HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 03-12-2002City Council Meeting
March 26, 2002
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes 11����
Study Session D
March 12, 2002 - 4:00 p.m. INDEX
ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
Absent: O'Neil (excused)
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
In regards to Item No. 5, Amendment to Agreement with Sutherland Talla
Hospitality LLP, Council Member Heffernan requested that, prior to the
evening meeting, staff inform him of what has been granted with regards to
the extension of the agreement.
2. WATER QUALITY REPORT ON PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS - COPPER
LEVELS.
Utilities Director Davidson stated that the report on copper levels was being
submitted to the City Council in accordance with Federal and State water
regulations, and is required whenever tests indicate that a chemical is above
the Public Health Goal (PHG). He explained that some chemicals in the
water are monitored according to Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's),
which are regulated standards used for enforcing water quality. Utilities
Director Davidson noted that other chemicals are not regulated and do not
have established MCL's. He explained that these chemicals are, instead,
expressed by Action Levels (AL's) and PHG's, which are idealistic goals for
water quality.
Utilities Director Davidson stated that the City does hundreds of chemical
tests annually. He reported that copper was the only chemical to exceed the
PHG in the City's water system, but that it did not exceed the AL. He
additionally noted that copper tests are required to be taken in the homes,
which takes the internal corrosion of the plumbing into consideration. He
pointed out that the PHG's that are set are not based on comprehensive
health assessment analysis, so exceeding them does not require any
remedial action by the City. Utilities Director Davidson further explained
that PHG's are set at a much greater conservative level for no risk and AL's
for no significant risk. He stated that PHG's and AL's are set when no MCL
has been established, and that complying with all MCL's assures the
consumer that the water is safe to drink. MCL's are set after extensive
health studies have been conducted and evaluation of treatment
technologies and benefit costs have been completed. He noted that the City
is in full compliance with MCL's.
Per Mayor Ridgeway's question, Utilities Director Davidson stated that the
City's waterlines are made of steel, cast iron, ductile iron and PVC. He
added that the service lines from the main lines to the customers' lines are
Volume 55 - Page 35
Water Quality
Report
(89)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
3.
made of copper, and that
home is the customer's
Utilities Director Davids
'/. -inch to 2 -inch.
the plumbing from the meter box to the customer's
responsibility. Per Mayor Ridgeway's question,
in stated that the service lines vary in size from
Council Member Glover asked for an explanation of the white spots she's
noticed in her teakettle. Utilities Operations Manager Antista explained
that they are mineral deposits from residue in the water.
City Manager Bludau asked if any tests had been done on the type of residue
that comes from plastic PVC lines in homes. Utilities Operations Manager
Antista stated that studies are being done, but determinations have not been
made yet. Utilities Director Davidson added that water is considered a
universal solvent so some leaching occurs with anything it comes into
contact with.
UPDATE ON DREDGING: UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION PROJECT, LOWER HARBOR NAVIGATIONAL
CHANNELS, AND PRIVATE DOCKS.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that
the Upper Newport Bay Project is an ecosystem restoration project to restore
the bay to its optimal ecosystem and that the United States Army Corps is
the City's major federal partner in the project. He stated that the Army
Corps is paying 65% of the project total, which is $33 million, and that the
other 35% is being paid for by local partners and the State through the
passage of Proposition 12. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the
dredging will remove over two million cubic yards of sediment. He added
that the project will take approximately 22 months to complete, is currently
in the plans and specifications stage and still needs congressional
authorization. He noted that once completed, it is estimated that another
dredging project wouldn't be needed for 21 years. Assistant City Manager
Kiff displayed two slides, one showing what the bay would look like if there
were no dredging for a 50 -year period and another showing the significant
and diverse dredging impact that the proposed project is expected to
accomplish.
Harbor Resources Director Melum displayed an aerial photo showing the
main navigational and adjacent channels in the lower harbor. He noted that
the Army Corps is responsible for dredging these areas, but that only three
projects have been done since the initial project in 1930. Harbor Resources
Director Melum added that the Army Corps does perform annual surveys,
and that these have indicated that some of the depth is being lost below the
Coast Highway bridge. He displayed a map showing this area of shoaling.
He further explained that the project would cost between $4 and $5 million,
and that the Army Corps has been unsuccessful in receiving the funding.
Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that Newport Harbor is considered
a low- maintenance harbor, but that the area does need to be addressed.
Council Member Glover asked how long the project would take to complete.
Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that it should take less than one
year, but that the major obstacle would be the design and environmental
work that needs to be done. He added that the goal of the project would be
Volume 55 - Page 36
INDEX
Dredging Update
(51)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
ZIN�•
to return that area of the harbor to design depth so that boats would not
bottom out. He additionally noted that the dredging project discussed for
the upper bay would help the lower bay since less sediment would come into
the lower bay and settle. Council Member Glover suggested that user fees
possibly be considered for funding the lower bay project.
Council Member Heffernan stated that increasing the pier permit fees could
also be considered.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the City has a resolution that prohibits private
pier owners from renting to others. He noted that the violations in Newport
Harbor are very minimal. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the issue has been
discussed by the Harbor Committee and is expected to be addressed by the
new Harbor Commission.
Council Member Heffernan suggested that an assessment be done to
determine how many violations are actually occurring. He stated that the
work that needs to be done in the harbor needs to be funded.
Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that City Council Policy H -1, the
Harbor Permit Policy, requires that private dock permittees do the dredging
under their docks. He noted that the City did get involved by getting a
maintenance permit in 1979, which expedited the dredging permit process
for the permittee. He noted that the maintenance permit was renewed in
1989 and again in 2000. Harbor Resources Director Melum displayed an
aerial photo showing the areas that were included in the latest permit. He
noted that some areas were excluded in the permit due to high levels of
contaminants and a requirement for some additional testing. He stated that
the tests were done and only one area was found to have unacceptable levels
of contaminants. Harbor Resources Director Melum confirmed that all
areas, except the one, are now included in the permit. He additionally noted
that the Coastal Commission changed a ruling and is also allowing dredging
to take place year- round.
Council Member Proctor asked for the cause of the contaminants in the one
remaining area that is excluded from the permit. Harbor Resources Director
Melum explained that up until World War II boat construction occurred in
the area, which resulted in some leaching of contaminants. He noted that
the contaminant level is low but doesn't meet the strict requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
City Manager Bludau asked if the Upper Bay dredging project would occur
over a continuous 22 -month period or if there would be restrictions due to
endangered species breeding seasons. Harbor Resources Director Melum
explained that he wasn't aware of the restrictions for the project, but that
private dock dredging can occur year - round.
Moving to another issue, Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that
eelgrass is listed as significant habitat for protected species, and that several
years ago resource agencies developed the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Plan. He stated that this requires any project impacting eelgrass
to include replacement of the eelgrass on a scale of 1.2 to 1, and guarantee
its viability for up to five years. He stated that due to the cost of the
Volume 55 - Page 37
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
requirement, private dock owners are not dredging or they're dredging
around the eelgrass. Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that in an
attempt to assist the dock owners, the resource agencies have developed a
restoration plan that authorizes the City to plant eelgrass at various sites
using federal funds. He stated that once found to be viable, the sites would
be available for mitigation and banking purposes. He stated that planting
could begin by late spring.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that the eelgrass on The Grand Canal is
making it difficult to navigate through the area and asked if the restoration
plan would apply to this area. Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that
the eelgrass is in the middle of the channel and, therefore, an issue for the
City and not the private dock owners. He stated that several years ago the
City did a mitigation project so that dredging could be done in the channel.
He added that eelgrass is a problem for all harbors in the State, and the
Mitigation Plan has been found to be the best way to deal with the issue.
Council Member Glover asked for more information on the requirement to
guarantee that the newly planted eelgrass be viable for up to five years.
Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that it means that the
transplanted eelgrass has to remain alive for five years and if it doesn't,
eelgrass must be replanted so that the replacement scale is achieved.
Council Member Glover asked who would assure that the mitigation was
successful. Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that several biological
consultants are getting into the field, but that it's a very low -tech field. Per
City Manager Bludau's question on the depth needed to plant eelgrass,
Harbor Resources Director Melum stated that eelgrass is light sensitive and
generally needs to be planted in relatively shallow water. He added that the
eelgrass also does well in higher quality water, which means that the City's
efforts to increase the harbor's water quality is resulting in more eelgrass.
