiative. He stated that Table 3 lists those statistical
areas that have reached one or more of the thresholds discussed earlier. He
stated that the six statistical areas where development thresholds have been
exceeded include Old Newport Boulevard (Hl), Newport Center (Ll), North
Ford (L3), Airport Area (L4), Pacific View (M3) and Bonita Canyon (M6).
Council Member Glover asked for an explanation of what the purpose was in
establishing the statistical areas. Planning Director Temple stated that the
statistical areas in the City were devised in the early 1970's to keep an
organized data set. The original divisions were subsets of U. S. Government
Census tracts and were a comfortable way of keeping data. Council Member
Glover confirmed with Planning Director Temple that the correlation
between the statistical areas and traffic circulation would be how the floor
area and development limits are set forth in the Land Use Element, which is
organized by statistical areas.
Council Member O'Neil confirmed with Mr. Douglas that the number of
statistical areas varies because in some cases, statistical areas are combined
in the text of the Land Use Element. Mr. Douglas stated that he lumped
those together in his analysis.
Council Member Debay pointed out that some of the fifty -one amendments
actually changed areas back into Recreational and Environmental Open
Space and others actually decreased traffic. Mr. Douglas agreed.
Mr. Douglas stated that the purpose of Table 3 was to look forward if the
Greenlight initiative is passed. He stated that Table 3 looks forward beyond
November 2000, applies the requirements of the Greenlight initiative and
identifies which areas are built -out, therefore, requiring a vote of the people
for any amendments.
Council Member O'Neil stated that this would include any amendment,
regardless of it meeting any of the three thresholds. Mr. Douglas agreed and
noted that it would include an amendment for one additional dwelling unit
or one additional square foot of non - residential floor area.
Per Council Member Glover's request, Mr. Douglas explained that the
Greenlight initiative looks back over the previous ten years to all of the
amendments approved for a statistical area. He added that Table 3 provides
the cumulative total for all amendments over the previous ten years and
identifies the six statistical areas that have already exceeded one of the
three thresholds. Mr. Douglas further confirmed for Council Member Glover
that Old Newport Boulevard is one of the six statistical areas that has
reached a threshold which means that if the Greenlight initiative passes and
becomes law, any amendment in the area would require a vote of the people.
He added that this would hold true until the cumulative total drops below
Volume 53 - Page 509
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
the
INDEX
Council Member Ridgeway confirmed with Planning Director Temple that if
a project is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and Specific
Plan, it would not require an amendment and, therefore, would not be
subject to the Greenlight initiative. Mr. Douglas added that many projects
come through the City that might require a building permit, a use permit or
a zone change, but do not require a general plan amendment.
Council Member Ridgeway provided an example of a developer wanting to
add square footage beyond what was allowed in the City's General Plan for a
development located in the Old Newport Boulevard area and asked what
would be required under the Planning Center's cumulative analysis. Mr.
Douglas stated that in the situation given, the development would require a
general plan amendment and it would require a vote of the people. Council
Member Ridgeway further confirmed that there is no minimal threshold and
that any addition in square feet would trigger the requirements. Mr.
Douglas added that one area that appears to be open to debate is a
development with a change in land use that would result in a net decrease in
traffic. He stated that he feels that it could be argued that such a
development would be exempt from the Greenlight initiative.
Council Member Debay provided an example of a development in the lower
portion of Bayview Landing that would add 120 units of senior affordable
housing and asked if a vote of the people would be required. Mr. Douglas
stated that in the situation given, the development would require a vote of
the people because 120 units is greater than the threshold of 100 units.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that Mr. Douglas go through the general
plan amendments in Table 4, Amendments Requiring Voter Approval. He
noted that the first one listed is the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan.
Mr. Douglas stated that the purpose of Table 4 is to look back, apply the
requirements of the Greenlight initiative and identify which amendments
would have required a vote of the people. Mr. Douglas added that when
developing Table 4, he assumed that the Greenlight initiative had been in
effect since 1990 but he did not include amendments from the previous ten
years. He stated that this was done for simplification purposes. Mayor Pro
Tem Adams noted that this resulted in a conservative estimate and that
more amendments would most likely have been included if the cumulative
total were considered.
Mr. Douglas began going through Table 4. He noted that statistical areas A
(West Newport), B (West & Central Newport) and C (Lido Isle) would have
had no amendments that required a vote of the people. Further, he noted
that statistical areas D (Balboa Peninsula), E (Balboa Island), F (Corona del
Mar) and G (Promontory Bay) also had no amendments that would have
required a vote of the people.
Mr. Douglas noted that in statistical area H (Newport Heights), the first
three amendments listed, West Newport Heights, Bolas Park and Morgan
Development, did not reach the cumulative thresholds. He added, however,
that the fourth amendment, Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, allowed
Volume 53 - Page 510
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
IRON]
an additional 147 dwelling units, an increase of 50,339 square feet in non-
residential floor area and an additional 154 peak hour trips. Mr. Douglas
stated that the amendment, without even considering the cumulative totals,
would have required a vote of the people. He added, however, that per the
provisions of the Greenlight initiative, the amendment would not be counted
towards the cumulative total since it did require a vote of the people, in and
of itself.
Per Council Member Glover's request, Mr. Douglas explained that if an
amendment is approved by the City Council and is also approved by the
voters, it is not counted in the cumulative summary per the provisions of the
Greenlight initiative.
Council Member Ridgeway noted that the cumulative summary only looks at
the previous ten years, and that the ten year totals will continue to change.
Mr. Douglas continued looking at Table 4 and stated that statistical area J
(Westcliff/Santa Ana Heights) had no amendments that would have required
a vote of the people. He stated that in statistical area K (Eastbay), the
Bayview Landing Senior Housing project, with an additional 120 dwelling
units, would have required a vote of the people. He stated that in statistical
area L (Jamboree/MacArthur), the Newport Village Library Exchange
project, with an additional 106 trips, would have required a vote of the
people.
Mr. Douglas again noted that the amendments that would have required a
vote of the people do not get added to the cumulative total. He pointed out,
however, that the amendments that would not have required a vote have
80% of their net increases added to the cumulative totals.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested that Mr. Douglas make it clear which
projects would have required a vote of the people and, therefore, would have
been in jeopardy had the Greenlight initiative been in effect. He stated that
the first one would be the Newport Village Library Exchange, which was the
entitlement for the Central Library.
