HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - Minutes - 7-27-04City Council Meeting
August 10, 2004
Agenda Item No. 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes pR�►FT
Study Session
July 27, 2004 - 4:30 p.m. INDEX
ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, Rosansky (arrived at 4:40 p.m.), Adams. Bromberg, Webb,
Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway
Absent: None
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None.
2. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES.
City Manager Bludau stated that with the following presentation and
discussion, staff is looking for direction from the City Council on how the City
should handle requests from neighborhoods for traffic calming measures.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Transportation/Development Services
Manager Edmonston stated that concerns about speeding in residential areas
has become the most common complaint received by the traffic engineering
section of the Public Works Department. He stated that the complaints come
from all areas of the City with a wide variation of what residents consider to be a
problem, which makes it difficult to identify what the City can do. Mr.
Edmonston explained that the City used to have a program for speed bumps.
They were installed in the late 1980's and early 1990's and were found to be
effective, but since that time, there has been a tremendous amount of
experimentation and research into other solutions. He displayed a photo of an
existing speed bump and further explained that about a dozen neighborhoods
submitted applications for speed bumps during the program. The program
became controversial when neighbors weren't in agreement on whether to have
speed bumps installed. A moratorium was placed on installation and little has
been done with regard to traffic calming since.
Mr. Edmonston displayed two additional photos that showed the use of speed
bumps and a road narrowing technique on Port Seabourne. He stated that
studies have shown that drivers respond most directly to being required to go up
and down, either over a bump or dip, or being required to move side to side, such
as a road narrowing would do. He stated that another method that has been
used since the speed bump program was abandoned was the one done in the
Eastbluff area where certain traffic movements were actually prohibited. Mr.
Edmonston reported that an extensive study was done in the Santiago
Drive/Holiday Road area, but no action has been taken, in part due to the cost of
the proposed solutions and indecision on who should pay for them.
Mr. Edmonston reported that two additional neighborhood traffic studies are
currently underway. He displayed a draft of the overall plan for the Newport
Volume 56 - Page 1080
(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Heights /Cliffhaven area, which showed the number and types of devices that are
being suggested by the consultant. He stated that specific recommendations will
be presented to the City Council at a future meeting. He also pointed out that
speed bumps are not listed as an option, because the consultant was given the
direction not to include them. Mr, Edmonston explained that this direction was
based on known concerns by the Fire Department. He listed the consultant's
options as including bulges, traffic circles, medians, road narrowings, zebra
crosswalks, stop signs and splitter islands. City Manager Bludau asked if the
consultant was given any parameters with regard to end costs. Mr. Edmonston
responded in the negative. He noted that the residents have been involved
during the process, which has consisted of three meetings. The study being done
in the Newport Hills /Harbor View community has only held one meeting so far,
with the second scheduled for August 3, 2004. City Manager Bludau asked what
the costs of the suggested traffic calming measures for Newport Heights would
be if they were implemented. Mr. Edmonston stated that the consultant has
been asked to provide these costs and that they would be a part of the report
when the recommendations are presented to the City Council. He noted that
some of the measures require landscaping, which adds considerably to the cost
because of ongoing maintenance and irrigation. He also displayed detailed
aerial photos of the improvements being suggested for Kings Road and Irvine
Avenue.
Council Member Webb asked if stop signs would be removed at intersections
where traffic circles are installed. Mr. Edmonston stated that they could be, but
that without the stop signs, there is an initial period of about six months where
there is a greater potential for collisions.
Mr. Edmonston displayed photos showing examples of a permanent bulge and a
median island. He stated that staff would appreciate guidance from the City
Council, and that one option would be to form a committee. He listed the types
of questions that staff struggles with when working with residents on traffic
concerns. These include how to determine if a problem is real or perceived, what
level of speed is a problem, if traffic volume should be a consideration, what
traffic calming techniques are supported, what the minimum level of
neighborhood acceptance should be and how multiple requests should be
prioritized. Lastly, Mr. Edmonston stated that the issue of funding needs to be
addressed, as well as the possibility for allowing residents to have traffic
calming features installed themselves through the encroachment permit process.
Council Member Webb confirmed that the City would be liable for such
installations, and Mr. Edmonston explained that they would still be in the City's
right -of -way.
In response to City Manager Bludau's question, Mr. Edmonston stated that
speed bumps tend to slow all drivers down, but it's related to the kind of car
being driven, the wheel base and the suspension. In general. the design of the
speed bumps that have been installed are twelve feet long with a three -inch rise
and can be driven at 25 miles per hour by most vehicles.
Council Member Webb asked who would be the appropriate members of a
committee, if one is formed. Mr. Edmonston stated that it could include a couple
of council members and staff members, and should particularly include the Fire
Volume 56 - Page 1081
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Department. He explained that the Police Department is already represented
on the Traffic Affairs Committee and the Fire Department has a different set of
concerns in regard to traffic calming measures. He noted that the City of
Sacramento has an expansive program with six full -time staff members
dedicated to it. The first question they ask is if the traffic calming measure is
being requested for a primary or secondary response route. Speed bumps on
primary response routes are automatically denied and the Fire Department has
final veto authority for requests on secondary routes. The Police Department
vehicles tend to have greater maneuverability. The Fire Department also has
concerns related to transporting individuals who require medical aide. Mr.
Edmonston added that he's recommending a committee because it's a complex
issue and some of the previous studies are already out of date.
Council Member Heffernan noted that $160,000 has already been spent on
traffic studies and asked if the traffic studies shouldn't have been done after
input from the Police and Fire Departments. He explained that this would have
defined the parameters and limited the alternatives prior to the studies being
done. City Manager Bludau noted that the consultant who performed the study
for the Newport Heights area was told to look at traffic calming measures
without using speed bumps, but that currently there is not a Council policy that
allows the Fire or Police Department to have veto power.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the traffic calming studies are appropriate and that
the Fire Department may not necessarily oppose street narrowing. He stated
that traffic calming has taken on a new meaning in neighborhoods in every city,
due to the increase in traffic. He supported the funding of traffic calming
studies.
Council Member Bromberg asked how many speed bumps would be needed on a
typical residential street. Mr. Edmonston stated that what's generally proven to
be effective are speed bumps spaced 300 to 500 feet apart, which would be one or
two in a typical block. He stated that another concern with installing speed
bumps is that traffic might shift from one residential street to another, and
that's why traffic calming is looked at on an area -wide basis.
Council Member Bromberg asked to what extent fire vehicles would be slowed
down on a nonprimary street with one or two rows of speed bumps. Fire Chief
Riley responded by saying that it depends upon the frequency and configuration
of the traffic calming device, but that speed bumps add to the Fire Department's
response time. Specifically, each speed bump adds between 2.5 and 10 seconds
to the response time, depending upon the type and size of the equipment being
driven.
Mayor Ridgeway asked how road narrowing affects the Fire Department. Fire
Chief Riley stated that the whole concept behind traffic calming is to do one of
two things, which is to discourage traffic from going down a street or to reduce
traffic speeds. He stated that this affects everyone, including the Fire
Department, and that every traffic calming measure will affect the Fire
Department's response time to some degree. He expressed his support for the
formation of a committee to look at all of the traffic calming measures available,
and the pros and cons of each. Fire Chief Riley noted that the "Port" streets
already have the least desirable response time in Newport Beach, because of the
Volume 56 - Page 1082
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
110 —11"
location of the existing fire stations. He stated that it would be critical to only
install traffic calming measures that wouldn't affect primary or secondary
response routes in that area. Additionally, Fire Chief Riley stated that there is a
concern by the Fire Department for speed bumps and their impact on the Fire
Department's ability to give medical care and transport a patient to the hospital.
He stated that there needs to be a policy statement on what the acceptable effect
on response time is. Lastly, Fire Chief Riley stated that another significant
issue is the effect of speed bumps on the mechanics and torsion of the Fire
Department equipment and apparatus. He agreed, however, that having a safe
community means having manageable speeds, particularly in the residential
areas, which reduces the number of responses that are needed by the Fire
Department. He stated that this responsible look at traffic calming measures
needs to be weighed with the impacts on emergency response times.
Mayor Ridgeway expressed his concern for the response time to the "Port"
streets. Fire Chief Riley explained why the drive to the "Port" streets is so long,
and stated that adding a fire station would be an expensive remedy. Using a
map on display, a brief discussion followed regarding routes and entrances into
the area. Fire Chief Riley stated that it's a common problem with any
expanding community. He noted that the Newport Crest area is another
difficult area to reach, but that there is an even greater concern for the response
times to the new development in Newport Coast off of Crystal Heights Drive.
Police Chief McDonell stated that speed bumps don't create the problems with
regard to response time for the Police Department as they do for the Fire
Department. He stated that the fundamental issue for the Police Department is
whether there is a safety hazard that warrants the installation of a traffic
calming measure. He stated that complaints about speeding vehicles are dealt
with individually, and an attempt is made to quantify the problem and
determine if it is real or perceived. He explained that targeted enforcement can
create a problem when determining where the department's resources should be
allocated. Police Chief McDonell stated that drivers tend to accelerate between
speed bumps, which adds to the noise and aggravation in a neighborhood also.
In response to Mayor Ridgeway's question, Police Chief McDonell stated that the
Police Department has statistics on the number of accidents on any given street,
but that they are not grouped by the type of street. He noted, however, that the
majority of accidents clearly occur on the arterial streets just based on the
volume of traffic.
Council Member Nichols stated that the speed bumps on Newport Hills Drive,
and 15th and 16th Streets have been a problem for years, and that speed bumps
on the collector streets don't seem appropriate, Police Chief McDonell agreed
that speed bumps on the high volume streets don't appear to be appropriate.
Council Member Nichols further noted that the stop signs in old Corona del Mar
appear to be effective and are less expensive. Police Chief McDonell stated that
a stop sign can provide a false sense of security if it's placed where it's not
warranted and drivers don't stop.
Council Member Webb asked if there had ever been reports of an increase of
accidents in areas with traffic calming measures. Police Chief McDonell stated
that nothing overwhelming had ever been reported, although accidents do occur,
Volume 56 - Page 1083
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Susan Skinner Caustin provided a handout and asked for the City Council's
support in bringing speed bumps to the "Port" streets. She stated that it's an
area full of children and that there's a real problem with drivers coming around
the curves at high rates of speed. Her handout included documentation that
there's a 60% reduction in accidents involving children in residential areas that
have speed bumps installed. Ms. Caustin specifically asked the City Council to
approve the inclusion of a test pilot on her street as a part of the traffic calming
studies being done, and noted that 18 of 19 homes on the street support speed
bumps. She added that the risk for an accident is even higher on her street
because it is not a high volume street. In closing, she expressed her support for
a rationale speed bump policy that weighs both the needs of the Fire
Department and public safety on the streets.
In looking at the configuration of Ms. Caustin's street, Mayor Pro Tem Adams
stated that it appears that nearly all of the traffic is generated by the people who
live there. Ms. Caustin disagreed and added that those who speed are generally
not the ones who live there.
Council Member Webb asked for a clarification on the critical speed in the
neighborhood. Ms. Caustin recalled that a verbal report she received from a
member of the Public Works Department stated that the 85t' percentile was 28
miles per hour around the curve. Council Member Webb recalled that it was 22
to 23 around the curve, and approaching 28 miles per hour on the straight
stretch. In response to a second question by Council Member Webb, Ms. Caustin
stated that she didn't have figures on the actual volume of traffic on her street,
but would guess that it's 200 to 250 cars per day.