Per Mayor Ridgeway's question, Harbor Resources Director Melum stated
that design depth is measured from zero tide. He further explained that
zero tide is artificial datum established by the federal government at 2.73
feet below mean sea level and is universally accepted on the coast. Mayor
Ridgeway asked if the Army Corps considers the Upper Newport Bay Project
to be an existing project. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the Army
Corps considers it to be a new project because of the focus on restoring the
ecosystem. He stated that the City hopes to work with Congress to have the
project approved and not be considered as one of the "new start" projects,
which are currently being held up.
4. HOW TO NOT BE #1: ENDING SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS
(SSOs) IN NEWPORT BEACH.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that there are several things occurring
with beach closures. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he displayed the
warning sign that is posted when bacterial levels exceed State standards due
to urban runoff and the keep out sign that is posted when a sewage spill has
occurred. Assistant City Manager Kiff introduced Monica Mazur of the
Orange County Health Care Agency.
Assistant City Manager Mff displayed an illustration of how a sewer system
Volume 55 - Page 38
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
works. He pointed out that a home or business's private sewer lateral
becomes the City's property at the property line. He stated that the sewer
laterals connect with the local main sewer line, then to the regional trunk
line which, for Newport Beach, is the Orange County Sanitation District's
line, and then to the wastewater treatment plant.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the City's 1996 Sewer Master Plan
prioritizes the replacement of older sewer lines, as well as the replacement
and upgrade of the City's pump stations. He stated that nine of the 20 pump
stations are left to be upgraded with new equipment, including pumping
mechanisms and notification equipment. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated
that the master plan also prioritizes the use of alarm systems to warn of
spills and the use of cameras to see problem areas. He displayed a photo
taken from inside a line with a root blockage.
Assistant City Manager Kiff displayed a list of the wastewater capital
projects for the current fiscal year, which totaled over $1.5 million.
Per Council Member Glover's question, City Manager Bludau stated that the
cost to replace the deteriorated sewer lines is factored into the sewer rate,
and that more replacements could -be done if the rate was increased. Council
Member Glover asked if more replacements could be done if funds being
used to improve water quality were used. Assistant City Manager Kiff
agreed that it would be appropriate to spend the money in that way, since
decreasing sewage spills would improve water quality. Council Member
Glover stated that the funds being set aside for punitive reasons won't
change people's personal habits and could possibly be better spent.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that if the Orange County Sanitation District is
required to go to full secondary treatment, they will double their sewer fees.
City Manager Bludau stated that there are lots of components that
contribute to sewer spills, with deteriorated sewer lines being only one.
Mayor Ridgeway noted that even a new system can break.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the City's wastewater division has
been awarded with having exemplary maintenance standards. He displayed
a list of the lines that are cleaned monthly and those that are cleaned on a
quarterly basis. He stated that the revenue received from sewer use fees
and base connection fees total approximately $2.8 million per year, and
approximately $3.1 million is expected to be spent in the current fiscal year.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that beach closures are caused by known
or suspected sewage spills. He noted that 61% of sewage spills in the area
are caused by line blockages, which are usually caused by grease or roots.
He stated that another 12% are caused by plumbing failures of pump -a-
heads. Assistant City Manager Kiff displayed a pie chart, which showed the
causes of ocean and bay water closures Countywide for the two -year period
1999 -2001. He also displayed closure information for County beaches for the
period 1987 -2001. He pointed out that the number of closures has increased
but that it's due, in part, to new regulations. Assistant City Manager Kiff
displayed an aerial photo showing where the sewage spills have been in the
City during the current year. He noted that one of them occurred earlier in
the day of the current meeting and was caused by a line blockage. Per City
Volume 55 - Page 39
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
Manager Bludau's question, Assistant City Manager Kiff confirmed that
spills that occur in surrounding communities contribute to the City's beach
closure count.
Regarding the pump -a -head problem, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated
that a County task force was put together to establish new plumbing
standards. He stated that when the new standards are established,
upgrades will be made and older models will be replaced, and the signage for
reporting leaks and inoperable pump -a -heads will be improved. Regarding
the root problem, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that sewer line
televising will be increased and property owners will be informed about
having their private lines cleaned more often. He also listed root foaming
and line upgrades as possible solutions.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the City had a study done on the
grease interceptors at 305 food preparation facilities, and it was found that
91 of the facilities need interceptors but don't have them and another 32
have the wrong type or size. Assistant City Manager Kiff indicated that the
solutions for limiting grease in the sewer lines include continuing an
education program on keeping grease out of the lines and maintaining
effectively operating grease control devices. He stated that the City can also
start working more closely with the restaurants on grease control and
consider mandatory interceptors.
Mayor Ridgeway noted that the City has allowed incremental improvements
prior to mandatory interceptors.
Council Member Glover suggested that all restaurants be required to go
through an education program with the City. Assistant City Manager Kiff
noted that the Restaurant Business Improvement District (BID) has been
supportive of some type of training.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that he couldn't support it being mandatory, but he
does think the restaurants will be cooperative since they'll be fined if they
don't comply with the requirements.
Assistant City Manager Kiff announced that sewage spills should be
immediately reported to the City's police dispatch at 644 -3717, who will
dispatch General Services, Utilities and Fire Haz -Mat crews. He noted that
Utilities has an emergency response vehicle ready to berm the spill areas
with sandbags and sheet off the storm drain entrances. The spill is then
removed by the use of vactor trucks before it reaches the storm drain
system. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that in the case of a spill on
private property that is not in danger of reaching the storm drain, water on
the property should not be used, the area should be bermed and a plumber
should be called.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board is considering new waste discharge requirements for
sewer collection agencies, which includes the City. He stated that the new
requirements are intended to ensure there is adequate capacity and effective
management, that sewage spills are specifically prohibited and that all
feasible steps have been taken to avoid spills. He further explained that the
Volume 55 - Page 40
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
waste discharge requirements include a sewer system management plan and
a monitoring and reporting plan. He noted that the City already does many
of the proposed requirements, so it shouldn't have a problem meeting the
new regulations.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the City's tasks include continuing
to adhere to the Sewer Master Plan, educating the public, requiring waste
discharge permits for food preparation facilities, replacing old pump -a -head
plumbing, complying with the Regional Board's waste discharge
requirements and following Orange County Health Care Agency's response
guidelines.
Council Member Glover noted the earlier comment about spills in
surrounding communities. Assistant City Manager Kiff explained that the
waste discharge requirements are important because they require everyone
on the watershed to meet the same requirements.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that the concept of a waste discharge permit be
agendized for the upcoming Coastal/Bay Water Quality Citizens Advisory
Committee meeting. City Manager Bludau asked if grease interceptors
would eventually be required of the food preparation facilities in the City
that need them or need a different type or size, or if the problems can be
taken care of with monthly maintenance. Assistant City Manager Kiff
stated that it will be a challenge to get compliance from those facilities that
can't install a grease interceptor. Mayor Ridgeway stated that all new
restaurants are required to install a grease interceptor or comparable unit.
He stated that the problem exists with retrofitting the older restaurants. He
agreed with the educational and best management practices approach, and
noted that the issue is being studied by the Orange County Sanitation
District.
Council Member Heffernan asked if consideration had been given to placing
devices at each restaurant to trace where spills originated. Assistant City
Manager Kiff stated that the City should get to the point where it can show
when a specific restaurant isn't complying.
Mayor Ridgeway asked how it could be done. Assistant City Manager Kiff
stated that cameras could possibly be utilized. Mayor Ridgeway asked if the
City owned any of the cameras. Utilities Operations Manager Burt stated
that Utilities does have a small camera, but has asked for a new camera in
the upcoming budget. He estimated that the City is spending $17,000 to
$20,000 annually for individual shots when a blockage is found. He stated
that a new camera will allow the City to take its own shots, which will save
the City from paying for the service and will often result in the shots being
taken sooner. Mayor Ridgeway noted that the current camera can't go into
lines that are smaller than 8 inches in diameter, and that most private
service laterals are 4 inches in diameter. Utilities Operations Manager Burt
stated that the sewer lateral cleanout installation program that went into
effect in 1991 has been beneficial because it lets the City know if a spill
originates on the homeowner's side or the City's side of the sewer line.