Mr. Douglas listed another amendment in statistical area L that would have
required a vote of the people as being the Fashion Island Expansion, which
triggered the floor area and trip thresholds.
Council Member Ridgeway asked if there was a simple list of the
amendments that would have required a vote of the people.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that there was, but that the list differs from
those listed in Table 4.
Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the simple list be looked at first
and then the subtle differences could be discussed later.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the differences are not that subtle. He
cited an example of the Extended Stay America general plan amendment,
which was not included in The Planning Center's list but was included in the
Volume 53 - Page 511
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
`
Il�li]s1:1
City Attorney's list. City Attorney Burnham stated that he used The
Planning Center's report as well as discussions with Mr. Douglas, Planning
Director Temple, City Manager Bludau and Allan Beek to develop a list of
the projects that were approved over the previous ten years that would have
required a vote of the people. City Attorney Burnham referred to Exhibit B
of his report and Table 4 of The Planning Center's report. He stated that he
could explain why there were some discrepancies among the numbers.
Council Member Debay noted that it could be said that no two people agree
when it comes to analyzing the Greenlight initiative.
City Attorney Burnham stated that his list includes the Old Newport
Boulevard Specific Plan, Newport Landing Senior Housing, Library
Exchange, Fashion Island Expansion, Four Seasons Hotel, Pac- Tel/Dahn
Mini Storage, Aeronutronic Ford conversion, Fletcher Jones, Temple Bat
Yahm, Dahn Mini Storage II, HEVILennar office building, Pacific Club,
Extended Stay America, Pacific View Memorial Park, Harbor Day School
and Bonita Canyon Annexation.
City Attorney Burnham stated that his list includes sixteen amendments
that would have required a vote of the people if the Greenlight initiative had
been in effect since November of 1990, while The Planning Center's list
includes thirteen amendments. He explained that the differences are
because of the assumptions made, and added that his assumptions are listed
in Exhibit B of his report. City Attorney Burnham stated that The Planning
Center did not include projects that reduced peak hour trips, which the City
had originally advised. He stated that, subsequent to that advice, the City
has decided that the Greenlight initiative could be interpreted to require a
vote of the people even when a project reduces peak hour trips. City
Attorney Burnham cited the Pac- Tel/Dahn Mini Storage project, which
reduced peak hour trips by 46, so was not included in The Planning Center's
report. He also noted the Aeronutronic Ford conversion, which eliminated
1,331,000 square feet of non - residential floor area and added 500 dwelling
units, but reduced peak hour trips by 1145. Lastly, he cited the Extended
Stay America project, which tripped the intensity threshold when added to
other projects in the statistical area, but reduced peak hour trips by 2248.
Council Member O'Neil asked who would be responsible for determining
what assumptions and interpretations would be used when deciding if a
matter should require a vote of the people. City Attorney Burnham stated
that the Greenlight initiative suggests that the City Council adopt guidelines
to deal with the questions of interpretations, and that the guidelines be
consistent with the intent of the Greenlight initiative.
Council Member Glover stated that she has told the City Manager and the
City Attorney that they will have to make the interpretations. She stated
that the City Council will have to rely on these interpretations and if
someone doesn't agree with them, they will have to take the City to court
and a judge will have to decide. She stated that she will not allow a group of
citizens to interpret every project.
City Attorney Burnham stated that his report also includes a list of the
Volume 53 - Page 512
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
statistical areas where 80% of prior amendments would have caused one or
more of the thresholds to be exceeded, and fiats the same six statistical areas
as The Planning Center report. He pointed out, however, that he prepared a
chart, Exhibit C in his report, to show that in some statistical areas, one
threshold may have been exceeded but there is still room for general plan
amendments that would address other thresholds. He cited Pacific View
Memorial Park as an example. He stated that a project in the statistical
area that did not affect the non - residential floor area threshold could be
interpreted as not requiring a vote of the people.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams noted that Mr. Beek's list and the City Attorney's list
are almost identical, pointing to some agreement on the interpretations.
City Attorney Burnham added that the only difference is the inclusion of the
Bonita Canyon Annexation project on his list, which he included because he
made the assumption that the Greenlight initiative would apply to the City's
General Plan only and not the numbers approved by another jurisdiction.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams noted that he was astonished to find that the
amendments listed in Mr. Beek's table, when added together, result in a net
reduction of 1352 peak hour vehicle trips. He added that the City Attorney's
list results in a net reduction of 186 trips.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the situation is complex and,
referring to the information that Mayor Pro Tem Adams just provided, noted
that the valid goal of the Greenlight initiative proponents to reduce traffic
has already taken place naturally by elected officials.
Allan Beek, 2007 Highland, thanked the City Council for having the analysis
done. He stated that it has clarified things that were in doubt and has
provided solid numbers to work from. He stated that the report shows that if
the Greenlight initiative had been in effect since November 1990, one or two
amendments would have required a vote of the people per year.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked Mr. Beek why the Bonita Canyon Annexation
was not included in the list he produced. Mr. Beek stated that State law
does not allow people to vote on annexations. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked
if Mr. Beek also found that the amendments on his list represent a net
reduction of 1352 peak hour trips. Mr. Beek stated that he had not added
the numbers, but he understood that the Aeronutronic conversion resulted in
a large reduction. Mayor Pro Tem Adams confirmed with Mr. Beek that
amendments that do not increase peak hour trips may require a vote of the
people if they exceed the commercial floor area threshold. Mayor Pro Tem
Adams stated that the City would have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars for fifteen elections to accomplish an overall reduction in traffic.
Mr. Beek stated that the City would not have spent that much money if the
ballot measures took place during general municipal elections. He added
that proponents or opponents would not have spent much money either,
since a majority of the items were not controversial. Mayor Pro Tem Adams
asked why the Greenlight initiative is needed then. Mr. Beek stated that it
is needed as a safety measure. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked if Mr. Beek felt
that The Irvine Company would have consented to the Bonita Canyon
Annexation project and agreement if it may have required a vote of the
Volume 53 - Page 513
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
people. Mr. Beek stated that he did not feel that it would have needed a vote
of the people.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that there is an expense to any election
process. He stated that it is not fair that a project proponent might possibly
have to wait two years for a general municipal election. He stated that the
proponent would most likely ask for a special election, which would be
expensive.