Mr. Edmonston stated that a consultant did collect speed and volume data near
Ms. Caustin's home. It was found that the volume was just under 200 cars per
day. He stated that the speed measurements taken in the area were typical, or
to the low side, for similar subdivisions with the same width streets. He stated
that it's probably a function of the length of the street, the curves and a stop sign
at Port Weybridge.
In response to Council Member Webb's request, Mr. Edmonston reported that
from January 1, 2001, to present, 106 pedestrian versus auto accidents occurred
in the City. Of the 106, six happened mid -block in residential areas, or
approximately 6% of the total.
Bob Caustin asked the City Council to consider a pilot study on his street. He
stated that the residents are even willing to pay for the installation of the speed
bumps and is only asking that the City provide information on how they should
be built. Mr. Caustin stated that his street is not a collector street, but that the
traffic does come from more than the neighbors.
Nancy Skinner stated that she is concerned for the safety of her grandson, and
that the costs associated with speed bumps don't compare to the life of a child.
She suggested that it would be a good idea to put in a sample trial location while
a committee addresses the issue. She stated that the street that the Caustin's
live on would be a good location since police and fire vehicles don't use the street
to access other locations. Ms. Skinner encouraged the City Council to balance
Volume 56 - Page 1084
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
the safety issues and consider speed bumps.
Louise Fundenberg stated that traffic calming is also needed in the alleys,
especially on the peninsula. She asked the City Council to consider this as well
when addressing the issue.
In response to Mayor Ridgeway's question, Fire Chief Riley stated that the Fire
Department does utilize alleys as response routes. He stated that the goal is to
pick a response route that will lessen the response time and sometimes alternate
routes are used.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams expressed his support for the idea of forming a
committee. He stated that the issue of thresholds will be a challenge for the
committee, and deciding when and if traffic calming measures are appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that speed bumps have their place but, in general,
he's not in support of them. He noted that the traffic conditions on the Caustins'
street are about as good as they get for a residential neighborhood, and that the
speed and volume are low. He didn't feel that speed bumps would create much
of a change.
Council Member Bromberg also expressed his support for a committee. He
noted, however, that one of the problems with committees is that there often is
not enough information to make an appropriate decision. He stated that he is
not a huge fan of speed bumps, but agreed that putting in a couple of rows of
speed bumps on the Caustins' street might provide some good test information
for the committee.
Council Member Webb also expressed his support for the committee concept, but
questioned how any accomplishments would be evaluated. He suggested that
the committee evaluate the studies that have been done and are being done, set
some thresholds and make recommendations on how the recommended
measures would be paid for.
Council Member Heffernan asked if a pilot program could be done prior to a
study being done, or how the City would handle an encroachment permit
application for speed bumps. City Manager Bludau stated that such an
application would be presented to the City Council. He added that if a
committee is formed, the committee might suggest, early on, that some pilot
programs should be set up, or it could be a part of the recommendation to form a
committee at the next City Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated the committee should make the recommendation
on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a pilot program.
Council Member Webb stated that he couldn't consider an encroachment permit
application until there was a way to evaluate the success or failure of the
requested project. He stated that some type of mechanism or criteria needs to be
established to determine if a pilot program is successful, and how that success
would be measured.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams stated that if zebra- striped crosswalks are used, their
installation cannot be arbitrary. He explained that if they're used, the criteria
Volume 56 - Page 1085
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
will need to be very specific, due to the possibility of lawsuits.
Council Member Heffernan suggested that the report from staff include the
recommendation to form a committee, as well as consideration for a pilot study.
He stressed that he'd like to see some action taken by the City on the issue.
Council Member Bromberg agreed that the recommendation from staff should
include the formation of a committee and the possibility of conducting a pilot
program.
Council Member Rosansky stated that there are a number of existing speed
bumps in the City and that any pilot study should include those.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that he also supports a committee, and that he didn't
know which measures might be the most appropriate for any given street. He
added that the City Attorney will also need to provide his opinion, and that the
community as a whole needs to be taken into consideration when discussing the
issue of traffic calming measures on individual streets.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT - at 6:00 p.m.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on July 21, 2004, 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 56 - Page 1086
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
Volume 56 - Page 1087
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
July 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION - 4:30 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m.
INDEX
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Ridgeway
Absent: None
C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None.
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Bromberg.
E. INVOCATION - Reverend Dr. Dennis Short, Harbor Christian Church.
President of Newport- Mesa - Irvine Interfaith Council
F. PRESENTATIONS
Newport Beach Conference & Visitors Bureau Annual Report. Marta
Hayden, Executive Director, highlighted the annual report that was included in
the agenda packet. She reported that the Bureau participates in over 26 trade
shows and conducts eight client events, as well as familiarization tours. She
believed that they have the potential to generate $13 million in room tax. She
noted that about 20% of the Bureau's money is dedicated to promoting the City.
She stated that the communication department's goal is to generate $1.2 million
in ad equivalents. She reported that their department and their partners got
over $3 million in positive impressions last year. Ms. Hayden stated that they
will be working with a firm to do an advertising program to generate more room
revenue, looking at luxury and emerging markets, and working with coastal
hotels. She indicated that their biggest enhancement this year was their online
reservation system. She reviewed the criteria for their base year measurement
for 2003 -2004. Ms. Hayden noted that she serves on the Economic Development
Committee.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Ms. Hayden reported that
their allocation from the City will be $1.7 million which is a combination of
money from room taxes and dues.
Mayor Ridgeway noted that the Discovery Channel will be sending a package to
them because they would like to have Newport Beach in a travel program.
National Recreation & Parks Month. Recreation and Senior Services
Director Knight announced that July is National Recreation & Parks Month. She
Volume 56 - Page 1088
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
stated that they have seen a 21% increase in program participation this summer
and have brought in $250,000 more in revenue than last summer. She noted that
the campers have made signs and reminded everyone that it is healthy to take a
day to play.
Lee Knight. 9 year old camper at the Balboa Beach Camp, stated that they
celebrated parks and recreation everyday at camp by going to the beach, the bay,
the park, and the library. She reported that they gave out surf necklaces tonight
with shells they found at the beach. She stated that they also wrote poems about
why they love the park and proceeded to read her poem.
Mayor Ridgeway displayed his shell necklace and the poems that were written by
the campers. He read the proclamation and presented it to Lee Knight.
G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
H. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM):
Council Member Webb stated that he attended the Concert in the Park
on Sunday night at Bob Henry Park in which Caravana performed. He
reported that the next Concert in the Park will be held August 22. He
noted that Shakespeare in the Park begins August 7, 2004.
Council Member Heffernan indicated that people still don't understand
the tree policy. He requested a report regarding people being able to pay
to have their tree removed and also the ability to pay extra to have it
planted someplace else
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTES/ORDINANCESAND 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.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
3. MARINER'S MILE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 20.42.050(M), CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -006
(PA 2004 -104) — AMENDS THE STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF PALM TREES REQUIRED AND PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY IN THE SPECIES OF HEDGES REQUIRED
ACROSS THE FRONTAGE OF PROPERTIES ON COAST
HIGHWAY BETWEEN NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND THE BACK
BAY BRIDGE. Adopt Ordinance No. 2004 -15.
4. Removed at the request of Council Member Heffernan.
Volume 56 - Page 1089
INDEX
(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION
5. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUNDS.
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -61 to declare improvement fund surpluses
in the following assessment districts: 60 (West Bay Avenue from 8th
Street to 151h Street); 61 (Bay Avenue and East Bay Front); 62 (Hazel
Drive south of PCH); 63 (Newport Island): 64 (Channel Road); 65 (West
Coast Highway); 66 (Bay Avenue from 71h Street to 81h Street); and 72
(Balboa Coves); and 2) authorize the Administrative Services Director to
choose an appropriate distribution method, to return remaining funds,
with interest, consistent with the 1913 Act on a district by district basis.
(Mayor Ridgeway recused himself from voting on this item)
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
6. Removed at the request of Council Member Heffernan.
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
7. UPDATE ON CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS.
Receive and file report.
S. Removed at the request of an audience member.
9. Removed at the request of an audience member.
10. 2004 -2005 CULTURAL ARTS GRANTS. Approve recommended
recipients for FY 2004 -05 Cultural Arts Grants as selected by the City
Arts Commission in accordance with City Policy I -12 — Reseroe Fund for
Culture and Arts.
11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT NO. 2003 -003
(PA2003 -255) (contd. from 5111/04, 6/8/04 & 7/13/04). Continue to
.August 24. 2004 to allow staff time to review the applicant's new
proposal, as well as provide Council with an evaluation prepared by an
independent consultant.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to approve the Consent Calendar, except
for those items removed (1, 4, 6, 8 and 9), and noting the abstention on Item 1 by
Mayor Pro Tern Adams and the recusal on Item 5 by Mayor Ridgeway.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
City Attorney Burnham asked that Council consider taking Item 4 out of order
since staff would like a continuance for two weeks to allow special counsel more
time to look at certain provisions of the group homes ordinance. He explained
that they are looking at possible legal issues related to the current ordinance and
drafting language that might address those issues. He reported that he engaged
Volume 56 - Page 1090
INDEX
Assessment
District Funds
(89/100 -2004)
Cable Franchise
(42/100 -2004)
(100 -2004)
(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
in email communications with Mr. Applegate who represents the recovery facility
community who indicated that he supports the continuance.
O. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - taken out of
order.
4. ZONING AMENDMENURECOVERY FACILITIES.
Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Adams to continue this item to August 10,
2004.
Jon Stearman, Narconon, submitted a letter from their attorney.
Linda Orozco, Newport Beach, stated that she has attended meetings
since September 2003 for this. She noted that she just returned from
teaching in Thailand and is not sure where she will be in two weeks. She
presented a handout, reporting that the certificate of occupancy for one of
the Narconon facilities is for 27 persons, including staff. however, the
State authorizes them to have beds for 27 clients. She noted that she has
a letter from the State that indicates they have 29 full-time employees at
that facility. She emphasized the importance of following the current
zoning code and reported that a semi -truck was parked in three meter
parking spaces for 1.5 hours to deliver food.
Carolyn Martin, Newport Beach, reported that the residents of the 1800
block of West Ocean Front continue to support this proposal.
Chris Boge stated that he will be going over Federal Acts when this item
comes back
Donna Cambon stated that it is hard for her to be at her house which is
three feet away from the facility with all the language, spitting, and
cigarette butts, and watching the people come off of the drugs. She
believed that this does not fit in their neighborhood. She stated that
someone took a video of what happens in the alleyway. City Attorney
Burnham indicated that there are Federal laws relative to the
dissemination of this information and recommended that she consult an
attorney prior to distributing the video.
Council Member Heffernan explained that this process takes two
hearings since there is an ordinance. He stated that. at the last meeting,
he asked why there aren't more people supporting this if it's such a big
problem. He indicated that he received emails and responded to them by
telling them to attend the meeting. He noted that he didn't know it was
going to be continued.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
.Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
.Absent: None
.Abstain: None
Volume 56 - Page 1091
INDEX
(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
Citv Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 68 (NEWPORT
SHORES) FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES AND
DESIGNATION AS AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT.