Mayor Ridgeway asked if the same program would work for restaurants.
Utilities Operations Manager Burt stated that it could, but the problem is
that some restaurants don't have room for an interceptor and Utilities crews
Volume 55 - Page 41
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
March 12, 2002
are spending time cleaning out their lines when the crews could be
elsewhere in the City. Per City Manager Bludau's question, Utilities
Operations Manager Burt stated that the City owns between 210 and 220
miles of sewer lines. He added that it's the steel pipes that are being
replaced in the Sewer Master Plan.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the City is being compensated for the
sewer cleanouts that Utilities performs at the restaurants. Assistant City
Manager Kiff stated that permit and inspection fees are being considered.
City Manager Bludau added that according to the City's Municipal Code, a
restaurant has the option of paying an in lieu fee instead of having an
interceptor installed. Utilities Operations Manager Burt noted that this is
for new restaurants only and that older restaurants are not paying.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that a report be provided within the next couple
of months on the completion of the wells and the injections.
Monica Mazur, Orange County Health Care Agency, noted that Newport
Beach is on the receiving end of many of the beach closures. She specifically
stated that of the nine beach or ocean and bay closures in the current year,
four have been in Newport Beach and a City line caused only one of those
four. She stated that the issue does involve everyone and is a concern to all
those who utilize the ocean and bay waters. Ms. Mazur stated that the best
thing is to have no sewage spills and the next best thing is to contain the
spill, control the spill, call the County when a spill occurs, calculate the
amount of the spill and cleanup the spill.
PUBLIC COMMENTS — None.
ADJOURNMENT — 5:32 p.m.
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on March 6, 2002, at 1:40 p.m.
on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 55 - Page 42
INDEX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting p�
March 12, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. D R
— 4:00 p.m.
— 5:30 p.m.
A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Absent: None
C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT — None.
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Glover.
E. INVOCATION - Paul Sansevieri, Chairman, State of California for the Christian
Coalition
F. PRESENTATION
General Plan Update Neighborhood Workshops Announcement.
G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM1:
Council Member Heffernan stated that the Big Canyon Reservoir has
recently had a midge fly problem. He reported that it has been a
longtime goal to have the reservoir covered with a floating lid which will
cost about $5 million. He stated that Congressman Cox is assisting with
this and that the City is trying to appropriate more than half the cost of
the cover from the Federal government. Further, he reported that the
intrusion alarm system at the reservoir is almost complete.
Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg announced that District 5's General Plan
Update Neighborhood Workshop will be held on March 18 at 7:00 p.m. at
the Central Library.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that the American Cancer Society has
chosen Newport Beach as one of the cities to host the 24 -hour Relay for
Volume 55 - Page 43
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
Life. He announced that the event will be held at the Newport Harbor
High School track and that people can call the City Manager's office at
644.3000 for more information.
Mayor Ridgeway reported that, in addition to writing to Congressman
Cox, the City has also written to U.S. Senators Feinstein and Boxer for
assistance with the Big Canyon Reservoir issue.
Council Member Heffernan announced that the Friends of the Library
need books, noting that they contributed $142,000 back to the library last
year. He added that they will even pick up the books and that books can
also be dropped off at any branch library. He stated that the Friends of
the Library's telephone number is 759 -9667.
City Manager Bludau stated that last Sunday was a wonderful day in the
City with the Spirit Run and the Toshiba Senior Classic. Mayor
Ridgeway added that the City also received worldwide coverage on this
picture - perfect day. He commended the Chamber of Commerce and the
Spirit Run organizers.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTESIORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
1. Removed at the request of an audience member.
2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading
in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct
City Clerk to read by title only.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
3. BALBOA VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2001 -2002 FISCAL YEAR, DISTRICT
RENEWAL, AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
TO LEVY FOR 2002 -2003 FISCAL YEAR. 1) Approve the Balboa
Village Business Improvement District 2001 -2002 Annual Report; and 2)
adopt Resolution of Intention No. 2002 -21 to levy and set public hearing
for March 26, 2002.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
4. Removed at the request of an audience member.
5. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SUTHERLAND TALLA
HOSPITALITY LLP. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute First
Amendment to Agreement.
6. AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO DECLARE A
PORTION OF IRVINE AVENUE AS A COUNTY HIGHWAY
DURING THE IRVINE AVENUE REALIGNMENT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (C- 3411). 1) Approve an agreement with
Volume 55 - Page 44
INDEX
Res 2002 -21
Balboa Village
Business
Improvement
District
(27)
C -3389
Sutherland Tallal
Marinapark (38)
C -3411
Res 2002 -22
Irvine Avenue
Realignment
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
the County of Orange for responsibilities and cost sharing for the Irvine
Avenue (University Drive to Bristol Street) Realignment Project —
including the intersection of Mesa Drive, and City water transmission
main; and 2) adopt Resolution No. 2002 -22 declaring a portion of Irvine
Avenue owned by the City to be a County Highway during construction of
the project.
MESA DRIVE WIDENING PROJECT — APPROVAL OF
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
METROPOINTE ENGINEERS. 1) Approve a professional services
agreement with MetroPointe Engineers of Costa Mesa for design of
widening Mesa Drive at the intersection of Irvine Avenue at a contract
price of $87,060 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
Agreement; and 2) authorize a budget amendment (BA -033) in the
amount of $87,060 from the unappropriated balance of the Circulation &
Transportation Fund to Account No. 7261- C5200665.
8. STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROJECT — APPROVAL OF
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH,
INC. Approve a professional services agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. of
Irvine for the preparation of plans and specifications of the Streetlight
Replacement Project, Lido Sands, Shorecliffs, Cameo Shores and
Highlands, at a contract price of $33,227 and authorize the Mayor and
the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
9. RE- RECORDATION OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 82 -2A.
1) Authorize the Mayor to execute Lot Line Adjustment No. 82.2A; and
2) authorize the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed to Patricia Penewell -
Thomas.
514. AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY AND
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE: PROPERTY TAX PAYMENT.
Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
515. Removed at the request of an audience member.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg to approve the Consent
Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 4 and S15).
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
J. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR
Volume 55 - Page 45
INDEX
Construction/
County Highway
(38)
C -3518
BA -033
Mesa Drive
Widening
(38/40)
C -3519
Streetlight
Replacement
(38)
Lot Line
Adjustment 82.2A/
Quitclaim Deed
(74)
C -3520
Property Tax
Payment (38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2002.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, referenced volume 55, page 21 and
believed that more of his comments should have been included in the
minutes. He requested that the tape be reviewed.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Brombere to waive reading of subject
minutes, approve as written and order filed.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. CITYWIDE WAYFINDING & DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
C -3495
PROGRAM: APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BA -034
AGREEMENT AND BUDGET AMENDMENT.
Citywide Wayfinding
and Directional
Dolores Otting expressed her appreciation to Council Member Adams for
Signage Program
making sure that Council did not vote on this issue during the
(38140)
February 26 study session. She stated that having it on the regular
agenda allows people the opportunity to review the staff report.
In response to Council Member O'Neil's question, City Attorney Burnham
reported that Council can vote on items at the study session if it is
properly agendized. He noted that Council has a policy that generally
states that study sessions are reserved for items that are discussion in
nature.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Brombere to 1) approve the agreement for
professional services with Hunt Design Associates not to exceed $80,500;
approve a reproducibles budget not to exceed $2,000; and 2) approve a
budget amendment (BA -034) transferring $36,085 from unappropriated
reserve to capital account for public signage program.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
S15. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FISCAL & ECONOMIC STUDIES:
C -3521
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED AND APPROVAL OF
General Plan
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
Update Fiscal &
Economic Studies
Tom Hyans stated that it was his understanding that the economic data
(38)
was going to be made available so that the General Plan Advisory
Volume 55 - Page 46
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
Committee (GPAC) could use the information to assist in determining
whether things they are considering are feasible. He noted that this will
not happen with the current schedule. He stated that a lot of people are
spending a great deal of time on this and that having the information not
available is unacceptable. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that it
was the General Plan Update Committee's (GPUC) and staffs intention
to have the economic information and traffic study early in the process so
it would be available to GPAC. However, in both cases, it took longer to
develop the scope of services and to select the consultant for the economic
analysis. She confirmed that the information will not be available as
GPAC is going through the visioning process; however, if Council desires
to have GPAC continue as the General Plan Update is being worked on,
GPAC will be able to use the information for comparative purposes
during the development of alternative land use scenarios.