Council Member Glover stated that she does not feel that any of the projects
would have happened if the Greenlight initiative had been in effect. She
explained that no proponent would want to be put in a position where their
project might be tainted by opponents during an election process. She added
that it would also divide the community, which is already happening. She
questioned if an election would ever take place, since people would prefer to
walk away.
Council Member Ridgeway agreed and stated that it would have a
significant chilling effect on anyone making an application for a project, both
from an economic point of view and based on the scrutiny that the proponent
would have to go through.
Clarence Turner, 1507 Antigua Way, asked if the statistical areas that were
not considered built -out were looked at and if it was determined how close
they were to being built -out. He stated that the City Council updated the
General Plan in 1988 and many areas were actually downzoned, which could
result in minor projects requiring a vote of the people in more statistical
areas. Mr. Turner further asked if the projects currently being considered by
St. Andrews, Our Lady Queen of Angels and Temple Bat Yahm would
require a vote of the people.
Planning Director Temple responded by stating that the other statistical
areas were also looked at and it was found that statistical area Kl (Newport
Dunes) is fast approaching the threshold. She further responded that the
project being considered by Our Lady Queen of Angels may or may not
require a vote of the people, depending upon on how they do their land
transaction. She stated that St. Andrews would probably require a vote of
the people, not because of the statistical area it is in but because of the size
of the addition. Planning Director Temple stated that Temple Bat Yahm
already has an entitlement for an additional 40,000 square feet that has not
been constructed yet.
Philip Arst expressed his appreciation for the time and money spent on the
analysis. He stated that everyone is in close agreement, which is positive
news for the Greenlight initiative proponents and has proven that their
claims are correct. He also expressed his happiness that the complexity is
behind them and that the work is done. Mr. Arst stated that the main points
of the program cannot be refuted, as indicated by the withdrawing of several
projects over the last several months. He stated that the need for any
special elections would be caused by the greed of the developers and their
attempt to overbuild the City. He stated that the Greenlight initiative will
provide for a balanced City. He stated that the City did have approximately
Volume 53 - Page 514
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
one to two major projects a year, that the City Council then weakened the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and now a dozen projects are before the
City. He stated that the Greenlight initiative is already doing its work and
is not allowing the City Council to just rubberstamp projects. He cited the
Newport Dunes Resort project as an example. Mr. Arst concluded by stating
that the analysis has provided a database for all future calculations. He
stated that the only motive of the Greenhght initiative proponents is to
protect the City's quality of life and preserve property values, not to make
huge sums of money by overbuilding the City and increasing traffic
congestion.
Mayor Noyes stated that although he began by speaking about the facts and
numbers that were provided in the analysis, some of Mr. Arst's comments
became exaggerated and personal. Mayor Noyes stated that he did not know
what twelve projects Mr. Arst was speaking of nor has he ever
rubberstamped a project.
Council Member Debay asked what the Greenlight initiative will do for the
regional traffic impacts on the City. Mr. Arst stated that regional traffic is
an issue for the City Council and that they need to work with the
neighboring cities. He added that the Greenlight initiative only addresses
what the City can control. Council Member Debay pointed out that Coast
Highway is a State highway and asked how the City can control its traffic.
Mr. Arst stated that the City should control what it can control. He stated
that the City can control the building of high rises in the City. Council
Member Debay stated that there are benefits to having office buildings in
the City. She added that the views that are being impacted by the Harbor
Day School have to be balanced with the generations of children that will
benefit from the new gymnasium. Mr. Arst stated that the gymnasium could
have been placed in a different location and the residents should have been
given a voice. Council Member Debay stated that the City will forever be
divided because of the Greenlight initiative. Mr. Arst stated that the
Greenhght initiative helps the citizens work more closely with the City
Council. Council Member Debay commented on the division created by
Mr. Arst's statement that the City Council has rubberstamped projects.
Council Member O'Neil stated that he did not know what projects Mr. Arst
would be referring to that the City Council has rubberstamped. Council
Member O'Neil stated that the City Council goes through a tremendous
amount of review, that affected associations are worked with, environmental
impact reports are prepared and the Planning Commission hearing process
is gone through before a project is then voted on by the City Council. He
stated that the Greenlight initiative was created because of changes made to
the TPO, which incorporated many of the suggestions of the citizens as well
as those done at the advice of the City Attorney. Council Member O'Neil
stated that he did not feel that the TPO was weakened, but that a small
group of citizens did not feel that they got everything they wanted. He
stated that many false assumptions have been made and he doesn't
understand what the problem is. Mr. Arst stated that nineteen objections
were made to the TPO and only three were incorporated. Council Member
O'Neil disagreed that only three were incorporated. Mr. Arst added that he
knew the City Council was following the City Attorney's advice, but he didn't
Volume 53 - Page 515
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 26, 2000
INDEX
understand wkly some of the other changes were made. Council Member
O'Neil stated that the Greenlight initiative, if passed, would have a negative
impact on representative government.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the City Council did not weaken the TPO.
He disagreed with Mr. Arst's statements that the Greenlight initiative had
already turned away projects. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the
projects pulled in the Newport Center area were done so because the
applicant knew there was no support by the City Council for increased office
development in the Fashion Island area. Mayor Pro Tem Adams
additionally stated that the Newport Dunes Resort project cannot be touched
significantly by the Greenlight initiative. Lastly, Mayor Pro Tem Adams
stated that the citizens already have a voice through their City Council
representatives.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked if the Greenlight proponents had considered
what the initiative will do to the process in regards to special interests. He
stated that when the issues come before the voters, there will be campaigns
waged with unlimited donations received, which will allow for special
interest groups to take control of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated
that he can't understand how important land use decisions can be made by
campaign statements or one sentence questions on a ballot. Mr. Arst stated
that he hopes that an unworthy project would be denied by the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the referendum process already takes
care of that and the Greenlight initiative puts a preemptive referendum on
all major general plan amendments. Mr. Arst stated that the Greenlight
initiative only targets the big projects. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated his
agreement with Council Member Glover's previous comments that there will
be no major projects. He added that the Greenlight initiative takes away
from the City's General Plan, which is an essential tool to City government.
Mayor Noyes asked if Mr. Arst could name the projects that have been
rubberstamped by the City Council and have made him so unhappy.
Mr. Arst stated that the Harbor Day School gymnasium would be an
example, but that the numbers are very low. Mayor Noyes stated that Mr.