Council Member Rosansky noted that, since he owns property in
Assessment District No. 68 and it is within 500 feet of Assessment
District No. 69 (Item 13), he recused himself from both public hearings.
Without objection, Mayor Ridgeway limited testimony to three minutes.
Mayor Ridgeway announced that the public hearing is required pursuant
to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Article XIIID, of the
Constitution of the State of California and Chapter 15.32 of City Code.
He stated that this is the time and place fixed for the public hearing on
protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention, Assessment
Engineer's Report, proposed assessment, and all other matters relating to
Assessment District No. 68 (Newport Shores), and to designate the area
as an underground utilities district. He noted that all written protests
and ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the
public hearing. He stated that the notice of public hearing was given in
the manner and form required by law
Scott Koppel, MuniFinancial, reported that he and Dan Hunt of Willdan
.Associates are the Assessment Engineers for this district. He stated that
the engineer's report shows the district boundaries, the $6.6 million
estimated cost for the proposed improvements, a detail of the
improvements, the benefit each parcel receives, the assessment
methodology, and the assessment amount which is about $11,600 for the
average single- family residential property. He reported that they made
one change that is on file with the City Clerk to reduce the assessment on
one commercial property (Parcel No. 045114 -16 or Parcel ID No. 531) to
take into account the additional parking area the parcel has. He noted
that the report already lists seven parcels they've adjusted, but this is an
additional one.
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
Everette Phillips, Newport Shores, stated that he has a multi - family unit
in the district and expressed his support for the assessment. He noted
that it is a burden and a hardship, but a lot of people have been working
very hard to make this improvement happen. He expressed hope that the
City will also look at helping with the assessment on multi - family
dwellings. He noted that the assessment is done based on rules from
1913 and stated that it would be nice if the City worked with Sacramento
to update the regulations so future assessment districts would go more
smoothly.
Jim Hildreth stated that there is a 30 day period relative to asking for
financial assistance and noted that this has not been addressed. He
referenced page 2 and took issue with the Income Tax Component of
Contribution (ITCC). He believed that, if poles are removed and no one
gives an assessment for the pole, the location for that pole will be put in
Volume 56 - Page 1092
INDEX
Res 2004-62
Res 2004 -63
Assessment District
No. 68/
Newport Shores
(89/100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
the dark. He asked if the ITCC tax will be paid by the residents of that
location or will everyone pay for it. He added that the covers make noise.
Steve Foley, Newport Shores, stated that he owns a 12 -unit apartment
building in the assessment district and that half of his tenants have very
low rent. He indicated that, when the assessment first came out, he was
being assessed the same amount as a single - family house for one
apartment. He noted that he talked with the City and they reduced his
assessment. He encouraged Council to approve the reduced assessment
which he feels is fair.
George Leslie, Newport Shores, stated that he heard that underground
utilities are less safe than above - ground utilities. However, he asked how
buying your house on an earthquake fault is less safe than putting
utilities underground. He noted that, if utility lines are underground,
utility poles don't have the chance to fall on his house. He believed that
the streets are very narrow in Newport Shores and the existence of utility
lines and poles are more visible there than in areas like Newport Heights.
Barbara Murphy stated that her family owns an apartment complex in
Newport Shores. She thanked the assessment office for correcting the
original assessment and indicated that it is now a doable assessment.
She encouraged Council to support this, believing that undergrounding is
safer and would beautify the area.
Prevan Chaprisa, Best Western Hotel, stated that his assessment is
about $46,000. He noted that his hotel generates revenue for the City
and believed that it is unfair for a merchant to be penalized with such a
large amount. He stated that he supports the underground utilities but
he cannot bear the burden. He requested the City look into it.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that anyone having a ballot that has not been
submitted to bring them forward. He asked staff to talk to the Best,
Western Hotel operator to see if an adjustment is warranted. Mr. Koppel
noted that there are about 530 parcels and it would take about
45 minutes to count the ballots.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Harkless submitted the ballots to Junior Civil Engineer
Arcimiega for counting.
Following the tabulation of the ballots, City Clerk Hark-less announced
that there were 387 parcels that cast ballots for an assessment amount of
$4,662,261.37. She reported that 268 parcels submitted ballots in favor of
the assessment for an assessment amount of $3,1)71896.22 which
represents 65.89 %; and there were 119 parcels that submitted ballots in
opposition to the assessment for an assessment amount of $1,590,365.15
which represents 34.11 %.
Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Adams to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -62
approving contracts for utility improvements since there were more "yes"
votes than "no" votes; adopt Resolution No. 2004 -63 declaring the results
of the ballot tabulation, confirming the assessment, ordering the
Volume 56 - Page 1093
City of :Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
acquisition of improvement: approving the Assessment Engineer's
Report, and designating the area an Underground Utilities District for
Assessment District No. 68 Newport Shores; and approve a budget
amendment (05BA -003) in anticipation of the formation and approval of
Assessment District No. 68. The proposed budget amendment will
increase revenue estimates by $5,978,077 and increase expenditure
appropriations by $5,453,737. The difference of $524,340 will be utilized
to establish a bond reserve of approximately $429,800 and $94,540 will be
utilized to reimburse the City for past assessment engineering and design
expenditures related to this district.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: ?None
Absent: None
Abstain: Rosansky
13. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 69 - WEST NEWPORT
(AREA BETWEEN SEASHORE DRIVE AND W. OCEAN FRONT,
FROM SUMMIT ST. TO 33RD STREET; BETWEEN RIVER
AVENUE AND SEASHORE DRIVE FROM 56TH STREET TO 47TH
STREET AND OCEAN FRONT ALLEY, FROM 33RD STREET TO
ALLEY EAST OF 30TH STREET) FOR UNDERGROUNDING
UTILITIES AND DESIGNATION AS AN UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES DISTRICT.
Mayor Ridgeway announced that this is the time and place fixed for the
public hearing on protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention,
.Assessment Engineer's Report, proposed assessment, and all other
matters relating to .Assessment District No. 69 (West Newport), and to
designate the area as an underground utilities district. He noted that all
written protests and ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to
the close of the public hearing. He stated that the notice of public
hearing was given in the manner and form required by law.
Joan Cox, Harris & Associates, Assessment Engineer, reported that this
district has 662 parcels and the total assessment amount is about
$10,147,000. She stated that the assessment has been apportioned based
on property zoning. She explained how the assessment is assigned to R-
1, R -2, and split R -2 lots. She stated that benefits were assigned to City
properties, large properties, and homeowner association properties by
using the average street width of the surrounding properties. She
indicated that, since the preliminary engineer's report was approved by
Council, eight R -2 properties were found to be split, so their designations
were changed and their assessments were reduced accordingly. Ms. Cox
reported that there is one change to the engineer's report and presented a
revised report. She explained that an R -2 property (Parcel No. 42333507
and Assessment No. 580) had a deed restriction so it could only be used
as an R -1 property. She stated that, with these changes, it is her opinion
that the assessments are in proportion to the special benefits that each
property receives.
Volume 56 - Page 1094
INDEX
Res 2004-64
Res 2004-65
Assessment District
No. 69/
West Newport
(89 /100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing on the formation of
Assessment District No. 69.
Ed McLaughlin stated that he lives on Seashore Drive and voted "no" on
this issue two times before since he purchased his property in 1984. He
asked why some houses are excluded that are off of Seashore Drive from
4Th Street to 32 °d Street, and why there is some gerrymandering until
31st Street. He believed that this is being done to get this to pass. He
stated that the assessment does not include the cost of new electrical
service or trenching, and believed that a new double service will cost him
about $2,000, which will put his total assessment to about $20,000. He
noted that the poles along Neptune, from 541h Street to 46th Street. were
replaced five years ago by Edison, there are no problems with the poles,
and he was not charged anything for this. He added that they have a
high water table and asked what is going to happen 20 years from now.
He indicated that the wires don't bother him and that the picture from
40 Street shows the largest concentration of wires on Seashore Drive.
He requested that Council abandon the proceedings.
Jim Hildreth indicated that the person who made the statement that
overhead utilities was safer than underground utilities was a
representative of Arizona Pipeline during the undergrounding of Balboa
Island. He stated that the wires being used for the undergrounding are
aluminum and could burn quicker and will be harder to repair. Further,
this will cost more money to maintain. He noted that Edison can no
longer clean its vaults and pump it into the harbor as they have in the
past. He stated that he does not know who is going to maintain this
expense.
Victoria Rafa stated that she lives on 32 °d Street between the alley and
Balboa Boulevard, it is not covered by the area listed to be
undergrounded, but she is being assessed in the alleyway behind her
house. She indicated that she talked to a lot of repair people who said
that undergrounded utilities are harder to maintain, they can't inspect
them for problems ahead of time, and there will be a lot more problems
because of the high water table. She stated that she does not see a
benefit to undergrounding and the expense is excessive.
Inga Hawkins stated that she voted against this because of affordability.
She explained that her property has two small cottages that support
them, in addition to social security. She stated that they were assessed
for two parcels but the rent does not come close to retrieving that
amount. She also is voting against it because it is being paid for by
people who five there, but the area is run by beachgoers, surfers, and
tourists. She stated that she currently lives in Rancho Mirage where
they have tourists and are putting its utilities underground; however, the
residents are not paying for it. She emphasized that there are ways of
creating funds so that everyone who comes to the beach pays their share.
Council Member Webb noted that page 3 of the staff report indicates that
the City is being assessed $789,204 for park properties. City Manager
Bludau reported that he votes on behalf of the City.
Volume 56 - Page 1095
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
Mayor Ridgeway emphasized that this is a self- imposed assessment.
Jeff Rycell, Seashore Drive, stated that he cannot afford his assessment
of $16,500, even though he feels this is a great idea.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that anyone having a ballot for Assessment
District No. 69 that has not been submitted to bring them forward.
Hearing no further testimony. Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
City Clerk Harkless submitted the ballots to Junior Civil Engineer
Arciniega for counting.
Following the tabulation of the ballots, City Clerk Harkless announced
that the total assessment amount from ballots received was $6,901,510.
She reported that the total assessment from ballots submitted in favor of
the assessment was $5,105,665 which represents 74 %; and the total
assessment from ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment was
$1,795,541 which represents 26 %.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -64
approving contracts for utility improvements since there were more "yes"
votes than "no" votes; and adopt Resolution No. 2004 -65 declaring the
results of the ballot tabulation, Confirming the assessment, ordering the
acquisition of improvement; approving the Assessment Engineer's
Report, and designating the area an Underground Utilities District for
Assessment District No. 69 West Newport; and approve a budget
amendment (05BA -004) in anticipation of the formation and approval of
Assessment District No. 69. The proposed budget amendment will
increase revenue estimates by $9,117.156 and increase expenditure
appropriations by $5,390,511. The difference of $726,345 will be utilized
to establish a bond reserve of approximately $635,000 and $88,345 will be
utilized to reimburse the City for past assessment engineering and design
expenditures related to this district. This budget amendment also
appropriates $789,204 for the related assessment on City owned
property.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: Rosansky
14. VACATION OF SEWER EASEMENT AT 207 EVENING CANYON
ROAD.
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he
closed the public hearing.