In response to Council Member Adams' question, Ms. Wood confirmed
that Council can receive progress reports from the traffic and economic
consultants at Council meetings. Mayor Ridgeway stated that a status
report is important. He emphasized that, if it appears that anything in
the reports is inconsistent with the work product that has been created
by the advisory committees, Council can reconvene the committees to
discuss the economic and traffic analysis. He reported that an additional
problem is that the Local Coastal Program (LCP) will drive some of the
issues in the General Plan Update. He indicated that the LCP
Committee is meeting every two weeks to accelerate the process so no
conflicts will exist between that document and the citizens' input.
Council Member Adams added that the consultants will reach some
conclusions early, provide progress reports, and provide interim
information that should be presented to the committees. Council Member
Adams emphasized that this is the visioning stage and agreed that
ideally the studies should have been completed upfront.
City Manager Bludau stated that this may not be happening as soon as
the City would like, but it will happen in time for GPAC to act on the
information and assist with translating the data from the community into
a policy.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to approve the agreement for
professional services with Applied Development Economics (ADE) for
economic and fiscal analysis, studies and plan support services in the
amount of $115,240; and approve a reproducibles budget not to exceed
$500; for a grand total recommended budget of $115,740.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Volume 55 - Page 47
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
K.
Robert Hanley, 1601 Indus Street, Santa Ana Heights, stated that the
results of the recent election impacts his community more than any other.
He indicated that he has addressed various north county cities and that
all the rhetoric has never mentioned the real victims of the airport
situation, specifically West Santa Ana Heights. He noted that any
increase at John Wayne Airport (JWA) impacts them immediately and
that, in five to ten years, the airport will inevitably expand. He believed
that their only hope is a united front.
Barbara Lichman, Airport Working Group Counsel, expressed AWG's
appreciation to Council and the Newport Beach citizens for their
overwhelming votes against Measure W. She stated that AWG believes
that the only guarantee from a JWA expansion is to have an airport at El
Toro. She reported that every city north of Irvine voted against Measure
W. She requested that the City remain on course with respect to El Toro
at least until litigation is done. She reported that they will be filing a
State court lawsuit within the week and a Federal court lawsuit shortly
thereafter. She believed that, if precedence is any lesson, they will once
again prevail.
Shirley Congor, P.O. Box 111, Corona del Mar, congratulated the City on
its voting decision to reject Measure W by an 85% majority. Further, all
North Orange County cities, except Tustin, voted 60% against Measure
W. She stated that, even though the area lacked the large funds needed
for an expensive political campaign, they conducted a vigorous grassroots
effort that paid off. She believed that it behooves the City to continue the
fight for an El Toro airport since there was a solid rejection of Measure W
from 18 north county cities. She pointed out that the Navy announced
that they will sell the Marine base to the highest bidder (valued at $11
billion). She stated that this will result in a developer building another
city the size of Santa Ana with more gridlock, pollution and urban
congestion. She emphasized that the Navy was going to give the County
the site for free if it was used as an airport. Ms. Congor reported that the
media has been announcing that there will be no airport at El Toro, but
clarified that this has not been settled since there will be a Measure W
court challenge. She reported that other airports, particularly JWA, will
have to absorb the air traffic that El Toro would have taken. She noted
that the JWA Settlement Agreement which limits the number of
passenger flights and imposes a curfew expires December 31, 2005. She
believed that, due to the threat of expansion at JWA and the almost
unanimous support from North County cities, they should go ahead with
court actions. She requested that the City allow AWG to use its allocated
funds to proceed with a lawsuit against Measure W.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, presented a letter and requested
that it be placed into record. He proceeded to read the letter which states
that he cannot see a reason why the letter, which indicates that the
requested records have been destroyed, cannot be signed by City officials
and returned to him at the next meeting. He requested that, along with
the signed letter, evidence be provided to the Hildreth Family that the
Volume 55 - Page 48
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
documents were destroyed.
Mr. Hildreth presented a second letter regarding an unsigned letter
dated February 26, 2002, that he received from Harbor Resources
Director Melum. He proceeded to read a letter dated March 12, 2002,
which states, 'Dear City Council Members: Mr. David Harschbarger,
former City employee and former supervisor of Mr. Melum, knew (as
should Mr. Melum now know) that the dock sites on The Grand Canal are
shown on the City records as moorings which are allowed access through
the use of two structures: Standard Drawings 602 and 603. I previously
presented pictures of these structures and their adjacent moorings to the
City Council to illustrate their conformation. For a long time now, I have
been trying to show the City Council that there is a difference between a
shore mooring and a mooring in The Grand Canal. For example, the fees
and regulations for shore moorings obtained from the Sheriffs Marine
Department indicate that the initial per foot charge for a shore mooring
is only 60¢ for the first year. The City then collects, at the present time,
$10 /foot per year according to building records. This $9.40 /foot surcharge
is being used by the City to maintain the sand level for shore mooring
access."
Ken Hite stated that he represents CHG Safety Technologies which deals
with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) security systems that can support
the City's law enforcement officers in enhancing their response and
dispatch times, determining officer and vehicle locations, and protecting
officers in the event of an emergency. He reported that their system is
unique because, if an analog signal cannot be picked up, it reverts to two -
way communication using their government satellite. He indicated that
they already have frequencies assigned to them by the Defense
Department. He presented a brochure to Council and reported that they
are currently working with the Newport Beach Fire Department to
incorporate the system into the firefighters' helmets in the event of a
similar September 11 situation to assist in locating officers.
Robby Conn, 1940 Teresita Lane, stated that he grew up under the flight
path and expressed concern that the newspapers make it sound like the
ballgame is over regarding El Toro. He believed that Measure W was
deceitful and that the City needs to look out for the interests of the
residents and strive for what is right. He stated that he appreciates
Council's efforts in trying to secure a JWA Settlement Agreement
extension, but noted that this is a different issue.
Charles Griffin stated that, while visiting Novato, he noticed the location
of the former Hamilton Air Force Base in relation to Novato. He
indicated that it is similar to Newport Beach and JWA, and that the base
is densely developed with large homes on small lots. He also reported
that over 1,000 airplanes are parked in the Mojave Desert that have gone
into early retirement. He stated that he looks at this as a memorial to
September 11 and believed that it represents lost jobs. He reported that
four retired airline captains filed a new initiative with the Registrar of
Voters to rescind Measure W. He requested Council's support in the form
of litigation.
Volume 55 - Page 49
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
Erica Hill, representing CHG Safety Technologies and its owner Charles
Gabbard, stated that they want the opportunity to participate in the
Police Department's evaluation of a GPS system and in the competitive
bid process for that system.
Russell Niewiarowski, 20102 Mine Drive, Santa Ana Heights, stated that
he is the President of TNMG Incorporated, advocates for an airport at El
Toro. He stated that, at the last meeting, he was told that he should be
ashamed of himself. He admitted that he is guilty of not researching all
the information for every subject but does his best, and that he is
probably guilty of being passionate. He believed that the greatest
apology he should give is to Donald Bren, owner of The Irvine Company,
and proceeded to thank him for dedicating 11,000 acres of open space. He
indicated that everyone knew that a Great Park at E1 Toro was never
going to happen, and yet people came out in droves to vote for a facade.
He agreed that the fight is not over and stated that he is confident in the
attorney. He encouraged Council to stand behind her. Mr. Niewiarowski
reported that membership in TNMG has almost doubled because people
realize that there is a reasonable alternative. He believed that it is right
for everyone to carry their fair responsibilities and not expect one
community to carry it all. He encouraged everyone who does not believe
this is over to call them or other airport groups and stand behind them.
L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Council Member Heffernan reported that public comments will begin
relative to the assessments of the Adelphia and Cox Cable contracts on
March 14 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He indicated that this is
the opportunity to tell the City how the cable companies are doing. He
clarified that the City does not have full discretion to change anything,
but noted that this is part of the needs assessment process.