Arst is really asking for the City Council to continue doing what its been
doing, proceed with caution and pay particular attention to large projects
that result in a high impact. Mayor Noyes stated that he does not want to be
blamed for things he is not doing. He pointed out that Jean Watt and Evelyn
Hart, proponents of the Greenlight initiative, were also former council
members who approved some of the general plan amendments that Mr. Arst
is commenting on. Mr. Arst stated that Ms. Watt and Ms. Hart had to
adhere to the TPO in its stricter form and that not all projects are bad, but
that some mistakes were made.
Dolores Otting stated that she can't understand what the City Council is so
afraid of and why they are so opposed to a vote of the people. She stated
that Fletcher Jones never did bring the money to the City that it was
supposed to and she commented about the negative declarations that are
often done instead of environmental impact reports. Ms. Otting stated that
the City Council is appearing to be attacking the Greenlight initiative
proponents, but that the 10,000 people who signed the petition were trying
Volume 53 - Page 516
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
"Me]
to say something. She stated that the City Council used to have Council
Committees and that they decided some things shouldn't be done, but that
the City is now doing some of those things. She cited the Santa Ana Heights
annexation as an example. She stated that its a different City now and
maybe the Council Committees should be brought back to allow for more
public input. Ms. Otting also suggested that if additional revenue is so
important to the City, the stores in Fashion Island should be open on
Saturday and Sunday evenings when the restaurants are still open.
Laura Bekeart Dietz, 325 Cameo Shores Road, disagreed with Mr. Arst's
comment that the Greenlight initiative gives the residents a voice. She
stated that the residents have a voice every day. She stated that they can
talk to any Council Member or staff. She stated that the City also expanded
the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee JWC) two
years ago and its original concept to take into account the interests of the
residents in the City. She stated that EQAC has since reviewed some major
projects in the City and the public should know that this additional review is
being done. Ms. Dietz stated that the current City Council has shown that it
is sensitive to all members of the community.
Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane, stated that Newport Beach is a great
community. He stated that he is a supporter of representative democracy
and that it works when educated people are able to make intelligent
decisions, but have busy lives and can't follow every issue in depth. He
stated that they, instead, elect people to make reasonable decisions for them.
Mr. Purcell stated that direct democracy, on the other hand, requires that all
voters be very well educated on all of the issues, which includes attending
meetings such as the current one. He stated that this is unreasonable to
expect of all voters. He stated that if the Greenlight initiative is approved,
the City will be reduced to high dollar campaigns and the wording on a
ballot. He concluded by stating that the Greenlight initiative is not the
solution.
Mayor Noyes stated that the City Council is apt to get a bit resentful when
people, such as the Greenlight initiative proponents, state that the City
Council is not doing its job. He stated that many people do not know the
history of various projects. He provided an example of the representatives
from the City that met with The Irvine Company over a period of two and
one half years through a committee called the Newport Center Economic
Opportunities, but The Irvine Company just walked away in the end because
of the hard stand that the City took. Mayor Noyes stated that the City
Council is tough on projects, but can do little in regards to regional traffic.
Mary Barrett Blake, 777 Domingo Drive, asked what the City is going to do
today and tomorrow to preserve the quality of life in Newport Beach. She
stated that the traffic on Coast Highway at Dover and Jamboree is getting
worse every day. She stated that the Greenlight initiative focuses on the
unhappiness of the average person who lives in the City and that it looks at
the problem. She added that the City is built -out. She stated that it's not
about one project or pitting neighbor against neighbor, it's about big projects
that add lots of traffic trips per day.
Volume 53 - Page 517
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the general plan amendments that
were approved over the previous ten years and would have required a vote of
the people if the Greenlight initiative had been in effect would have reduced
peak hour trips per day. He stated that intensity and density were not
looked at, but he is satisfied that the City has been responsive to its citizens.
He stated that the City Council is being blamed for regional growth and cited
the City of Irvine and Irvine Business Complex's approximately 35 million
square feet of office space in the airport area. He noted that these employees
drive through the City of Newport Beach and the Greenlight initiative does
nothing to address this regional traffic. Ms. Blake stated that the Greenlight
initiative is not perfect, but it is a response of the people indicating that they
are not happy. Council Member Ridgeway stated that no one is happy with
the amount of traffic in the City, but the traffic is not entirely from the City's
own citizens. Ms. Blake stated that the Greenlight initiative proponents are
asking the City to control what it can control. Council Member Ridgeway
stated that he believes it does. Ms. Blake stated that people can't
understand why the Newport Dunes Resort project is being considered when
one looks at the traffic it will generate.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the City is getting built -out and there is
no additional entitlement for high rises in Fashion Island. He stated that
Newport Beach has always been inundated by outside traffic and that can't
be changed by what is done with various land uses within the City. He
stated that Newport Beach is a visitor- accommodating City and the City has
done the best it can to offer a balance. Ms. Blake stated that the problem
has been solved in other cities and cited Santa Barbara as an example.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that Santa Barbara is an isolated city.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that a committee has been formed to look at
updating the City's General Plan and the process will start soon. He stated
that this is where the energy should be spent. He stated that the Greenlight
initiative proponents are well meaning, but he doesn't feel the initiative is
going to accomplish what people think it will. He stated his hopes that the
same energy can be spent on the general plan update because it will truly
address the issues. He added that the Greenlight initiative only deals with
general plan amendments, which are a small part of the total development
in the City. Mayor Pro Tern Adams stated that a general plan update can
look at the City's land use and traffic system, and develop a plan that can
carry the City through the next twenty years. Ms. Blake stated that the City
Council needs to listen.
Mayor Noyes recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 10:00 p.m. with all members present.
Thomas Edwards, 1333 Hampshire Circle, thanked the City for taking the
time and effort to conduct the study. He disagreed with some of the
generalized conclusions drawn by Mr. Beek earlier in the meeting, and
agreed with some of the comments made by council members in that he feels
that the Greenlight initiative, if passed, would have a chilling effect. Mr.
Edwards complimented the City Council for the time spent in reviewing
documents and reports, talking with staff and meeting with constituents. He
stated that the current City Council and previous City Councils have served
Volume 53 - Page 518
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
the City well. He stated that Newport Beach has a high rate of
participation, has the highest quality of life in Orange County and each and
every problem is attacked with vigor.
Council Member Glover stated that she is a member of the South Coast Air
Quality District, representing the County of Orange, and that Newport
Beach enjoys the best air quality of any of the cities in the four counties,
which also includes Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside.