Motion by Council Member Webb to adopt Resolution No. 2004 -66
ordering the vacation and abandonment of the 5 -foot wide sewer
easement located on Lot 123, Tract 1116 as described in Exhibit "A" and
depicted in Exhibit `B "; and direct the City Clerk to have the Resolution
Volume 56 - Page 1096
INDEX
(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
recorded in the Office of the County
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
15. VACATION OF SEWER EASEMENT AT 2223 CLIFF DRIVE.
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he
closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Adams to adopt. Resolution No. 2004 -67
ordering the vacation and abandonment of the 5 -foot wide sewer
easement located on Lot A, Tract 919 as described in Exhibit `:A" and
depicted in Exhibit "B "; and direct the City Clerk to have the Resolution
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
16. MARINAPARK RESORT & COMMUNITY PLAN [Applicant -
Bayside Pacific LLC (formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality -
STH)]. (contd. from 7/13/04).
City Attorney Burnham reported that the project is at Marinapark
between the American Legion facility and 181h Street, and on the bay side
of Balboa Boulevard. He stated that the proposal is for a luxury resort
with a maximum of 110 guest units, of which, up to twelve units could be
fractional ownership. Further, the resort would include a spa, lobby,
small restaurant and cafe, and other amenities. He reported that the
overall resort will not exceed 96,000 square feet on five acres. He noted
that the five acres is currently the site of a 56 unit mobilehome park. He
stated that the guest units are proposed to be one and two level
structures with average roof heights of 14 feet for the one level structures
and 24 feet for the two level structures, and the average roof height of the
lobby will be 24 feet. Further, there would be 100 surface and 100
subterranean parking spaces proposed onsite. City Attorney Burnham
stated that the project includes a long dock that would accommodate
about six vessels depending on size, and the project contemplates the
construction of a new and expanded community center that would
accommodate Girl Scout activities and community events, as well as
reconstruction of the existing recreational facilities onsite, including the
tennis courts. He indicated that the half -court basketball court would be
eliminated.
Volume 56 - Page 1097
INDEX
(100 -2004)
C -3389
Marinapark Resort &
Community Plan
(381100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
City Attorney Burnham emphasized that the focus of tonight's meeting is
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project. He
stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
indicate that a lead agency should certify an EIR if it represents a good
faith effort at full disclosure of all of the potentially significant effects of
the project, identifies possible ways to mitigate the impacts that have
been identified, and describes reasonable alternatives to the project. He
noted that CEQA does not require the analysis to be exhaustive and there
is no such thing as a perfect EIR. He stated that the absence of even
relative information in the EIR does not preclude certification unless the
EIR lacks information that really prevents informed decision making and
informed public participation. City Attorney Burnham reported that the
Planning Commission, after exhaustive analysis of this document and
extensive discussion, unanimously recommended that the City Council
certify the EIR. He added that the staff report also includes an opinion
from Chris Taylor of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP who is a CEQA
expert and is familiar with this document since she read all of it and
helped prepare some of the responses to comments. He reported that
Ms. Taylor concluded that the EIR meets all CEQA requirements.
City Attorney Burnham emphasized that certifying the EIR does not
approve the project. He stated that the only thing achieved by
certification is that Council has the ability to place the General Plan
Amendment (GPA) on the ballot because certification of the EIR is a
precondition to doing so, both legally and contractually.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, City Attorney
Burnham reported that the contract between the City and Sutherland
Talla Hospitality requires Council to submit the GPA necessary for this
project to the voters if /when Council certifies the EIR. He indicated that
the City is still dealing with Sutherland Talla and will be dealing with
them until they request City consent to an assignment. He noted that
the agreement requires Council consent to any assignment of their rights
under the original or amended agreement.
City Attorney Burnham reported that, if Council certifies the EIR, the
contract between Sutherland Talla Hsopitality and the City which was
approved unanimously by this Council about 15 months ago, except for
Council Member Rosansky, requires Council to submit the necessary
GPA to the voters for approval. He stated that the current General Plan
designation for the site is Recreation and Environmental Open Space. He
indicated that, to allow the project to go forward, the General Plan would
need to be amended to Recreation and Marine Commercial. He noted
that a resolution is included with the staff report that would submit this
measure to the voters. He added that there is also proposed ballot
language which Council can modify tonight. He emphasized that, once
the resolution is approved, this language cannot be changed and it will be
submitted to the voters.
City Attorney Burnham noted that one of the exhibits authorizes any
member of Council to prepare and submit an argument for or against the
measure. He stated that. if Council approves the resolution as it is
currently written and multiple arguments are submitted, the City Clerk
is required by law to give priority and preference to the arguments
Volume 56 - Page 1098
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
submitted by Council members. He expressed the opinion that the
impact of approving the resolution is that an argument submitted by a
member or members of Council, in support of or opposition to this
measure, would be the one that the voters see. He confirmed that a
Council member could enlist other individuals to sign the argument. He
noted that the Elections Code requires the City Clerk to give "preference
and priority to arguments submitted by any member or members of the
legislative body that have been authorized to submit arguments ". He
confirmed that only one argument in favor and one against is allowed to
be published. He stated that, if two Council members submit an
argument for the measure, the City Clerk would have to choose which
Council member's argument would be published. He confirmed that two
Council members can sign one argument.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams asked if it would be a violation of the Brown Act if
a majority of Council got together to prepare an argument for or against
the measure if it was not during a public hearing. City Attorney
Burnham stated that he is not sure if it is considered a decision of the
legislative body, noting that the Brown Act deals with actions of the City
Council that are either decisions or preliminary decisions. He indicated
that he will research this.
City Clerk Harkless reported that, in order to meet the County's
deadlines for publication in the ballot, Council would need to do this at
tonight's meeting. She explained that the direct arguments and the City
Attorney's impartial analysis would be due on August 6 and the public
review period for the candidate statements, the text of the measure, the
impartial analysis, and the direct arguments would be between August 7
and August 17. She reported that the last day for rebuttal arguments is
August 16, and the public review period for rebuttal arguments would be
between August 17 and August 26.
City Attorney Burnham indicated that, what is put before the voter, is a
measure that summarizes the GPA that would be different than what is
in place now. Council Member Heffernan noted that there are unresolved
tideland issues and expressed concern about the tidelands boundary and
whether timeshare fractional units can be put on the property. He asked
if this is an appropriate decision to be made with the tidelands issue still
up in the air. City Attorney Burnham stated that he and the State Lands
Commission Senior Counsel believe it is, noting that he spoke to him last
Friday. He added that both land uses would be consistent with tidelands
trust limitations. He indicated that it would be difficult for him to
provide an opinion when the State Lands Commission has not come to
grips with whether fractional units are permitted on tidelands. He stated
that they have agreed that the timeshares with one to two week intervals
are visitor - serving commercial uses that would be permitted on tidelands.
However. the question is what happens if the time period is longer.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, City Attorney
Burnham stated that the ballot measure language in the resolution
should be a summary of the actual text of the amendments to the General
Plan which would accompany the ballot pamphlet. He indicated that the
pamphlet would include an impartial analysis by him, a map, and the
text of the two amendments. He noted that the impartial analysis would
Volume 56 - Page 1099
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
refer to the documents to aid the voters in understanding the full
implications of a vote. Council Member Heffernan asked what happens if
the use is changed and the use never gets built. City Attorney Burnham
indicated that, if the voters approve a change in the land use designation
from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreation and
Marine Commercial, it would permit the development of a resort hotel up
to 110 units with a maximum square footage. He stated that. since the
City is the administrator of the property. the City has the ability to
determine what is appropriate, subject to the agreement with Sutherland
Talla. He indicated that, if they were out of the picture and the project
did not go forward, Council would then have the option to resume
discussions about what would go on the property as long as the use was
consistent with the Recreation and Marine Commercial designation. He
indicated that the ballot language and the text of the General Plan would
specifically state that this designation would allow this particular project
to go forward. but not on an exclusive basis. City Attorney Burnham
stated that, if this project does not go forward and there is no agreement
with Sutherland Talla, the City has the full discretion to decide what is
appropriate within the Recreation and Marine Commercial designation.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the City is limited on the amount of
rent it can charge. City Attorney Burnham indicated that the GPA does
not deal with the fiscal return to the City. However, another aspect of
the staff report is to get Council to confirm direction for Sutherland Talla
relative to a lease or option to lease that should return revenue to the
City over time, assuming that a number of other conditions are satisfied
in the future. He confirmed that the lease detail is not going to be a part
of the information voters will have. City Attorney Burnham indicated
that this is something that prompted Council to appoint a negotiating
committee and begin discussions with Sutherland Talla well in advance
of the point where the agreement required lease negotiations to
commence. He noted that the agreement states that the lease agreement
negotiations would not commence until after the voters approved the
CPA. He indicated that Council wanted to get as much information to
the voters as possible about the terms and conditions of the lease so they
knew what could happen if they voted "yes" on the GPA and all the
conditions of the option to lease were satisfied.
Council Member Nichols asked, if the GPA were changed and the hotel
was not built. has the City foreclosed the present uses on the property.
City Attorney Burnham stated that it is not fair to say it is foreclosed
since the property has been designated Recreation and Environmental
Open Space for more than 20 years and, during that time. the property
has been developed as a 56 unit mobilehome park which is a use that is
not permitted under the current General Plan designation. He reported
that it would require an affirmative action of Council. assuming voters
approve the amendment. to close the mobilehome park and proceed to
redevelop the site within the context of the Recreation and Marine
Commercial designation. He indicated that. to continue the mobilehome
park use, Council would need to determine how it views the vote of the
electorate. He asked if the Council would consider a change in the CPA
to be a mandate to implement this project and what does the State Lands
Commission wants to do about this property. He noted that it is clear
that, to the extent that this property consists of State tidelands, the
Volume 56 - Page 1100
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
mobilehome park use is not permitted. He indicated that, at some point,
the State Lands Commission may say that the Council, as the
administrator of trust properties of Newport Beach, must take action to
bring that property into conformance with trust limitations.
Council Member Webb stated that he does not see where parks are
allowed in the Recreation and Marine Commercial designation. He asked
if this means that the City would be precluded from putting a park use on
the entire site if the hotel weren't built. City Attorney Burnham
indicated that he does not believe so. He stated that land use
designations typically allow for improvements in a manner that is less
intense. Council Member Webb proceeded to read the definition of
Recreation and Marine Commercial. City Attorney Burnham noted that
it does not state that the whole parcel needs to be used for one of the
designated uses. He stated that he does not believe that Council would
be prohibited from developing that property for park or open space
purposes if the designation changed.
In response to Council Member Nichols' question, City Attorney
Burnham read the portion of the Charter relative to the strip of bayfront
land above mean high tide which shall be reserved for public use. He
stated that the negotiating committee wants to make sure the lease is
consistent with the Charter, ordinances, rules, policies, and regulations
which means there must be 85 feet reserved for public use between the
mean high tide line and the line of private development. He believed that
this provision of the Charter, depending on where the line is located, was
designed to protect the sandy beach. He noted that the mobilehome park
was in place at the time the Charter was approved and there is a line of
private development bayward and there has been a sandy beach there
the same amount of time the mobilehome park has been there. He stated
that the lease would have to be consistent with the provisions of the
Charter. Council Member Nichols indicated that an interpretation of this
is that the mobilehome park could continue as long as the City wished to
allow it. However, if it were to be discontinued, this would be the
method- City Attorney Burnham clarified that he is not saying that the
fact that the mobilehome park was there when the Charter was approved
is definitive as to the intent of the people who wrote the Charter. He
indicated that this project has a lot of steps to it and this is just one of
them. He believed that the orderly approach is to look at the
environmental document. determine if it is adequate under CEQA
guidelines, put the matter to the electorate if it is, and then Council and
the project proponent have a number of steps to follow before the project
can be implemented if the electorate approves the change in designation.