Council Member Glover reported that the City is in the 90 day period for
working on Scenario One of the John Wayne Airport Settlement
Agreement. She stated that they will keep the public informed.
Council Member Adams reported that he chairs the General Plan Update
Committee and that the neighborhood workshops will be coming up. He
encouraged Council to only listen during the workshops since this is a
time for public input.
Council Member Proctor announced that District 2's workshop will be
held on March 20 in the Council Chambers.
M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT
10. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MARCH 7, 2002.
Planning Director Temple reported that the 1324 West Balboa Boulevard
project (Item 3) was continued. She indicated that the Camco Pacific
item (Item 1) was previously considered by Council and is a corrective
action to an error made in the original ordinance. Regarding the Pacific
Volume 55 - Page 50
INDEX
Planning
(68)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
Republic Capital item (Item 2), Ms. Temple reported that they are
requesting a new office building and that it includes a General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Amendment. She indicated that the two items
will be coming before Council.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to receive and file the report.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
N. PUBLIC HEARING
11. CANNERY LOFTS (PA2001 -128) — 501 -507 & 500 -512 30TH STREET,
2908 -2912 LAFAYETTE AVENUE — REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN
REVIEW, USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, COASTAL
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 22 COMMERCIAIJRESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS ON 16 LOTS THAT ENCOMPASS APPROXIMATELY
1.44 ACRES IN THE CANNERY VILLAGE AREA.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the staff report was one of the most complete
reports he has ever read on any project, adding that he has never seen a
project so well discussed, debated, and voted on.
Council Member Heffernan announced that he has a conflict of interest
as his law firm represented the applicant on the acquisition of the land.
In response to Council Member Proctor's questions, City Attorney
Burnham stated that Council is hearing this matter de novo and that, to
make the approvals, Council needs to make the findings in the same
manner and with the same factual basis as the Planning Commission.
Planning Director Temple reported that this project involves several
applications and that two of them were of concern to area residents and
property owners. She reported that all 22 lots require a use permit to
exceed the basic height limit of 26 feet to a secondary permitted height
limit of 35 feet. She pointed out that the typical roof height for each
building is about 31 feet with parapets and mechanical equipment being
as high as 34 feet. She stated that, in order to approve the use permits,
the following findings must be made: 1) the increased height results in
more public visual open space and views than required within the basic
height limit, giving attention to location, site coverage, and the treatment
of setbacks; 2) the height will result in a more desirable treatment of the
building; 3) the height will not create undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships with existing developments, giving attention to total
building bulk, including horizontal and vertical dimensions; and 4) the
structure is no larger by way of floor area than otherwise permitted by
Volume 55 - Page 51
INDEX
PA2001.128
Cannery Lofts/
501 -507 and
500.512 30th Street/
2908 -2912 Lafayette
(68)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
the zoning regulations. Ms. Temple stated that the Commission believed
that the project setbacks, open terraces, open balconies, and less than
permitted building bulk counterbalance the portions of the building that
are over the basic height limit. Further, many Commissioners believed
that the project represented a superior design, particularly in light of the
design guidelines contained in the specific plan. She clarified that the
specific plan contains advisory design guidelines and are not mandatory;
however, in this case, a majority of the Commission felt that the project
was very consistent with the advisory guidelines and that this was an
important part of their ability to make the third finding.
Regarding the four bayfront lots, Ms. Temple reported that there are 12
criteria which projects requiring a site plan review must be evaluated by.
She stated that the criteria that appeared most relevant to this project
was that the project is sensitive to the natural terrain, is compatible with
the neighborhood, protects public views, protects sensitive areas, and is
compatible to the site. She indicated that the Commission believed that
the project was consistent with the nature of the Cannery Village,
provided public access, maintained public access to the view of the Rhine
Channel, and was consistent with the technical criteria of the site plan
review provisions. Additionally, while not specifically within the
jurisdiction of the Commission, the non - standard public improvements
proposed in association with the project were viewed as contributing to
the overall aesthetic quality of the development. She stated that
approval of such improvements are in Council's jurisdiction and will
return for Council consideration.
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, stated that he is the
entitlement representative for CWI Development. He noted that the staff
report is 326 pages which includes 12 exhibits. He stated that they stand
by the staff drafted/Commission endorsed conditions and propose no
changes. He reported that three public hearings were held before the
Commission and there was an almost unanimous recommendation for
approval. Further, they appeared before the Environmental Quality
Advisory Committee (EQAC), Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce,
and West Newport Beach Improvement Association. He noted that the
project has been determined to be consistent with the City's General
Plan, Cannery Village Specific Plan, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and
Local Land Use Plan. He stated that the proper environmental
determination has been posted and that the City's independent
environmental advisor, Keeton Kreitzer, is in the audience. He noted
that they have a discretionary height waiver on each of the buildings. He
believed that the project provides an opportunity to master plan a one
block segment of the Village and provide new shop space and housing, as
well as new infrastructure (modern storm drain system, public sidewalks
and streets, enriched paving, underground utilities, new street trees,
public gathering space, and public promenade along the bayfront).
Kevin Weeda, Developer/Project Applicant, 429 West 30th Street, stated
that they have worked closely with the Commission and staff to meet all
Volume 55 - Page 52
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
the requirements under the specific plan, and noted that the Commission
voted for the project's approval by a 6 -1 vote. He reaffirmed their
commitment in developing a project that will be something they are
proud of and the City will embrace. He stated that their commitment is
evidenced by the distinction of having prepared the most detailed
application for a project in Cannery Village history. He indicated that
their master plan is an example of how an underutilized location can be
intelligently planned to create a better and logical redevelopment that
accommodates current lifestyle needs. He stated that their focus was not
to maximize square footage or build to the highest profit return, but to
design a well thought out mixed use development in the Cannery Village.
In doing so, he stated that they hired a skilled team of architects,
designers, and engineers who started with the specific plan in mind. He
reported that they went through many design changes, exploring the best
possible solutions to challenging issues like parking, water quality
management, building functionality, and architectural integrity.
Mr. Weeds stated that some of his group attended the City's Vision
Festival in which many citizens and businesses were asking for more
live /work spaces, as well as revitalization and beautification of
commercial areas. He indicated that their goal is to develop an exciting
new concept of live /work lofts with the opportunity for ownership in the
City. He pointed out that this would reduce congestion, parking and
traffic problems, and create a cohesive village within a village. He
expressed hope that their small development will help reenergize
Cannery Village. He stated that they made a significant investment
because they believe in it and because the City is one of the best places to
live and work in Orange County. He asked Council to make its judgment
based on the current facts and rules, and not on subjective arguments.
Mr. Weeds stated that they played by the rules and have met all the
requirements, which also include 49 conditions of approval. He asked
Council to approve the project and share their vision for what will be an
award winning project and an example of a City working towards the
future, as well as maintaining some elements of the past. He stated that
he and David Hecht, project architect, are available for questions.
Council Member Glover stated that she would like to know how well
Cannery Village's zoning and planning worked with regard to trying to
put a project together. Mr. Weeds reported that they previously
developed other buildings on individual or double lots, and it worked well
in that environment. However, as they tried to develop a larger project,
it became a little more difficult. He pointed out that they spent 12
months working through all the rules and regulations.
Council Member Proctor asked what types of businesses they thought
would occupy the lofts. Mr. Weeds stated that they have a long and
growing interest list since it is a "for sale" project and not rentals. He
indicated that they envision people will be operating businesses that are
consistent with what is in the neighborhood now; however, there may be
different and interesting businesses.
Mayor Ridgeway announced for the record that he has met with
Mr. Weeds on a couple of occasions, has met with the project opponents
Volume 55 - Page 53
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
on more than one occasion, and visited the site numerous times.
Mr. Weeda utilized a PowerPoint presentation which showed an
architectural rendering of the site; vicinity and location maps; aerial
photo of the site; a building he developed on 30th Street; examples of
livetwork lofts in San Francisco and San Diego that are similar to their
project; examples of mixed use buildings in the area, the site plan with
enhanced paving, mini - park/gathering area, and promenade; the
drainage system; project model and what it would look like in the site;
the height of their project compared to the Cannery Restaurant and the
building he currently uses; the light as it passes through some of the
breezeways; the material board, and architectural renderings of the
project from Villa Way toward Lafayette.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Weeda confirmed that the
commercial ground floor is inclusive of office use. Ms. Temple indicated
that the commercial area cannot be converted into residential space.