Council Member O'Neil stated that the same thing can be said for the City's
water quality. He stated that Regional Water Quality Control Board has
certified the City as one of the cities that looks after its water quality.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that special interest groups
already exist for the underground utilities. He stated that these groups are
the community associations and as long as they're involved in the voting
issue that takes place, there is going to be a problem. Mr. Hildreth stated
that he'd like to know more about the general plan update.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams explained that the update of the City's General Plan
will be a long process. He stated that a committee has been formed and will
meet soon to begin the process by mapping out what will take place over the
next couple of years, deciding on how the update will be done and how
comments will be received from citizens. City Manager Bludau stated that
staff is checking availability with committee members and working on
setting the first meeting date. Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that the
meetings will be noticed and open to the public.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that the next ninety days should be a good
time for the Planning Department to spend time working on the process.
Mr. Hildreth asked when the meetings would take place.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he hopes to set the meetings at a
convenient time for everyone to attend, possibly towards the end of the
workday. He stated that the meetings will be posted pursuant to the Brown
Act. City Manager Bludau stated that the postings will occur on the web
site, at the library and other regular City posting locations. Mayor Pro Tem
Adams stated that he would also announce the meeting times and locations
at City Council meetings. City Manager Bludau added that the local
newspapers would be notified.
Tom Hyans, Peninsula resident and Greenlight initiative proponent, stated
that the current City Council is taking credit for what happened prior to
their appointments. He stated that the City Council is well aware of the
conditions on Coast Highway and the projects that are being discussed for
the City. He stated that the trust of the City Council is not in question, but
he's concerned about what will happen in the future. He stated that the City
Council is also represented by the people it appoints, such as those appointed
to the Planning Commission. He noted some of the comments made in the
past by Planning Commissioner Selich regarding the Newport Dunes Resort
project. Mr. Hyans stated that he has learned a lot about EIR's and much of
it is that they are created on boiler plates, resulting in a lot of
Volume 53 - Page 519
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
misinformation. He stated that updating the City's General Plan has been
discussed for some time and there's always an excuse for not doing it. He
also mentioned the Koll and Conexant projects, and the problem with their
traffic models. He concluded by stating that it is not that the City Council is
not trusted, it's that the citizens aren't sure what decisions will be made.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that criticism is difficult, but he feels that
through EQAC and increased citizen involvement, the City Council has done
a good job of allowing the criticism to surface.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to receive and file, and make copies of
the report available to the public and on the City's web site.
Susan Caustin stated that its the traffic. She stated that the Greenlight
initiative is not intended to affect regional traffic, it is only intended to deal
with what the City does have authority over. She stated that the City's
General Plan is only a guideline and is constantly being amended. She
stated that the City already has enough traffic. She complained that she
called Mayor Pro Tem Adams and he never returned her call.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams responded that he attempted to return the can twice.
Ms. Caustin stated that she also put a call into another Council Member who
did not return her call, but instead she received a call from the City Attorney
stating that the call wouldn't be returned since Ms. Caustin was planning to
file a referendum.
Council Member Glover responded by stating that the call was not returned
because she was told that Ms. Caustin was potentially going to file a lawsuit.
Council Member Glover stated that she will not meet with citizens who say
they are going to sue the City because she feels it would be inappropriate.
Ms. Caustin stated that she never said she was going to sue the City. She
stated that the Newport Dunes Resort project was given a negative
declaration stating that there would be no environmental impact from the
approved 275 -room family inn. She stated that a letter from SPON (Stop
Polluting Our Newport) caused the EIR to be done. She added that the
traffic study concluded that the current proposal, though larger, would
produce less traffic. She asked how Mayor Pro Tem Adams could support
that.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he would be happy to meet with
Ms. Caustin anytime to discuss the traffic study. Ms. Caustin stated that
the issue is traffic and the citizens don't feel they're being listened to. She
stated that it is the reason the Greenlight initiative was started.
Council Member Glover stated that she was on the Planning Commission for
five years, has been on the City Council for six years and that during this
time has seen the traffic decrease on Coast Highway. She stated that it
decreased significantly during the recession. She stated that recessions will
occur again. She stated that when people complain about traffic, they need
to remember some of the alternatives.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Volume 53 - Page 520
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
21. CERTIFICATION OF THE PETITION ENTITLED "NEWPORT
BEACH TRAFFIC PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS; TRAFFIC
PHASING ORDINANCE" AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
SETTING THE ELECTION DATE.
Thomas Edwards, 1333 Hampshire Circle, proponent of the Newport Beach
Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)
initiative, requested that the staff-recommended action be approved. He
stated that a number of people do think it's time to do something and
approximately 10,000 signatures were gathered for the TPO initiative in a
short amount of time. He stated that he believes the initiative should be
placed on the ballot for the next election. Mr. Edwards stated that the TPO
initiative amends the City Charter to deal with traffic, ensures adequate
funds for future road improvements, keeps all major intersections in the City
operating at 90% or less of capacity, provides effective land use planning in
the airport area and deals with all the facets of the City, not just traffic.
Allan Beek, 2007 Highland, stated that State law does not allow
misrepresentation that misleads or deceives voters when collecting
signatures for petitions. He stated that the courts will not allow an initiative
to be placed on the ballot if the signatures were gathered by
misrepresentation. Mr. Beek stated that the TPO initiative signatures were
gathered by misrepresentation. He stated that signature circulators stated
that the Greenlight initiative proponents sponsored the petition, that it
would limit traffic and other false statements. He stated that the TPO
initiative's whole purpose is to kill the Greenlight initiative. Mr. Beek
commented on some of the flagrant misrepresentations of the circulators. He
stated that the measure itself and the notice of intent to circulate petition
also contained misrepresentations. He stated that the TPO initiative
pretends to protect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, but the developers who
are behind the TPO initiative are actually opposed to the ordinance.
Mr. Beek stated that the TPO initiative also violates the single subject rule.
He stated that many voters signed the petition because they were deceived.
He requested that the City Council have an investigation conducted of the
improprieties surrounding the collection of signatures.
Council Member Debay stated that the City received 720 postcards from
citizens requesting that their signatures be withdrawn from the TPO
initiative. She stated that, in reality, only 107 of the citizens had actually
signed the petition. Mr. Beek stated that the postcards were worded so that
the citizen was only asking to have their name removed if they had signed
the petition.