City Attorney Burnham indicated that the agenda leaves open the
possibility for a broad range of testimony. However, he believed that the
focus should be whether the EIR is legally adequate under CEQA; and. if
so, is the proposed ballot language the best language to convey to the
voters the significance of a "yes' vote.
City Attorney Burnham reported that the staff report includes a fiscal
impact analysis and a market analysis prepared by PKF Consulting,
which is a well- recognized hotel industry marketing analysis firm.
Further, the staff report references the thoughts of Mayor Ridgeway and
Volume 56 - Page 1101
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
I1`J170/:1
Council Member Heffernan as to what objectives the City is trying to
achieve assuming the voters approve this amendment and the City enters
into an option to lease with Sutherland Talla. He explained that the
lease would generate revenue to the City which is consistent with the
fiscal impact analysis projects. the Charter. all policies and resolutions,
and project description. Further. the lease would contain terms that
would protect the City's non - economic interest to ensure that the
developer constructed the new and expanded community center and
conducted public improvements. He added that the term of the lease
would also need to maximize the City's control of the property in the
event of a default and, before the City enters into the lease. that the City
has done appropriate due diligence as to the persons who would have the
right to exercise the option to lease so Council would be sure they had the
financial ability to construct the project, had an operating agreement
with an entity that was capable of operating a luxury resort, and that
they had good reputations in the business community and engaged in
community - sensitive development in the past_ City Attorney Burnham
stated that the project proponents commitment to the American Legion
would be a term and condition of the lease. He reported that the
$250,000 to $500,000 would be used to renovate the American Legion
facilities which are City -owned and leased to the Legion. He added that
another component to this is that there would be public access connecting
the walkway in front of the resort and 15th Street.
Council Member Heffernan believed that any discussion about the
ground lease is coming at a late hour He asked if the revised fiscal
analysis assumes that the City and developer agree on the terms of the
two parcel/two ground lease situation. City Attorney Burnham stated
that it is fair to say that the fiscal impact analysis that was transmitted
to Council with the staff report assumes the Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) amount and a $1.1 million base rent. He agreed that fractional
interests are an integral part of the developer's plan. Assistant City
Manager Wood reported that the fiscal impact analysis did not include
the substitute TOT revenues from the fractional units or the City's
sharing in the proceeds from the sale of the fractional units because those
are issues that are still being discussed by Council and the proposed
developer. She stated that, as the lease terms become firmer, they will be
able to add those into the fiscal impact analysis. She clarified that they
assumed the lease rent of $1.1 million would come from the hotel, noting
that the base rent would still be $1.1 million even if it were split.
City Attorney Burnham introduced Cal Hollis of Keyser Marston
Associates who is the City's real estate and economic consultant. He
stated that he currently represents the City of Beverly Hills in
discussions with the Montage. Further, he would be able to explain how
the concept of an option to lease would fully protect the City to the
maximum extent possible from any failure on the part of the developer to
proceed with the project.
Cal Hollis, Keyser Marston Associates, stated that the Council committee
wanted to make sure that, if there is a lease agreement with this
developer, a set of conditions were met before the lease could be
effectuated and the leasehold can be transferred over. He explained that
the objective is to build the project if the lease becomes effective and
Volume 56 - Page 1102
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
ensure that the project is the one approved. He reported that the
following items would have to be completed prior to the leaseholding
being effective: all the land use and building approvals would have to be
in place; the construction drawings would have to be completed: a
construction contract with a qualified contractor needs to be in place; a
construction loan needs to be ready to close with the only contingency
being the closing of the ground lease itself; there is evidence of sufficient
equity to complete the project; and the hotel management and/or
franchise agreement is in place. Mr. Hollis confirmed for Council
Member Heffernan that the site has to be cleared of all the existing
tenants to be available for ground lease.
Doug Svensson, Applied Development Economics (ADE), reported that
there is a revised fiscal impact report. He explained that the fiscal
impact model was developed to help them understand land use
alternatives for the General Plan and is designed to model changes in
City costs and revenues related to land use changes. He noted that the
lease is subject to a different type of analysis; however, they insert
numbers into the analysis and combine it with revenues. He indicated
that the report two weeks ago failed to update the numbers properly. He
stated that a couple of the tables reflected an earlier understanding they
had. He noted that the change in the bottom line fiscal impact is due to a
clerical error in the lease revenues. He stated that this is now corrected
and essentially reflects the state of discussions. Further, they corrected a
minor issue with the TOT in which the Visitors & Conference Bureau
receives a portion of that and not the City. He reported that the net
benefit to the City is lower than previously reported; however, the project
as a whole is shown to have a positive fiscal impact for the City.
Mr. Svensson stated that the staff report contains a table which is
adjusted for inflation to give a sense of how the costs and revenues will
balance out. He presented a memo tonight, indicating that tonight's
memo takes inflation out in order to see the numbers in current dollars.
In response to Council Member Webb's question regarding the table in
the memo, Mr. Svensson indicated that the CIP amount of $1,080,000 is a
City expense. Assistant City Manager Wood clarified that this is the
estimate of what it would cost to close the mobilehome park.
Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that the average room rate used
was $367, which is in 2004 dollars, and the occupancy rate is 76 %.
Mr. Hollis stated that he does not believe that the fiscal impact report
assumed fractional unit sales. He clarified that the total rent was
assumed. Council Member Heffernan added that it is also probably
assumed and the reason it is not in the fiscal impact report is because.
once the units are sold, the money goes to the developer and not the
lessor, the City. Assistant City Manager Wood believed that there is
some assumption about the fractional shares in terms of property tax to
the City. Mr. Hollis confirmed that they have a value from a real
property standpoint.
Council Member Nichols asked if there was an in -lieu fee. City Attorney
Burnham stated that there are two components to the fractional unit
return to the City. He explained that the discussions so far have resulted
in a conceptual agreement that the City would receive TOT as if those
Volume 56 - Page 1103
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
units functioned as hotel units. Regarding what additional revenues the
fractional units generate over and above the base rent, he reported that
there have been discussions about a percentage of the sale going to the
City and an annual assessment or percentage of the annual maintenance
assessment going to the City. He stated that those discussions are still
in -flux. He confirmed that the fractional units will be paying TOT, not in
lieu tax, as long as the stay is 30 days or less. He added that the City
would get the same amount of money as if it were rented and this would
come in the form of supplemental rent. Mr. Hollis added that the City
will see revenues from the units in several ways. He stated that the
rooms would generate tax if the stay was less than 30 days and if the
units are put back into the hotel room pool by the owners and rented like
the other hotel rooms. Further, they have reached conceptual agreement
that, if an individual buys the fractional shares and it is never used as a
hotel room but a vacation place, there would be in -lieu taxes. He stated
that the intent is so the City would see the same TOT as it would've
received if the units would not have been fractional units but normal
hotel rooms.
City Attorney Burnham introduced Iiim Thompson of Rutan and Tucker.
He stated that Mr. Thompson has 20 years experience in negotiating
ground leases and he is part of the team that has been involved in
discussions with the project proponent.
Mr. Hollis reported that it is becoming increasingly common for luxury
hotels to make a portion of their product available on a for sale basis as
fractional or condominium units. He indicated that the project he is
working on in Beverly Hills will have 26 condominium units for sale. He
stated that it is becoming more common because the cost of luxury hotels
has gotten so expensive on a per room basis compared with the room
revenues that they cannot fund all the Iand and development costs out of
hotel revenues. He indicated that hotel owners sell a piece of the project
in the form of fractional units or condominium units to pay the excess
cost of creating the hotel project to a point that it is a financially feasible
project. He stated that this also assists them in obtaining a market rate
return that allows the project to attract debt and equity funds.
Council Member Heffernan indicated that people who own the fractional
units don't want to be subject to a big ground lease payment that
supports the hotel. He stated that this is why there will be two parcels
and, therefore, two ground lease payments. Mr. Hollis indicated that this
will be a 50 year lease and a lot of things happen over a long period of
time. He stated that the City, as landlord, wants to preserve all its
rights, options, and protections over a long period of time. He indicated
that. because there are two different types of uses on the property, they
felt it was important to preserve the City's assets by having two different
ground leases. He noted that the owners of the fractional units will not
be responsible for the operation of the hotel and the hotel owners are not
responsible for the individuals who own the fractional units. He pointed
out that the City has the right to go after either one of the parties in the
event there is a problem. He emphasized that the lease has not been
negotiated, but major provisions have been talked about on a conceptual
basis. He reported that both parties understand and agree to protecting
the City in the event there is a default by any lessee. He stated that they
Volume 56 - Page 1104
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
are working hard to limit the rights of the fractional unit owners on the
hotel parcel. He indicated that the fractional unit owners may have
limitations relative to hotel amenities, but these are terms to be
negotiated if it is approved by the voters. He stated that they are now
talking about how far the discussions can go so Council and the public
has an idea about what the agreement might look like. City Attorney
Burnham pointed out that this is a ground lease and not a conveyance of
the fee for this property. He stated that all rights would be limited to a
50 year ground lease.
Arthur Spalding, attorney with Cox Castle and Nicholson, stated that
there is no distinction between timeshares and fractional units. He
indicated that "timeshare" is a defined legal term under California State
law and is regulated by the Department of Real Estate as a subdivision
under State law. He reported that a fractional interest is the same as a
timeshare but is larger (i.e. a poodle versus a Saint Bernard). He stated
that fractional units have 1/4 to 1/17 ownership interest versus a
timeshare which has 1/50 use (one week). He indicated that a 1/4 share
is 13 weeks of use and 1/8 is typically 6 weeks of use. He reported that
the proponents are contemplating 1/8 use. He noted that the fewer
fractional units there are, the less it costs to sell them; however, they are
typically more expensive. He indicated that the advantages are that
there are fewer people to make happy, they stay longer, and they tend to
act like residents rather than hotel guests.
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
JT Tarwater, Newport Beach, stated that he is the past commander of
the American Legion Post. He expressed his support for the project.
believing that the Peninsula needs a resort hotel. He stated that he also
likes that the tennis courts, Girl Scout House, community center,
Veteran's Park, and the American Legion building will be redone. He
noted that there will be public beach access and visibility from the
boulevard to the beach.
Maria O'Hora, Newport Beach, stated that the EIR does not deal with the
no project /no development alternative or the marine recreational
alternative, believing that the report is prejudiced on behalf of the
developer's project. She added that the data is incomplete and expects
Council to reject the EIR. She questioned who the applicant is in the
EIR, since none of the listed entities are recorded with the Secretary of
State as a California corporation, and none have a City business license
as of January 20. She noted that the residents opposed the project in a
previous survey. She added that the EIR is incomplete relative to
tideland boundaries. believing that timeshare units would be considered
residences. She took issue that the sailing programs will be moved to the
beachfront adjoining the project site and that the driveway on 151h Street
will only be used for egress and ingress of deliveries, trash trucks, and
employees.