Stan Sewell, 351 N. Newport Boulevard, stated that he is speaking on
behalf of Lucille Kring who is unable to attend tonight and the
Owners/Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion. Mayor Ridgeway
noted that Council has received their letter as part of the packet and
separately. Mr. Sewell indicated that the business owners and residents
are very supportive of improvements in the Cannery Village; however,
this project proposes too much height, massing, and uniformity. He
stated that there are unresolved issues, concerns about the architecture,
confusion about how the specific operations of the mixed uses will be
managed, and questions about the impacts to the existing businesses and
residents of the area. He believed that the project is not keeping with the
goals of the Cannery Village Specific Plan or the community's desires at
the Vision Festival. He stated that they are asking that the project not
move forward until the public has a better opportunity to see more
complete project details. He indicated that the final project, which will
incorporate Commission conditions and revisions, should come in a more
complete form before Council. He added that this will also give the public
an opportunity to comment on the complete and actual project. He
believed that, if significant changes are made that address concerns
voiced at the Commission meetings or before Council, the mitigated
negative, declaration should be recirculated for public review and
comment. He requested that Council consider the Cannery Village
residents and business owners, and what they expect from the road map
provided in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. He believed that the
Visioning Festival summary confirms that residents are concerned with
overbuilding and the erosion of the historic character of areas like
Cannery Village.
INDEX
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg asked Mr. Sewell to list their specific concerns
about the project height since it is lower than most of the buildings
around the area. Mr. Sewell stated that Ms. Kring would have been able
to do that and indicated that it would be acceptable to continue this item
until she came back.
Volume 55 - Page 54
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
:0
Richard Luerhs, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce,
stated that they presented a letter to Council which indicates that the
Board of Directors unanimously supports the project. He encouraged
Council to continue abstaining from involving itself with design review
issues. He stated that they feel the project represents a terrific boost to
the Cannery Village and encouraged Council to support the project.
Brett Delvalle, stated that he lives at 1201 Estelle Lane and works at
409 30th Street. He indicated that he enjoys living and working in the
City, and has seen the area change over the last 35 years. He stated that
he is looking forward to this project and hopes that Council approves it.
He noted that the people who oppose the project are not in attendance
and hired a group from Anaheim to represent them.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Brombere to affirm the decision of the
Planning Commission in approving the Cannery Lofts project.
Council Member Proctor thanked the Planning Commission for their
review of the project since it was helpful in getting a background on how
everyone felt about the project. He stated that it is clear that this is a
good project and is supportive of it since it will be a substantial
improvement to the neighborhood.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: Heffernan
Absent: None
12. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO THE GENERAL
PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (contd. from 2/26/02).
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg to confirm Mayor Ridgeway's
appointment of Robert Shelton as Chair and Phillip Lugar as Vice Chair
to the General Plan Advisory Committee.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that it is gracious of Mr. Shelton and Mr. Lugar
to agree to be Chair and Vice Chair of GPAC and indicated that they are
very qualified and have been involved in these types of efforts before. He
stated that their goal is to bring together all the visions that are brought
to the table and be consensus builders.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Volume 55 - Page 55
INDEX
General Plan
Advisory
Committee
(24)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
Abstain: None
Absent: None
13. 2ND AMENDMENT & LEASE EXTENSION - MARINAPARK
RESIDENCES (contd. from 2/26/02).
Council Member Adams noted that, at the last meeting, there were
differences of opinion about the history of the rent increases and the in
lieu reduction for moving expenses. He stated that he hopes this will be
thoroughly discussed.
Assistant City Manager Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation to show
that the proposed lease is for one year with two one -year options; that the
lease recognizes the value of moderated rent between 1985 and 2002, and
includes a waiver of relocation benefits due to the moderated rent; that
the lease would raise the rent to near market value effective July 1, 2002,
and then raise it again July 1, 2003, based on the Consumer Price Index
(CPI); that the lease authorizes the City Manager to offer a rent credit for
economic hardships; and that the City would accept and remove any
coaches at any time upon the written request of its owner. He reported
that, based on the moderated rent and compared to the Lido Peninsula
Resort and DeAnza Bayside Village, the City did not receive $18,350 to
$128,400 for each of the 58 lots. He added that there is no effective
comparison for Marinapark's C, D, and E lots. Assuming residents
invested this rent savings at 10% between 1985 and 2002, Lots A and B
would have $661,000; and Lots C, D, and E would have $61,000. Mr. Mf£
emphasized that the City never reduced rents since the 1985 lease stated
that the City would only increase the rents at CPI. He added that this
significantly underestimated the increase in housing costs in the area.
He noted that the rent was a little higher than market value in 1985, but
the residents received a $207 /month benefit in 1990, $675 /month benefit
in 1995, and $1,571 /month benefit in 2000.
Mr. Kiff reported that the 1985 lease said that among "the most
significant rights obtained by lessee, and given up by the City..." are
lessee's payment of "moderate rent... and the advantage of limited rental
increases in the future, while City gives up the right to charge higher
rents initially and the right to impose future rental increases in excess of
the cost -of- living index..." He reviewed past minutes which showed the
residents' willingness to start paying increased rents as soon as an
agreement was reached.
Mr. Kiff reiterated that the City Manager will use an independent third
party, like Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (1=), to
establish criteria for an economic hardship rent credit. He reported that
factors include that Marinapark is the primary residence for the lessee,
noting that, in 2000, only 16 of the 58 coaches were rented by a full -time
lessee; 6 of 58 were full timers not on the lease; and 36 coaches were part
time residences. He added that the lease requires them to live their full
time. He stated that another factor for hardship is the limited value of
owned assets and living on a fixed income below a certain level. Mr. Mf£
concluded by showing an aerial of the site which has no obstructed bay
Volume 55 - Page 56
INDEX
C -1784
Marinapark
Leases
(38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
views.
•
MIU17o►:1
Council Member Heffernan asked whether, in 1985, using the CPI was a
form of rent break or a conscious market decision that was commonly
made with leases of this time, and also asked if there was a reference in
the lease to what the property was expected to convert into. Mr. Kiff
believed that it was a conscious attempt to offer a rent break with the
expectation that it would close 15 years later in 2000. City Attorney
Burnham reported that the 1985 lease said that the City was charging a
moderate rent and giving up the right to initially charge higher rents in
excess of the CPI. He believed that the City understood that rental rates
were starting to increase at a much faster rate than the CPI. He added
that, pursuant to conditions in the 1985 lease, it was a conscious decision
to give up the right to increase rents to a market level during the 15 year
term. He stated that the City intended to convert the site to a public
recreation area upon the expiration of the 1985 lease.
Beverley Shonholtz, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, # 5A, indicated that
she would like to believe that everything spoken by City officials and
written in the newspapers is the truth; however, there is a lot of
misinformation being spread about the past, current, and proposed uses
for Marinapark. She believed that Mr. Sutherland has had unlimited
time to sell his proposal before Council and was even given a full page
Daily Pilot interview. She asked if Mr. Sutherland will be able to do all
the things he proposes even in an economic downfall, and asked if the
City wants a bankrupt project in the middle of the Peninsula. She stated
that a lot of confusion has been created about the value of the leases and
emphasized that the lease did not cut their rents in half. She indicated
that their staff came up with data which showed that the residents were
paying more in 1985 than those at the DeAnza and Lido Peninsula
Mobile Home Parks. She stated that discrepancies occurred because
their annual increases were tied to the CPI and believed it is not their
fault that the CPI did not keep up with the rise in City property values.
Betty Berkshire, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, # 7A, believed that the
City's basis for determining market value is flawed since it was prepared
by their park manager who is not a professional appraiser. She stated
that their survey does not agree with his numbers. Further, she believed
that the City cannot compare the value of a one -year lease with a long
term lease, and that the City's data does not take the term into
consideration. Regarding fulltime residents at Marinapark, she indicated
that this percentage is about the same as on the Peninsula. She stated
that a majority of the Marinapark residents would favor becoming
fulltime residents if they had a long term lease. She stated that it has
also been said that they waived relocation benefits in the 1985 lease;
however, this waiver was predicated upon the City converting the
property to a public park. She noted that the wording was changed in
2000 to "public use" which makes way for a hotel on the property. She
believed that tenants had no choice on renegotiating the lease and signed
it under duress because they faced the loss of their homes or large
monthly rental increases if they did not sign.