Clarence Turner, 1507 Antigua Way, stated that Mr. Beek just made some
Volume 53 - Page 521
IN 11
Res 2000 -69
Newport Beach
Traffic Planning &
Improvements;
Traffic Phasing
Ordinance (TPO)
(39)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
misrepresentations of his own. He added that if anyone feels that the TPO
petition was prepared illegally, the proper course of action would be to
handle the matter in the courts. Mr. Turner stated that the Greenlight
initiative proponents are more frightened by the fact that the TPO initiative
does address traffic in the City and will result in improved circulation in the
City. He stated that the City cannot fund all of the necessary improvements
itself and must rely on Traffic Phasing Ordinance funds, fair share fees,
Measure M fees, State sales tax fees, gas tax fees and Federal taxes.
Mr. Turner pointed out that, in regards to regional growth, Newport Beach's
density per square mile is approximately 4600 people. He compared this
statistic with Costa Mesa at 6000, Huntington Beach at 6800 and Irvine at
2700. Mr. Turner stated that the TPO initiative addresses regional traffic
and he urged the City Council to place the initiative on the ballot.
Dolores Otting stated that she and her husband go to Gelson's, Ralph's or
the post office and every day, and they were approached by signature
circulators who stated that the initiative was for Greenlight. Ms. Otting
stated that she confirmed with Mr. Hyans that the Greenlight initiative had
already qualified for the ballot. Later, she again overheard circulators
saying that their initiative was for Greenlight. Ms. Otting then confirmed
with Mr. Beek that the circulators were lying. She stated that she
approached a circulator and he showed her the Greenlight initiative postal
address on the back of the TPO initiative. Ms. Otting concluded her
comments by stating that the signatures were gathered by fraud, but that
she knows the initiative will be placed on the ballot and people are just going
to have to vote.
Referring to Ms. Otting's comments that the TPO initiative was only 300
signatures shy of not qualifying for the ballot, Mayor Noyes explained that
the County only checks signatures until the number needed to qualify the
initiative for the ballot is reached.
Bob Caustin read from a letter written by Yvonne Houssels to the City
Council, dated July 25, 2000, and stated that it was a reprint of a letter sent
to the Daily Pilot. The letter stated that Ms. Houssels felt that she had been
coerced and lied to in order to get her signature on the TPO petition.
Mr. Caustin stated that he had the same experience at a Vons. Mr. Caustin
stated that the TPO initiative is filled with lies. He stated that the
allegations need to be investigated. He stated that he and Mr. Beek have
spoken to an attorney. Mr. Caustin stated that the Greenlight petition was
carried by citizens of Newport Beach and the TPO petition was not.
Council Member O'Neil stated that he appreciates the concerns of those that
question how the signatures were gathered for the TPO initiative, but that
an investigation of the allegations has been made, that the City Attorney has
reviewed the law and they have been told that no violations of the law have
occurred. Council Member O'Neil reminded Mr. Caustin that the initiative
process is retained by the people and is not controlled by the City. He stated
that once the signatures have been received by the City Clerk, they are sent
to the County for verification, the City Attorney decides if the process has
been legal and the City Council is then obligated to place the initiative on
the ballot. He stated that any improprieties or illegal activity need to be
Volume 53 - Page 522
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
addressed in a court of law. Mr. Caustin stated that the City Council has the
right to investigate the allegations.
Georgine Vaught stated that she was one of the people that was asked to
sign the petition for Greenlight, when it was actually for the TPO initiative.
She stated that the incident occurred at Albertson's on Saturday, June 10,
2000. She requested that all signatures gathered at that location on that
date be disqualified.
Marianne Towersey, 501 Kings Place, stated that she concurred that the
signatures for the TPO initiative were obtained under false pretenses. She
stated that a signature collector walked her street and stated that the
petition dealt with the expansion of John Wayne Airport. She looked at the
collector's talking points and spoke with a neighbor. She requested that the
City Council disqualify the signatures gathered in the Cliff Haven area.
Jean Beek, 2007 Highland Drive, stated that on Friday, May 19, 2000, she
was told by a circulator of the TPO petition that the initiative would stop
traffic and help the Greenlight initiative. She stated it occurred again at the
same market, but the collector stated that it would stop growth at John
Wayne Airport.
Jim deBoom, 1815 Sherington Place, stated that a lot of the traffic
improvements in the City have occurred because of the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance. He stated that he would guess that the opponents of the TPO
initiative are probably the same people that opposed roadway improvements
in the past. He stated that one reason for the traffic in the City is the denial
of the extension of University Drive that occurred several years ago.
Mr. deBoom stated that the TPO initiative continues the process of funding.
He stated that Newport Beach has a high number of people who don't pay
the same property taxes as their newer neighbors, due to Proposition 13. He
added that it is common practice to include wording in an opposing initiative
that would make the other initiative invalid if more votes are collected. He
stated that the reason the Greenlight initiative was attached to the TPO
initiative is because mention of it is made within the text of the TPO
initiative. Mr. deBoom stated that he gathered signatures himself for the
TPO initiative and observed others doing so. He encouraged the City
Council to place the initiative on the November ballot.
Philip Arst stated that he has documented proof of the misrepresentation
made to solicit signatures for the TPO initiative. He stated that this
information has been submitted to the City Clerk. He stated that he also
has in writing what the attorney for the TPO initiative said that the
collectors were told to say. Mr. Arst stated that the TPO initiative does not
make the developers pay. He stated that the Greenlight initiative actually
makes the developers pay more. He stated that the TPO initiative does not
give the City more control over the land uses in the airport area. Mr. Arst
stated that the City Council has the obligation to conduct an investigation
and reply to the allegations. He admitted that some voters will vote by the
title.
City Attorney Burnham stated that when the letter complaining about
Volume 53 - Page 523
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
signature gathering practices was submitted to the City Clerk, his office was
consulted. He stated that he reviewed the San Francisco Forty - Niners vs.
Nishioka case. He stated that the court ruled that the City Clerk has a
mandatory duty to reject a petition when the petition contains objectively
false information that could substantially mislead a reasonable voter. He
stated that he feels that the City Clerk's duty is to look solely at the petition.
He stated that no one condones false signature gathering practices, but the
City Clerk can only conduct her analysis based on the petition itself. City
Attorney Burnham stated that he also reviewed the talking points of the
collectors and did not feel that they were objectively false or designed to
mislead the voters.