Dolores Otting, Newport Beach, provided Council with a packet. She
questioned who Sutherland Talla Hospitality LLP and Marinapark LLC,
are, believing they are non - existent entities. She indicated that the City
accepted two checks from Bayside Pacific LLC which D. Michael Talla is
Volume 56 - Page 1105
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
named and noted they have a licensed LLC with the State. However, she
reported that the attorneys have stock in the Las Vegas topless clubs
Sapphire and the Olympic Garden. She added that Mr. Talla owns 50%
of the Sapphire and is in litigation with his partner that he owns sport
clubs with. She indicated that Pacific Coast Capital Partners has a
California LLC but has a Delaware jurisdiction. She clarified that
Harvey Brookstein's company is actually RBZ, LLP.
Robert Walchli stated that Mr. Sutherland is doing this under his own
free will but was told by Council that he probably doesn't have a chance.
He indicated that the hotel is probably better for the City than the
mobilehomes that are currently using public land. However, he believed
future generations will be better off if the land is developed into a public
bayfront beach, marine activity facility, or other publicly chosen use,
instead of an exclusive retreat. He took issue with the hotel having
timeshares and pointed out that the City has no public ramps or sailboat
crane launching facilities. He stated that the issue with Marinapark is
the use of public land. He indicated that he is not against development,
but is against the conversion of public property to private control. He
believed that the EIR does not give enough options and urged people to
vote to keep this a public recreation facility.
City Attorney Burnham clarified that the EIR does evaluate continued
mobilehome use.
Christine Eiger, Newport Beach, stated that she and her husband
support certifying the EIR to let the voters decide on this. She indicated
that other supporters for revitalizing the area and voting in November
include Lisa Goodsell, owner of the Aubergine, and former
Assemblywoman Marilyn Brewer who submitted a letter. She stated that
no one on their team will be looking for reasons to mudsling, but they
want to be sure that people get to hear about the project.. She believed
that there will be reduced traffic than the current use, and noted that
there will be community benefits. She emphasized that the applicant bid
on this, has been abiding by the rules, has come to every hearing, and has
hired consultants to try to accommodate the issues raised.
Matt Webb, Newport Beach, stated that he is a traffic engineer and asked
that Council not certify the EIR because he feels it is inadequate with
regard to noise, traffic, General Plan consistency, tideland boundary
issues, and lack of alternative analysis. He believed that the process is
being rushed to meet the election timeframe. He asked that Council
recirculate the EIR.
Joel O'Hora, Newport Beach, believed that many of the conclusions in the
financial analysis are unreliable, PKF's methodology and database are
suspect, and PKF's future revenue and occupancy rate projections are
optimistic. He noted that there is a $1.3 million change in the projected
revenue and believed that this should cast enough doubt in the integrity
of the entire analysis. He took issue that the report attempts to
extrapolate its results from dissimilar hotels. He stated that the financial
impact analysis relies on a flawed EIR and the developer's own PKF
study. He believed that the City backed itself into a corner.
Volume 56 - Page 1106
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Louise Fundenberg, President of the Central Newport Beach Community
Association, urged Council to not adopt Exhibits A and C. However, if
they are adopted, they request Council to defer the election until the next
general election. She asked that staff have corrections and reanalysis
performed on the PKF and ADE financial studies, revise the
recommendations for the negotiating committee, and terminate the
agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality based on the default of
Section 10.E of the amended agreement.
Christine Shingleton stated that she is speaking as an individual who
works in planning /redevelopment for another city, but is a lifetime
member of the Girl Scouts of the USA and the former president of the
Girl Scout Council of Orange County. She indicated that she has been
monitoring this project since 1999. She noted that. during her
presidency, the Girl Scout Council of Orange County adopted a
comprehensive property plan which prioritized maintaining the Newport
Beach presence in the current facility that has been operational since
1946. She expressed the opinion that the proposed project is an
exceptional opportunity to meet this need and to provide community
recreational opportunities. She believed that it provides a balanced
approach to putting public land to benefit and responding to the fiscal
constraints that are challenging all cities in the State. She stated that
the project has been thoroughly reviewed and the developer has always
been responsive to the Girl Scout's concerns. She stated that the EIR is a
sound document and urged Council to support the staff recommendations
and put the project to a public vote.
Suzanne Esher, President of the Board of the Girl Scout Council of
Orange County, stated that other members of the Board are in
attendance. She urged Council to adopt the resolutions. She stated that
the City and Sutherland Talla have been responsive to the inclusion of a
facility that will meet the needs of Girl Scouts not only in the City but for
the other 27,000 girl members and 12,000 adult members. She urged
Council to be committed to this project and ensure that the Girl Scouts
have a continued permanent and safe facility in the community.
Linda Orozco, Newport Beach, stated that she lives across the street from
the property. She indicated that she cannot believe the EIR because she
sees the impacts from the rehabilitation center. She indicated that this
project has changed over the years from the original proposal and asked
if there is a need for it. She stated that this is an issue of public land
versus development. She indicated that she has no faith in the City's
ability to enforce its own zoning code. She urged Council to reject the
proposal.
Christopher Gabbs expressed concern with the democratic process. He
believed that the City has performed due diligence on the proposed
project. He stated that those opposed have not presented factual
evidence that the EIR is flawed. He urged Council to certify the EIR and
let the citizens vote on the project.
Mayor Ridgeway recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened the
meeting at 10:08 p.m. with all members of Council present.
Volume 56 -Page 1107
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Allan Beek, Newport Beach, stated that normally the EIR and the project
are considered simultaneously. He believed that considering the project
after November is healthy because, in the meantime, the City is not just
restricted to the hotel idea. He asked if Council is committed to this
project if the GPA is approved by the voters. He believed that the EIR is
not adequate and should not be certified since there are three technical
flaws. He stated that City Code Section 20.84 says that any timeshare
project has to have at least 100 timeshare units in it. Further, he
believed that the EIR ignored the effects on marine recreation and the
environmental effects of demolishing and rebuilding the American Legion
building. He further believed that the EIR does not compare this project
with reasonable alternatives and does not consider using the land as a
park. He suggested getting approval to use the land for housing so the
City gets income. He also suggested using the property as an aquatic
center.
City Attorney Burnham reported that the City entered into an agreement
with Sutherland Talla Hospitality four years ago, in which Council
committed to negotiate a lease of the property for resort development if
the voters approved the GPA. Following this, the City has a good faith
obligation to negotiate the terms and conditions of a lease. He indicated
that it is Council's desire to define the lease before the matter is
submitted to a vote. He clarified that, if the project does not proceed
after the City in good faith satisfied its contractual obligations, the City
could then be free to consider other plans. He emphasized that this
cannot be done if the voters approve the project and the parties reach an
agreement relative to the terms and conditions of a lease or option to
lease, and the option to lease conditions are satisfied.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the use issue is resolved by Council's
decision four years ago when it gave Sutherland Talla the exclusive right
to negotiate for a hotel development on this property and, therefore, the
EIR did not have to address this issue. City Attorney Burnham indicated
that the EIR has to address the issue, noting that it has a public
recreation alternative, evaluates continued mobilehome park use, and
evaluates a reduced intensity alternative. He stated that, in March 2003.
Council approved a project description for purposes of CEQA and a
concept that Council would pursue in terms of a lease once all of the
approvals necessary were given. Council Member Heffernan received
confirmation that this is not an EIR issue and that it broadcasted all its
uses in its analysis.
Craig Batley, Newport Beach, believed that the 400 page EIR meets the
requirements necessary, noting that there hasn't been an EIR produced
in the last ten years that hasn't had a lot of people think it is inadequate.
He urged Council to approve the EIR and submit it to the voters. He
pointed out that the Girl Scouts and the Legion support the project.
Bob Koop. Newport Beach, urged Council to certify the EIR and
supported redeveloping the American Legion and the Girl Scout House.
He expressed his hope that the residents will be involved in the future of
the property. He believed that this issue should go to a vote.
Volume 56 - Page 1108
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Iryne Black, Newport Beach, stated that even if the EIR is barely
adequate to certify, she asked how the voters are supposed to understand
it if Council can't understand it. She asked why the City didn't decide the
tidelands issue first. She believed that the EIR should be more definitive
about what the City plans to do before the voters can intelligently vote on
this or any alternative. She believed that Council is short - sighted by
putting this to the voters.
Jan Vandersloot, Newport Beach, believed that the EIR fails to address
the alternative of making the area a park, noting that it has had the
Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation for 20 years. He
stated that the Marine and Recreation alternative only provides 1.6 acres
of park out of the 8 acres. He stated that there needs to be a project
description, an analysis of what is happening with the American Legion,
and determine what is best for everyone. He asked why the City wants to
give away open space.
Stewart Berkshire, Newport Beach, stated that he lives in Marinapark
and is an emeritus professor of business and economics. He noted that
the Daily Pilot stated that the hotel will not produce the revenue
originally promised. He added that this revenue will steal revenue from
other hotels and doubted that the revenue will happen in the fourth year.
He stated that they submitted a proposal to restore the mobilehome park
to its full potential without any cost to the City and immediately increase
its return. He compared his proposal to the hotel's proposed revenue,
believing that the hotel would surpass the mobilehome park's revenue
during its 16th year of operation.
Mayor Ridgeway clarified that Council isn't voting on the approval of the
hotel, but for the certification of the EIR. He stated that the voters of the
City will be voting on the project.
Tom Naughton, Newport Beach, stated that he supports this project. He
suggested that Council certify the EIR and submit it to the voters in
November.
Dick Freeman, Newport Beach, recommended that Council certify the
EIR. He stated that Mr. Sutherland is an outstanding individual and a
good friend of his.
Elaine Linhoff, Newport Beach, stated that the City has been spending
thousands of dollars to create a new General Plan, but believed that
Council is ready to ignore or amend it at the first hint of revenue. She
referenced the harbor element and stated that the hotel is not a water -
dependent or water - related use, but it tries to make the case that it is a
water - enhanced use. She believed that the EIR should not be certified
and the responses to comments are inadequate. Further, the project
should be killed tonight by not certifying the EIR so Mr. Sutherland does
not waste anymore money trying to promote the project.
Brent Cooper, Newport Beach, stated that he is representing Stop
Polluting Our Neighborhoods (SPOINT) who believe that the EIR is not
adequate. However, he indicated that he attended the last meeting
where staff said that the EIR was legally adequate. He stated that the
Volume 56 - Page 1109
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
element of discretion and policy have been missing from the discussions.
He indicated that individual Council members should be able to vote with
their conscience. He believed that Council shouldn't let the voters decide
on this and shouldn't certify the EIR if they have problems with it.
City Attorney Burnham clarified that the EIR needs to be judged in
terms of its adequacy as an informational document and not a policy
document, and not whether it comes to conclusions that are favored by
one person or another. Further, Council has to look at the EIR not in
terms of whether it comes to conclusions that an individual Council
member or the public would like. but whether it adequately describes the
impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. He stated that. in terms
of the legal standards. the last speaker was not accurate.
Tom Hyans, Newport Beach, stated that he is the past president of the
Central Newport Beach Community Association. He believed that
Marinapark is a beautiful park, is open to the public, and is accessible.