Volume 55 - Page 57
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
loop] +
Joe Rybus, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, # 6C, stated that he purchased
his unit in May 2000. He indicated that a hotel is considered by the City
to be public use, but a hotel of the five star caliber will only be accessible
to an elite fraction of the public. He believed that a five star guest may
not be willing to share the public beach and tennis court. He stated that
a public park would provide the only true public use of the land as
proposed under the 1985 lease, adding that the main objection is that it
would generate no income for the City and possibly create policing
problems which is an additional expense to the City. He believed that the
current use as a mobile home park is the only practical use that does not
increase traffic on the Peninsula. Further, it maintains the beach and
tennis court for public enjoyment, does not disturb the existing migratory
and residential bird habitat, and provides a substantial and reliable
income without added expense to the City. He stated that, as'before, they
welcome a long term lease that justifies rent increases to market value.
This would make it possible for the older residents who choose not to pay
the higher rent to have something to sell. Additionally, a long term lease
would give them the security to invest in improvements that reflect the
upscale image that many desire for Newport Beach.
Council Member Glover took issue with the inferences that Council has
been making misleading statements. She stated that she has been on
Council for almost eight years and the only comment she has ever made
about Marinapark is when she told Adele Mann that she would not
support the Sutherland project.
Seamus McKeever stated that he lives in San Gabriel Valley and is a
realtor who is working pro bono for a resident at Marinapark. He asked
why Council would impose an increase if the objective is to move the
residents out. He indicated that the residents have the right to assume
that their equity is going to increase because of the location; however, he
believed that Council has essentially taken the equity away and
decimated them. He stated that his clients tell him that their rent will
go from $1,200 to $2,500 which basically prevents them from selling the
equity. He believed that Council should reconsider this and asked what
compensation is being proposed for the residents' equity.
Mr. Kiff reminded everyone that the current lease, which is for a two -
year extension to a 15 year lease, expires in two days.
Herbert Williams, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, # 7B, stated that he and
his wife moved to the park 43 years ago and have lived there full time for
16 years. He indicated that the 15 year lease was drawn up by outside
appraisers and that they conformed to market value at that time. At this
time, discussion arose about having a public park and low cost housing on
the site. He stated that the lease considerations were that the expiration
of the lease would coincide with the expiration of the American Legion
lease; that they would give up their relocation for a public park, now
referred to as "public use "; and that the site would be designated for low
cost housing. He believed that the deal was fair then and that they still
support their position. He reported that, from 1985 to the 1990s, the
rents were keeping up with the market; however, property values
Volume 55 - Page 58
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
increased after that and their base rental was falling behind. He stated
that 10 years into the lease, they reopened discussions with the City to
move up to market value for an extended lease, but this did not move
forward. Mr. Williams noted that residents are members of the
community and wish to remain members of the community. He
requested a fair review of their continued residency.
Bob Seymour, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, stated that most Marinapark
residents would like a fair review of the increase. He indicated that they
all agree it should be increased; however, noted that the proposed
increase was done by Bendetti's on -site manager, Joe Albano. He stated
that William R. Hansen, Master Appraiser, wrote them a letter which
basically states that, although he has not reviewed the lease extension
document or survey, the single most significant factor with the lease is
the term. He stated that, comparing the space leases to other mobile
home parks, the one year lease will likely result in inequitable rents for
the tenants. He added that the Marinapark lease extension would
commonly be described as an existing tenant holdover from the prior
agreement and that short term holdovers typically extend the terms and
conditions of the unexpired agreement. Further, most holdover revisions
provide that the rent be based on rent paid during the last year of the
lease term. He continued by writing that some holdover provisions
provide the rental increase based on a fixed percentage of the prior rent,
typically within the 10% to 25% range. Mr. Hansen concluded by
emphasizing that rent for the one -year Marinapark lease cannot be fairly
compared to those of newer tenant leases at other mobile home parks.
John McDaniel, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, #3A, stated that he is a
senior citizen, veteran, and member of the American Legion who lives at
Marinapark. He indicated that he does not mind a rent increase, but
does mind a rent increase without a lease of significant time. He noted
that the City gave the Balboa Bay Club and Beacon Bay 25 year leases.
He believed that, without a lease, they have nothing but an eviction
notice because some people cannot afford to stay. He emphasized that
they are residents and not big corporations, and that they do many things
for the City that no one hears about. Mr. McDaniel took issue that the
City said that, if they move, the City will tear their houses down for free.
He hoped that Council considers a long term lease.
Tom Hyans, President of the Central Newport Beach Community
Association, stated that he lives about a block west of Marinapark. He
indicated that he has listened to the lease negotiation discussions and
has copies of the leases at home. He agreed that the things that have
happened in the newspapers and that people hear tend to portray the
Marinapark homeowners as people who are taking advantage of the
system. He further took issue with the numbers in the PowerPoint
presentation. He stated that the Community Association is in favor of
the City renewing the leases long term for the tenants, as well as for the
American Legion. He noted that the Marinapark mobile home site is
about 1/3 of a project site that is comprised of a beach, the American
Legion, Las Arenas Park, basketball courts, and tennis courts, and that
they are willing to pay what is perceived as market value. Mr. Hyans
Volume 55 - Page 59
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
expressed the opinion that the property should be used for marine
recreational use and noted that all his documents, until two years ago,
projected the property to be developed for this use. He believed that the
tenants deserve at least a three year lease.
Council Member Glover pointed out that she has not supported the
Sutherland project and did not support the change from a park to a
recreational use because she feels it should become a park. She indicated
that untrue comments bother her and that she has never made those
types of comments. Mr. Hyans stated that the things Ms. Shonholtz and
others perceive are what is said by staff and consultants, not Council. He
added that he supports the site becoming a park and that, historically,
this has been the intent and the reason for the 15 year lease.
Dolores Otting stated that it is too bad the City has term limits because
things would be different if Council Members O'Neil and Glover could run
again. She stated that it is sad to watch people beg for their homes. She
indicated that she talked to her father -in -law about this who told her that
the site was supposed to turn into a park, never a hotel. She reported
that Lots A and B are paying $1,225.08, but will go up to $2,300; Lots C
and D are paying $924.83, but will go up to $1,850; and Lot E is paying
$864.80, but will go up to $1,700. She stated that the City needs to call
this a senior park and asked what the Balboa Bay Club paid prior to and
after the construction. She also asked what will be on the site if the
tenants leave and the hotel does not go through. Noting that the traffic
the other morning on MacArthur was backed up, Ms. Otting stated that
the City should be happy that half the community is over 65 years old
and does not have to get out of the City in the morning. She believed that
the tenants should be able to stay.
In response to Mr. Hyans' previous statement about staff, City Manager
Bludau stated that he does not apologize for what was presented. He
believed that staff should be criticized if they do not provide all of the
information that could shed light on the subject. He indicated that he
has heard that the City should be run more like a business; however, if
this was a business decision, noting that it is not because people are
involved, the information would be key to how the issue is decided.
Council Member Heffernan stated that he asked the finance department
to compare what the rent is supposed to be versus the oil wells, Beacon
Bay ground leases, Balboa Bay Club, Balboa Yacht Basin, and piers and
moorings. He reported that Marinapark's projected rents will go up to
$1,325,000; the oil wells produced $965,000; Beacon Bay produced
$1,265,000; Balboa Bay Club produced $1,850,000; Balboa Yacht Basin
produced $1,550,000; and the piers and moorings produced $1,125,000.
He believed that the best comparison is with Beacon Bay since people
built million dollar homes on top of City property which produced less
income. Mr. Bludau pointed out that Beacon Bay homes provide a lot of
property tax to the City and that the whole revenue picture does not just
look at lease revenue.