City Clerk Harkless concurred with the comments made by City Attorney
Burnham and stated that she has no way of verifying the accusations made.
She stated that she can only go by the petition itself. She added that she did
receive complaints in her office and spoke with a couple about the right to
circulate an initiative and the responsibility of a signer to understand what
they are signing.
City Attorney Burnham added that the City Clerk also make the
determination that the signature withdrawal forms were valid and in
conformance with the Elections Code. He stated that this allowed people
who felt that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation the
opportunity to correct the error.
Council Member Glover agreed with Council Member O'Neil's previous
comments and stated that the initiative process is done throughout the
State. She stated that she feels that it is the responsibility of the signer to
know what they are signing. She added that using emotional wording is
part of the initiative process.
Motion by Council Member Glover to approve the certification of the
"Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements; Traffic Phasing
Ordinance" petition from the Registrar of Voters, County of Orange, as
presented by the City Clerk; and adopt Resolution No. 2000 -69 calling and
giving notice of the holding of an election for the submission of the proposed
charter amendment to be held on November 7, 2000 (consolidated with the
County of Orange).
Council Member O'Neil stated that based on the advice of the City Attorney
and input from the City Clerk, who both performed the functions that they
are required to do by the State petition statutes and the City Charter, he
feels compelled to place the TPO initiative on the ballot.
Mayor Noyes stated that he feels that the City is just trying to be consistent
with what was done for the Greenlight initiative.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Volume 53 - Page 524
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
None
22. COMMUNICATION FROM LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES —
LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE — SEPTEMBER 7 -9, 2000 IN
ANAHEIM.
Motion by Mayor Noyes to designate Mayor Noyes as the City's Voting
Delegate for the Conference and Council Member Glover as the Voting
Alternate.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
There was a brief discussion about starting a new item past 11:00 p.m.
Motion by Council Member Debay to finish the agenda at the current
meeting.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
23. WEB SITE LINKS.
City Manager Bludau stated that it was brought to his attention that there
is a direct link on the City's web site to the Chamber of Commerce site,
which has taken a position on the Greenlight initiative. He stated that the
City currently has no policy with regards to links on the City's web site. He
stated that there are currently eighteen links and that they are listed in the
staff report. He suggested that a policy be developed and stated that the
alternatives might include freezing the current web site links, removing the
Chamber's link, adding a link for the Greenlight initiative, leaving things as
they are, or deciding that no links should be allowed.
Council MemberDebay suggested that a disclaimer be added to all of the
links to state that the City is not necessarily supporting the opinions
expressed. City Manager Bludau stated that he has been told that the
Chamber has already added such a disclaimer to their link.
Mayor Noyes thanked the Chamber for adding the disclaimer while the City
looks at the issue. He stated that there is a lot to learn in the area of links
and web sites.
City Attorney Burnham stated that he did find a court case on the subject
that occurred in Tennessee. He stated that it involved a local newspaper
Volume 53 - Page 525
INDEX
League of
California
Cities
(61)
Web Site
Links
(30/69)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
business that had a web site and wanted to link its city's web site to it. He
stated that the city did have a web site, and had an informal policy allowing
links to their web site for those businesses engaged in promoting the city's
economic welfare. He stated that the city disallowed the link with the local
newspaper business because the newspaper was critical of the city. City
Attorney Burnham stated that the court ruled that web sites are non -public
forums, that the city can limit the number of links it approves and that it can
establish criteria for the links to the site. He added that if a policy is
developed, it must be done in a viewpoint neutral fashion. City Attorney
Burnham stated that his recommendation to the City Council would be to
either terminate the link with the Chamber or approve a link that offers the
counter viewpoint.
Council Member O'Neil confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the
Tennessee case is not binding in California, but could provide a guideline.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that if competing views are offered, he feels
that it puts the City in the position of having to police its links. He stated
that it would be an unreasonable burden on the City to monitor the links on
a continual basis.
Council Member Glover stated that the links the City currently has should
be continued and that a City Council committee should be formed to work
with staff on a policy and set some criteria. She stated that she agreed with
the practice of some agencies that allow links for long - established entities
and disallow links for short -term groups.
Motion by Council Member Glover to request that a City Council ad hoc
committee be formed to develop a policy that sets criteria for links on the
City's web site and request that the Chamber of Commerce link remain as is.
Mayor Noyes stated that the issue is very complicated, and mentioned the
current links to the Los Angeles Times and the El Toro Airport.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that he had previously assumed that the
Chamber link was on the City's link page, but he stated that it is instead
included on the list of the City's internal links. He stated that he wasn't
sure this was appropriate.
Mayor Noyes suggested that a disclaimer be added to the City's web site. He
stated that the Chamber provides a lot of good information and he doesn't
know what other entities would have to be eliminated if the Chamber link
were discontinued.
Council Member Glover stated her support for adding a disclaimer on the
City's web site and agreed to amend her motion to include a request that a
disclaimer be added to the City's web site.
Council Member Ridgeway agreed that some standards need to be set and
there appear to be some issues that the city can control. He added, however,
that there should be a balance offered with the Chamber page. He stated his
support for adding a link for the Greenlight initiative viewpoint. He also
Volume 53 - Page 526
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
agreed that the disclaimer should be added. Council Member Ridgeway
stated that he'd also like to reserve the right to remove the Greenlight
initiative link if the City desires to do so.
Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to request that the Greenlight
proponents be allowed a link to the City's web site.
Richard Luehrs, President/CEO Newport Chamber of Commerce, stated that
the Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1906 and has provided continuous
service to the community. He stated that the Chamber receives over 200
phone calls per day from people asking for resources. He stated that the
Chamber spends countless hours every month on economic development
issues that benefit the City, holds important recognition programs on behalf
of the City and executes community enrichment programs. Mr. Luehrs
stated that he also wanted to mention the City's web site address,
www.city.newport - beach.ca.us. He stated that the general public will type in
newportbeach.com, which is the Chamber's web site address. He stated that
the Chamber receives about two million hits per month, and just under
50,000 user sessions per month. Mr. Luehrs added that the Chamber's page
that covers the Greenlight viewpoint is not the most popular item of interest.
He confirmed that the Chamber has already placed a disclaimer on their web
site. Mr. Luehrs concluded by stating that the Chamber has had a long and
fruitful relationship with the City, but that it may offer an opinion
occasionally and they'd like to reserve the right to do so.