Regarding the ballot issue, he expressed the opinion that the language
does not describe the hotel /timeshare project. He indicated that the EIR
does not show side elevations and expressed concern that the issues
regarding Mr. Talla and other individuals were discovered by his group
and not by City staff. He asked if due diligence was performed. He
stated that the citizens of the City are investing $100 million of
beachfront property into this project and indicated that he is not sure
what the City is getting in return. Mayor Ridgeway indicated that the
terms of the lease and the ownership entity information will be available.
Further, if they wanted to change the use, it would need to go through
the permitting process.
Steve Bernard, Newport Beach, stated that the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission was initially asked to review an aquatic center.
He indicated that this was presented to the City but was excluded from
the EIR as an alternative. He utilized a PowerPoint presentation to
describe the proposed project, show their proposed community- serving
aquatic park, and current views from the property. He believed that this
should've been shown as an alternative in the EIR and that the hurried
pace to qualify this for the November ballot is transparent.
Craig Morissette, Newport Beach, read his statement that he presented
to Council and stated that the EIR writes off any analysis of the impacts
to current marine uses. He noted that the beach is used by kids and
adults- He indicated that he took pictures of people using the beach and
counted 59 sailboats and 11 small motorboats at the same time on a
Monday. He asked how an EIR that doesn't acknowledge 300 feet of dock
serve the public interest. He believed that Marinapark is the only large
bayside beach that hasn't been consumed by roped off areas for
swimming and beach moorings. He noted that the EIR states that the
project will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half
court, so no significant recreation impacts will occur. He asked how
anyone knows since the impacts were never analyzed.
Jerry McClellan. Newport Beach. stated that he came to tonight s
meeting because of the 40% mathematical error that was mentioned in
the Daily Pilot. He indicated that he appreciates the City trying to find
Volume 56 - Page 1110
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
sources of revenue, but believed that it could be done in a way that isn't
going to inflame the citizenry. He asked what is wrong with improving
the mobilehome park and increasing the rent to be fair market value to
have a predictable source of income. He stated that developer's will
promise all kinds of things that financial situations cant support.
Patricia Frostholm, Newport Beach, asked that Council respond to the
citizens that want to keep this area as a park and an open place for
future generations and asked if this Council wants to be known as the
ones who sold the last park site for profit. She believed that the EIR
needs to be recirculated.
Dennis Baker read Response to Comments D -97. He believed that the
EIR did not explore a range of reasonable alternatives. He noted that it
explored having a marine center with 240 parking spaces, but it did not
explore keeping it as a park. He believed that the economic viability is
driving this as a good source of income to the City. He asked if the City
really wants to sell its park.
Joe Reebis, Newport Beach, stated that the citizens own the land that is
at Marinapark and the Balboa Bay Club. He asked, as landlords, why
they would want to create a property that will compete with another
tenant. He believed that choice reduces rates and room occupancy, and
the City won't be making more money. He believed that, except for a
couple of people, supporters of the project have been attorneys,
accountants, and real estate brokers. However, everyone opposed is a
resident of the City. He noted that Marinapark has offered a guaranteed
$1.5 million a year, adding that there has never been an eviction there.
He stated that he wants a $100 million performance bond on the project.
Pete Carolyn, Newport Beach. stated that he trained as a lifeguard for
the City in 1964 on the beach where this development will be taking
place. He indicated that this development will hinder this type of
training to continue, noting that the lifeguard station at 19th Street will
still be manned by a City lifeguard. He urged Council to certify the EIR
to allow the voters the opportunity to vote on this. He believed that this
is a great opportunity to redevelop the Girl Scout Base, as well as the
American Legion.
Larry Porter indicated that the EIR states that the project will require
more water than the other uses that were considered. He asked if it is
irresponsible to grant increased water use to a private individual for a
hotel that is not an existing use. He reported that people are saying that
the Colorado River will experience a 500 year drought and that Lake
Powell will be dry in two years. He requested that Council not certify the
EIR tonight.
Laura Dietz stated that she has served on EQAC for seven years, but has
not had any direct input into the comments from EQAC. She noted that
the EIR has been criticized for not having enough open space. However,
she reported that 36% of the City is open space, but only 10% is
commercial. She noted that there was only one project that came before
Council that qualified and pointed out that tonight is to discuss the EIR
that Mr. Sutherland put forward in good faith. She stated that the flaw
Volume 56 - Page 1111
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
in the financial statement was not done by the City or the developer, but
commended the consultant for explaining the error to everyone tonight.
She indicated that she was not thrilled with the project initially because
of the issue with the American Legion; however. that has been resolved.
She stated that the benefits from this project are significant in its totality
that she strongly recommends that Council certify the EIR and take this
to the voters.
Madelene Arakelian stated that the EIR is inadequate relative to traffic
and alternatives. She noted that voters need to realize that they're going
to vote for a change in the land use and to give away the beach. She took
issue with the aesthetics of the hotel. She hoped that Council does not
vote for the EIR.
Tom Billings, Newport Beach, stated that he is speaking on behalf of
Protect Our Parks. He believed that they call themselves Protect Our
Parks because they feel that all parks in the City are threatened by
Council actions. He indicated that Protect Our Parks oppose the FIR
because the ownership and financial stability of the project applicant has
been suspect. there is no written lease agreement, developing public
tidelands for a private timeshare hotel is against the standards set by the
California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission, the FIR
has major deficiencies, and the EIR is biased. He stated that now is the
time to give the applicant the opportunity to withdraw from the project.
He urged Council not to give away Marinapark. to vote "no" on the EIR.
and to recirculate it for further review.
Mayor Ridgeway asked Mr. Billings if he. saw that the check was from
Mr. Talla. Mr. Billings indicated that Ms. Otting provided him with a
copy of the check. City Attorney Burnham reported that the check was
signed by Mr. Rosenfeld.
Everett Delano. attorney from Escondido, indicated that he provided a
letter earlier today. He agreed that CEQA does not require perfection,
but it requires information that allows for a reasonably informed
decision. He noted that the FIR is supposed to be roadmap and should
present the environmental price tag for what is going to come. He
indicated that. H Council votes to certify the EIR, Council is saying to the
residents /voters that they have the roadmap and all the information
needed to make a decision. He believed that Council does not have this
picture before them right now. He expressed the opinion that Council
can't certify the EIR tonight. He noted that the California Department of
Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission staff, the Newport
Beach Harbor Commission, and the State Lands Commission have
criticized various aspects of the EIR.
Peggy Fort, Newport Beach, stated that she is the owner of a local
marketing firm that specializes in tourism, hospitality, and economic
development. She expressed her support of the project because it will
beautify the neighborhood and benefit the City in the future. She urged
residents to visit www.marinal)arkresort..com to get more informed about
the plan. She stated that it is sad to see an individual's character or a
consulting firm be unfairly scrutinized. She urged Council to support the
recommendations to certify the EIR if they feel it is the appropriate thing
Volume 56 - Page 1112
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
to do and give all the residents the opportunity to vote on this issue.
John Buttolph. Newport Beach, stated that he is not on anyone s team
and is not interested financially in the outcome of the project: however,
he is interested in the democratic process. He believed that the ill -
advised agreement has really hamstrung the process. He noted that a
specific exception was carved out in the Greenlight law for this project
because Council entered into an agreement with this developer. He
indicated that, if Council certifies the EIR, it will tell the voters that
Council looked real hard at this project, its alleged deficiencies, and
comments from proponents and opponents, and at the end of the day
Council exercised its discretion in favor of the EIR and the project. He
pointed out that the agreement states that the City retains full discretion
to certify the EIR, emphasizing that it does not create an obligation on
the part of Council to approve or give special consideration to the project.
He believed that the process has been rushed due to the agreement and
to get it on the November ballot. He added that the EIR does not
adequately consider the alternative of leaving it a public park which it is
supposed to be. He pointed out that Balboa Bay Club was supposed to be
preserved for public use.
Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, believed that none of the Council members
or any City employee should be allowed to submit arguments on this. He
stated that, since this is public land, the people who are for and against
the proposal should present the arguments and rebuttals.
Irene Dunlap, Newport Beach, asked whether all City -owned parkland
will be vulnerable to the same kind of development in the future if the
voters change the designation. City Attorney Burnham expressed the
opinion that this is will not happen since this would be a vote about a
particular parcel and GPA. Ms. Dunlap believed that this land shouldn't
be considered leverage for commercial development and profit.
Richard Luehrs, President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
and resident. reported that, following hearing presentations on the EIR
and the project. the Board of Directors voted to request that Council
certify the EIR and present the project to the voters. He believed that
building this project will not remove the public from this parcel.
Steve Sutherland. applicant, stated that he is present to answer any
questions Council may have.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mr. Sutherland
stated that Mr. Talla was not involved in today's payment.
Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that a couple of the speakers
talked about the EIR failing to analyze the impacts on marine recreation.
She reported that issue was scoped out of the EIR during the initial study
process. She stated that the study indicated that the City is going to
continue its sailing program on the beach and, therefore. this is why they
did not think there was an impact and did not require a full discussion in
the EIR.
Volume 56 - Page 1113
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27. 2004
11017 W1
Assistant City Manager Wood stated that there were comments about not
discussing the effects of demolishing and rebuilding the American Legion.
She reported that the American Legion is not part of the project, it had
been at one point, but not when they started the EIR. She stated that it
was her understanding that the improvements to the American Legion
will be made with some contribution from the hotel developer and would
be for remodeling. She indicated that she has not heard that the building
was going to be demolished and remodeled; however, if this was the
proposal. it would need to receive its own environmental review.
Assistant City Manager Wood believed that a couple of the speakers
confused the market study done by PKF with the fiscal impact analysis
done for the City. She explained that the market study looked at the
economics from the developer's point of view. She stated that all of these
conclusions become assumptions in the fiscal impact analysis which looks
only at the consequences to the City in terms of revenues and
expenditures. She noted that one of the speakers said that the error in
the fiscal impact analysis would mean that the room rates would be much
lower than $376. She indicated that this is not the case, reporting that
the error in the analysis occurred when converting the amount of rent
that the project would pay from 2010 dollars to 2004 dollars. She stated
that the only impact would be to the City's net revenue, which has
nothing to do with what the hotel would be able to generate and whether
the hotel would be feasible or not.
Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that Mr. Berkshire assumed
that the relocation cost to the City would be $4 million: however, the
preliminary cost is $1 million. She added that Mr. Berkshire stated that
the hotel is not projected to make money for the City until the fourth
year. She clarified that the fiscal impact analysis shows that, in the first
year of operation, the City would already be receiving $1.8 million in net
revenue. She stated that the fourth year was the year used to compare
against the existing uses on the site. She explained that the fourth year
was used because this is when the occupancy and the room rates would
be more stabilized.
Assistant City Manager Wood indicated that Mr. Buttolph stated that. if
Council certifies the EIR. it will send a strong message to the voters that
this is a project that should be approved. She noted that she started her
planning career in New Jersey in which there is no environmental law at
the time. She stated that, even though she feels that CEQA has done
some good things and improved the planning process, she indicated that
the planning process in California has been frustrating because too much
weight has been placed on EIRs. She indicated that people assume that,
if you can mitigate all the impacts, it must be a good project. She stated
that this is not necessarily the case since the EIR only gives
environmental information. but there is still a policy decision to be made.
In this case, it will be made by the voters rather than Council. She stated
that the question ultimately is what should be the future use of this
property be.