Volume 55 - Page 60
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
Stewart Berkshire, 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, #7A, pointed out that
they pay property tax to the County, unlike the other mobile home parks
in the City. He stated that they reviewed the figures used by the City to
compare rents with other similar properties and were surprised to see
that the study neglected factors normally used by appraisers. He noted
that rent amounts are comparable, but this does not mean that theirs
would be at fair market value since paying the same amount for a one
year agreement versus a 10 or 15 year term is not a rational economic
act. He requested that a formal rent appraisal based on a 15 year term
be undertaken by a neutral third party. Further, he requested that such
a lease be offered to them to justify the rent amount as fair market value,
yet not jeopardize any future developments since the lease can be
terminated at any time by a six month notice. He believed that this lease
would give tenants the opportunity to sell their coaches if they do not
want to pay the increase and, if the hotel does not materialize, the City
will still have a strong flow of revenue. He stated that the high rent and
short leases bring about a hardship and degrades the value of their
property. He believed that there is a wrong being done and that people
should see it as that.
John Nelson stated that a small special interest group is showing up to
defeat reason with emotion. He indicated that Council should base its
decision in a more rational manner. He pointed out that the Marinapark
property is an asset that is owned by the City and, therefore, the City and
all its citizens have an economic stake in it. He believed that the City
should be free to develop the property to its highest and best use in order
to maximize the financial return. He stated that Council needs to look at
the potential economic benefit to the City and is directed by State law
(Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978) to maximize revenues on all properties like
this. He stated that failure to do so could leave the City open to a
lawsuit. Mr. Nelson stated that, in weighing the interests of all the
citizens versus the special interest group, the City must keep its options
open. He believed that it is in the best interest of the City to limit the
extension of the current leases to no more than one -year at a time, with
two one -year extensions, to allow much more flexibility to determine and
realize the highest and best use of the property. He pointed out that
Council Member Adams stated that the City has already made
considerable concessions to the tenants and has held the rents at an
artificially low rate in order to offset their anticipated relocation cost. He
noted that the residents agreed and accepted this previously, but now
they want to disregard this after they have already benefited from the
concessions. Mr. Nelson pointed out that the mobile homes are not worth
much money and believed that the real value is in the lease itself. He
believed that the tenants want the taxpayers of the City to subsidize
their rent so they can realize the added value the time premium adds to
the value of their mobile homes. He asked Council who should be the
beneficiary of the value of the time premium.
Council Member Adams expressed the opinion that a reasonable case has
been made that the City's comparison did not take the duration of the
lease into proper account. He stated that he would be supportive of a
neutral third party assessment, as long as the duration of the lease term
Volume 55 - Page 61
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
remains the same.
INDEX
Council Member Heffernan asked for clarification relative to the
tidelands status. City Attorney Burnham stated that, based on what he
has seen from the State Lands Commission, a portion of the property is
tidelands and a portion is probably uplands. He indicated that the
precise boundary is unclear; however, Marinapark is tidelands. He
reported that a hotel or park would be a permitted use, but a mobile
home park or permanent residential use would not be permitted under
the general tidelands trust document.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that he did not have a clear
understanding of the leases after the last Council meeting. However,
after listening to everything, he realized that the issue is not that people
will be moving out of Marinapark since they knew a long time ago that
this was going to happen, but when they will move. He believed that the
terms are comparable, but does not have a problem with taking this to a
third party. He pointed out that now people say the rents are high but
would be okay if they had a three year lease. He stated that he does not
believe that the coaches are going to be worth more money now
regardless if they have a three or one -year lease. He noted that Council
is being accused that they are going to put a hotel on the site. He
emphasized that no one on Council has supported a hotel as of yet,
clarifying that they supported the initiation of a General Plan
Amendment. He stated that, in the 14 months he has been on Council,
many people who scream for fairness are the first to try to stop someone
when it is adverse to their interests. He pointed out that the residents
live on the water and believed that the City has not been unfair.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the residents are good citizens, but this is
not the issue before Council. He indicated that the issue is Council's
fiduciary duty to the citizens. He reiterated that residential use is not an
appropriate use on tidelands. He stated that he does not have a problem
with Council Member Adams' suggestion. He warned everyone that
appraisers could differ and that the rent values could even be higher, not
lower. He stated that the general consensus is that the residents will get
a three -year lease, but the question is how it will be formulated. Mr. Mff
believed that an appraisal can be done relatively quickly, but reminded
everyone that the rent increase being proposed would take affect July 1,
2002. He stated that the City has to provide a 90 -day rent increase
notice, but believed that it does not have to specify the exact amount.
Council Member Heffernan believed that the City has made a decision
about the property, noting that Steve Sutherland's project was chosen
from eight options to proceed with a hotel. He noted that, in 2000, the
residents were given a two -year extension at a low rent rate because of
this and now they are being offered three one -year lease extensions, but
may still be out at anytime. He believed that the holdover rent situation
is just as applicable today as it was two years ago. He explained that he
voted two weeks ago for Sutherland to proceed with the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) because the City made its choice.
Volume 55 - Page 62
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
INDEX
Motion by Council Member Heffernan to keep the Marinapark rents
the same if the City elects to proceed with three one -year extensions.
The motion died due to a lack of a second.
Mayor Ridgeway expressed the opinion that Council Member Heffernan's
comment that the City made a choice on a use is irresponsible since no
hearings have been conducted. He emphasized that the City has not
voted on the property's ultimate use and that all Council has done is
move forward with the General Plan Amendment process, noting that no
studies have been conducted and no Council vote has occurred. Council
Member Heffernan took issue, reiterating that Council chose the
Sutherland project from eight options and that it precluded Marinapark's
option. He added that the City should evict the residents if residential
use is not permitted on tidelands. Mayor Ridgeway noted that they were
evicted 15 years ago and that all the residents made a decision when they
signed the 1985 lease. He stated that they had the opportunity to live out
their term and leave the premise, but they decided not to do that. He
indicated that Council should not take the blame and that he would
support a third party appraiser review which will take the term and any
term premium into consideration.
Council Member Adams agreed that it is Council's fiduciary responsibility
to make sure that the holdover rent is a fair market rent.
Motion by Council Member Adams to authorize that a third party
appraiser review the rent amounts using the proposed lease terms and
bring the facts back to Council.
City Manager Bludau asked that Council also direct staff to provide
notice to the residents that their rent will be increasing. Mayor
Ridgeway noted that, under Landlord/Tenant Law, the notice would need
to include a specific amount.
Council Member Adams stated that the appraiser would need to be
mutually agreed upon by the City and residents. Mayor Ridgeway
indicated that the City should select the appraiser and try to get the
residents' concurrence. Council Member Glover suggested sharing the
cost of the appraiser with the residents.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that he was watching the meeting the
night Mr. Sutherland was given the exclusive right to look at developing
the property and that nothing came out of that meeting that suggested to
him that the City was supporting a hotel. He added that there were a
great deal of conditions placed on the project.
Mr. Burnham stated that, as part of the motion, Council could direct staff
to meet with the residents and try to develop an agreed upon fair market
rent and come back to Council, or come back with a process if an
agreement cannot be reached. He indicated that, if the City can use
Mr. Hansen as an advisor instead of an appraiser, they may be able to
come back to Council with numbers that everyone is comfortable with.
Volume 55 - Page 63
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
March 12, 2002
Council Member Adams believed that Council cannot be criticized for
making a subjective decision on the rents if a neutral third party is used,
and that he would feel more comfortable if this tact was taken.
Council Member Heffernan asked, if Council wanted to proceed with a
park on the site, whether the City would have any liability to
Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Talla. Mr. Burnham stated that the City would
have liability to Mr. Sutherland in some uncertain amount because
Council has entered into an agreement that says, if they get all of the
approvals needed to build a hotel on the site, Council is then committed
to enter into discussions, in good faith, to try to come up with a long term
lease that would enable Mr. Sutherland to develop the project. He
clarified that Mr. Sutherland would need to get a General Plan
Amendment, Greenlight approval, and a Coastal Development Permit.
Assistant City Manager Wood believed that there may be a 30 -day
cancellation provision in the agreement. Mr. Burnham stated that,
assuming the City does not exercise this provision, Mr. Sutherland only
has the right to negotiate with Council once he has secured all required
land use approvals and permits.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
P. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION —None.
Q. ADJOURNMENT — 10:00 p.m.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on March 6, 2002, at
1:40 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular
Meeting was posted on March 8, 2002, at 2:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin
Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 55 - Page 64
INDEX