Council Member Ridgeway confirmed with Mr. Luehrs that the Chamber
web site also offers a link to the City's web site.
Council Member Debay asked if Mr. Luehrs agreed with the City offering a
link to the Greenlight initiative proponents, and she would also suggest the
TPO initiative proponents. Mr. Luehrs stated that he did not feel that it
would be a fair way of handling the issue. He further clarified that the case
in Tennessee that was mentioned earlier by the City Attorney involved links
to the city's web site, not links from the city's web site.
Philip Arst stated that the Chamber has a free speech right to take any
position they want on their web site. He stated, however, that it shouldn't be
done at taxpayer expense or under the connotation of the City web site.
Mr. Arst stated that the Chamber does get a preferred location on the City's
web site and that the link should at least be moved to the Links page. He
stated that only three other cities in the County, out of the twenty -seven
that have web sites, feature their Chamber on their home page. Mr. Arst
concluded by stating that the City should adopt a neutral stand and that the
Chamber should be moved from the home page to the Links page. He added
that the Greenlight initiative should also be allowed a spot on the home page
for a compensating time to level the playing field. He also suggested that, in
the future, the City might want to consider a community activities link to
provide an open forum.
Doug Stucky, 2501 Via Marina, Pubic Affairs Director, Newport Chamber of
Commerce, stated that the case in Tennessee involved people linking to the
city's page, and not the city providing links to outside entities. He stated
Volume 53 - Page 527
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
INDEX
that there are currently six cities in the County that have direct links to
their Chambers on their home pages, and over twenty -one that have the link
on a Links page. Mr. Stucky stated that the Chamber does a service to the
City, but he doesn't understand what service the Greenlight initiative
proponents would offer on their link, except for their viewpoint.
Tom Hyans, Peninsula resident, stated that the City's web site has two links
to the Chamber, one via the direct link and another through the link to the
Conference and Visitors Bureau web site, which has a link to the Chamber.
Mr. Hyans suggested that a policy should be developed, rather than the
mishmash that is taking place at the current meeting.
Dan Purcell stated his support for removing the Chamber link until after the
November election. He stated that he would not support a purely political
entity being offered a link to the City's web site. Mr. Purcell stated that the
City's web site address is consistent with other cities in the country. He
added that there is no cost to having a link on a web site.
Mayor Noyes asked if candidate statements were posted on the City's web
site. City Clerk Harkless stated that she will post the list of candidates,
their candidate statements, any biographical information and a photo. She
added that she will also post the City Attorney's title and summary for any
qualified charter amendments, as well as the text and direct arguments.
Laura Bekeart Dietz, 325 Cameo Shores Road, asked that the action taken
at the current meeting not affect the web site that the Environmental
Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) has been working on.
Secondly, she stated that the City Council should act in fairness to all of the
parties involved. Lastly, Ms. Dietz announced that EQAC would be having
both initiatives on their agenda at their meeting of September 18, 2000.
Larry Porter, 2712 Cliff Drive, stated that the link with the Chamber is
inappropriate because the Chamber's home page is political in nature and
addresses issues that the City is considering. He added that the link from
the City's web site implies that the City supports the viewpoints.
Council Member Ridgeway stated that his motion was made out of a sense of
fairness. He stated that his motion was to add a link for the Greenlight
initiative proponents. He also felt that it wasn't appropriate to eliminate
the link with the Chamber. He stated that fairness can be reached by
allowing a link to the Greenlight initiative web site, or mentioning the web
site as an opposing viewpoint.
Council Member Ridgeway's motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Glover stated that her motion included adding a disclaimer
to the City's web site for all links. She added that a policy also needs to be
established.
Mayor Noyes suggested that possibly the two motions could be combined.
He stated that if the City Council is going to err, it should err on the side of
open communication. Mayor Noyes suggested that the motion include the
Volume 53 - Page 528
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
disclaimer, adding the Greenlight initiative web site and forming a
committee to develop a policy.
Council Member Debay stated that she agrees with the suggestions if the
TPO initiative is also allowed a link.
Mayor Noyes agreed and stated that there are eight other political action
committees (PACs) that should also be considered.
Council Member Debay stated that the TPO initiative proponents should be
allowed the same exposure as the Greenlight initiative proponents.
Council Member Ridgeway agreed that it should be added to Council
Member Glover's motion.
Mayor Noyes suggested that the initiative links only be allowed through the
election.
City Manager Bludau additionally suggested that other links be frozen until
a Council- approved policy is in place.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams clarified that the motion was to leave the Chamber
link in its current location and place the additional links on the Links page.
Council Member Glover agreed to include the amendments to her motion.
The motion by Council Member Glover to request that a City Council ad hoc
committee be formed to develop a policy that sets criteria for links on the
City's web site; request that a disclaimer be added to the City's web site;
request that the Chamber of Commerce link remain as is; request that the
Greenlight proponents and the TPO proponents be allowed on the Links
page through November 7, 2000; and to "freeze" other links to the web page
until a Council- approved policy is in place carried by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
24. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 2804 BROAD STREET,
NEWPORT HEIGHTS (N2000 -240).
Public Works Director Webb stated that a brick wall was constructed within
the public right -of -way without an encroachment permit and that it does not
meet the various policies of the City Council. He stated that staffs
recommendation is to deny the appeal of the applicant and require that the
wall be removed from the public right -of -way. He stated that if the City
Council would prefer that the wall be allowed to remain, staff would like to
recommend some conditions.
Volume 53 - Page 529
EPN2000 -240
2804 Broad Street
(65)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 25, 2000
Council Member Glover stated that the street was recently changed to avoid
encroachments such as the one before the City Council at the current
meeting.
Motion by Council Member Glover to deny the request.
Kelly Sandore, 430 Redlands Avenue, began by stating that the City is the
perfect size and that City staff is great to work with. He stated that the
encroachment does not follow City policy. He agreed that the problem is
public right -of -way and he doesn't support any structure on public right -of-
way. He stated that the neighborhood does not have streetlights or
sidewalks, and any encroachments are a hazard.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomson, Glover, Adams, Debay, Ridgeway, O'Neil, Mayor Noyes
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION —None.
ADJOURNMENT — 11:50 pan.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on July 19, 2000, at
3:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of
Newport Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 53 - Page 530
INDEX