City Attorney Burnham added that questions were raised about what the
EIR evaluated in terms of alternatives. He reported that the EIR
evaluated continued mobilehome use and found that this is the
Volume 56 - Page 1114
City of Newport Beach
Citv Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
environmentally superior alternative. He added that the EIR also
evaluated marine and recreation alternatives. He reported that the
aquatic center use encompasses 1.64 acres of parkland, 1.92 acres for a
Girl Scout Community Center, 1.2 acres of tennis/basketball courts. 2.77
acres of beach slip parking area, and .5 acres of meter parking. Further,
it has 20 boat slips and a public boat launch facility. He reported that it
has all the components of the plan without the 110.000 square feet of
development or the restaurant which would generate substantial
additional traffic when compared to this project. He noted that the
Newport Aquatic Center (NAC) does generate substantial traffic. He
reported that the 4,500 square foot restaurant in the third alternative
generated almost as many trips as the 80 room resort that was evaluated
in that alternative. He stated that he, Chris Taylor, the Planning
Commission, and the EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that an EIR, under CEQA law, does not need to
consider every conceivable alternative to a project. He indicated that this
EIR evaluated reasonable alternatives. City Attorney Burnham added
that Mr. Buttolph was correct in stating that the agreement with
Sutherland Talla does reserve to Council the full discretion to decide
whether this EIR is adequate or not.
Council Member Bromberg stated that, a year ago, Council promised that
before this issue goes to a vote it would be sure there was an EIR, a fiscal
analysis, and lease terms but not a lease agreement. He indicated that a
number of speakers believe that the project, the EIR. and the hearing
have been rushed through. He reported that he sits on EQAC who
reviewed the EIR and submitted 23 pages of comments. Further, this
was reviewed by the Harbor Commission and the Planning Commission.
He noted that this was also reviewed at two City Council study sessions,
Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission meetings, and two City Council
public hearings. lie pointed out that this had eight total reviews. He
stated that EIRs are one of the easiest documents to find something
wrong because they are hundreds of pages long. He indicated that this is
why CEQA has so much latitude. He believed that the bottom line is
that, if the people of the City don't want the parcel to be a hotel, they
should tell Council. He noted that, in 2000, the mantra was to let the
people vote on this.
Council Member Nichols stated that he sits on EQAC and Council
Member Bromberg was not present the night this was brought up. He
agreed that there were 22 pages of comments, but EQAC recommended
that this go out and come back to them for review but there was no time.
He stated that it was rewritten by Assistant City Manager Wood to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Assistant City Manager Wood
clarified that she never rewrites EQAC comments on EIRs where the City
is the lead agency. She added that responses to comments are never
brought back to EQAC, but go directly to the Planning Commission.
Council Member Nichols indicated that they felt on EQAC that, after 22
pages of comments, it was inadequate. He noted that recreational use
and the continued use of the property were scoped out. He believed that
the recreation element needs to be looked at and that the current use
would produce more money than the proposed hotel use. He noted that it
would take three years to see revenue since the first year would be used
Volume 56 - Page 1115
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
to take the mobilehomes out and two years to build the hotel. Council
Member Nichols stated that he was sorry about how the contract was set
up, believing that the City does not do due diligence on the people it is
dealing with until after the vote. Further, he was sorry that the right to
negotiate is with a sole person. He indicated that he is not sure if this is
in the best interest of the City.
Mayor Ridgeway clarified that, under the trust agreement and the State
Lands Commission, residential use is not an appropriate use on that
property.
Council Member Webb stated that, for as long as he has commented on
this project, he has had some problems with it. He noted that he asked
that something be considered that was a pure park use. He pointed out
that the recreation and open space element said that this area has little
vacant land for development. Further, park needs could be satisfied via
renovation and upgrading facilities such as those at Marinapark. He
added that active park facilities are desirable, along with support
facilities. He asked, if the hotel was developed and takes up the space,
where on the Peninsula is the City going to replace it. He noted that
either Las Arenas Park or the public beach would be lost to the public.
Council Member Webb stated that the report indicates that no open space
would be lost because it is currently occupied by the mobilehome park.
However, if the mobilehome park was not there, the City would have
open space to lose. He continued by stating that the open space element
does not indicate specific facilities that should be provided onsite so,
therefore, the project includes an amendment to the recreation and open
space element that would remove the reference to future opportunities at
this project site. He stated that, rather than discuss the impacts of how
the City is going to get the same amount of recreational use on the
Peninsula, the way it handled it was to remove reference to it in the open
space element. He indicated that this is not appropriate. Council
Member Webb stated that the EIR has worked hard to answer everyone's
question; however. he still feels that there should be an opportunity to
discuss what the real impacts will be relative to the loss of recreational
uses on the Peninsula.
Council Member Rosansky stated that he is a little ambivalent about
what is the best use on this property. He indicated that he was not on
Council when many of the agreements were entered into. He agreed that
Council needs to focus on what they are really voting on tonight and
believed that they need the input from the voters. He stated that he is
not normally in favor of taking projects to a vote; however, this is City
owned property and it is important. Further, it is important to take the
next step. He expressed the opinion that the EIR process has been
extensive and there were a number of meetings and a lot of input. He
believed that Council is ready to take the next step.
Mayor Pro Tern Adams indicated that he will make the motion but
suspects that there will be discussion about the ballot language.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Adams to 1) adopt Resolution No. 2004 -68
(Exhibit A) certifying that the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the Project fully complies with the California Environmental Quality
Volume 56 - Page 1116
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, making the findings required by
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the Project; 2) adopt Resolution No. 2004 -69 (Exhibit B),
pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter, the Measure S Guidelines
and the agreement between the City and STH dated March 11. 2003,
submitting to the electorate at the regular municipal election on
November 2, 2004 proposed amendments to the Land Use Element and
the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan pertaining
to the Project and Marinapark (Property); 3) adopt Resolution Nos. 2004-
70 and 2004 -71 (Exhibits C and D) authorizing any member or members
of the City Council to file arguments in favor of, or against, the proposed
amendments. directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial
analysis and authorize rebuttals; 4) receive and filed the Fiscal Impact
Report prepared by Applied Development Economics and the Market
Analysis prepared by PkF Consulting; and 5) receive the report of the
Marinapark Negotiating Committee (Ridgeway and Heffernan) regarding
the status of discussions with the Project proponent (Bayside), regarding
a lease of the Property and approve the recommendations of the
Committee regarding appropriate lease terms and conditions.
Council Member Heffernan indicated that he will be voting against the
motion because he thought this has been backwards from the beginning.
He stated that, when voters passed Greenlight, they expected the project
to be reviewed thoroughly. He noted that there is not one rendering of
the project and no layout tonight. He stated that the EIR is a slick way of
getting the voters to vote on this issue. He noted that the composition of
the parties involved have changed in the last month and believed that the
City is nowhere near the terms of a ground lease for this project. He
added that the Planning Commission has not even dealt with the details
of this project or weighed in on it. He indicated that EQAC even stated
that the FIR was not adequate. He believed that this was flawed from
the beginning when the Council before him gave the exclusive right to
negotiate. He stated that he does not think the voters are going to know
what they are voting on. He indicated that. if this is the end result of
certifying the EIR, he cannot do it.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that he is not approving the project, but is just
seeing if the EIR is adequate. He indicated that this will be going to a
vote. He reminded everyone that they demanded a vote through its
approval of Greenlight, Council wants to put this to a vote, and now
People oppose doing this.
Mayor Ridgeway asked that Council omit or amend Recommendation
No. 3 which authorizes Council to file arguments in favor or against the
measure. He stated that, if this is approved, Greenlight will not have the
ability to write a response because one of the Council members has
already indicated that he wanted to write an argument against the
measure. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked what will happen if this is
deleted. City Attorney Burnham indicated that he is not sure if a Council
member will have the legal authority to file an argument if Council does
not authorize a Council member or members to do so. He believed that
Council can authorize an argument in the affirmative in order to allow
the opposition to be dealt with in the normal manner for ballot measures.
Volume 56 - Page 1117
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Mayor Pro Tem Adams amended his motion to authorize any
member(s) of Council to file an argument in support.
City Clerk Harkless indicated that the direct argument can be signed by
one to five Council members. Mayor Pro Tem Adams expressed concern
about violating the Brown Act. City Attorney Burnham noted that
Council can have a special meeting to prepare arguments, one to three
Council members can prepare the argument, or one Council member can
prepare the argument individually or in conjunction with other
individuals. Mayor Pro Tem Adams asked if the motion tonight can
identify a member of Council to author the argument. City Attorney
Burnham stated that authorizing no more than three Council members to
sign the argument resolves the Brown Act issue. Mayor Pro Tem Adams
received confirmation from Mayor Ridgeway that he could be responsible
for that.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams amended his amended motion to authorize
the Mayor to prepare the argument in support of the proposed
amendment on behalf of the City Council; and that Council remain silent
about filing the argument in opposition.
Council Member Rosansky believed that this should be all or nothing. He
stated that Council should be afforded the ability to talk on either side or
not to talk about it. City Attorney Burnham stated that his
interpretation of the Elections Code is that, if Council does not authorize
a member to file an argument either for or against the measure, then the
member does not have the legal authority to file an argument. Council
Member Rosansky asked if it would then be open to the public to submit
their own arguments. City Attorney Burnham indicated that there is a
general peeking order established in the Elections Code.
Council Member Rosansky made a substitute motion to not allow
Council to designate anyone to write an argument in favor of or against
the ballot measure.
Council Member Bromberg asked whether Council is precluded from
adding their name(s) to the argument if no one is designated from
Council to write an argument in opposition. City Attorney Burnham
indicated that he has not checked case law, but it has happened before
and has happened in this City. He clarified that Council has to authorize
a Council member or members if they are going to file the argument on
behalf of or against the measure. However, in the past a member of
Council has signed an argument without Council authority. City Clerk
Harkless emphasized that adoption of this resolution gives Council the
priority to submit arguments, but Council does not have to exercise this.
City Attorney Burnham stated that, if Council does not authorize any
Council member to file an argument, the Council member does not have
the authority to file the argument. However, if a Council member does
not file an argument, the Elections Code then defaults to the next entity,
which is a bona fide citizens group. He believed that the Elections Code
squarely addresses the issue of allowing a Council member to sign with a
bona fide citizens group.
Volume 56 - Page 1118
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
Council Member Nichols asked what would happen if both he and
Council Member Webb wanted to file separate arguments. City Clerk
Harkless reported that Section 9287 of the Elections Code states that, in
selecting the argument, the City's election official shall give preference
and priority in the order named to the arguments of the following: a) the
legislative body or member(s) of the legislative body authorized by that
body; b) the individual voter or bona fide association of citizens or
combination of voters and associations who are the bona fide sponsors or
proponents of the measure; c) bona fide associations of citizens; and d)
individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure. Mayor Pro
Tem Adams stated that, if Council doesn't authorize anyone, they aren't
given priority. City Attorney Burnham agreed that a Council member
would not have priority over a group if they are not authorized.
Council Member Heffernan stated that this is backwards again if there is
no City Council input. He indicated that the voters want to know how
the legislative body felt about this project with the project details. He
noted that there is no project detail and now there is going to be no input
about how Council feels about this when the voters are supposed to work
through all the details and make an informed decision. City Attorney
Burnham reported that the contract with Sutherland Talla that was
approved in March 2003 established this process and reiterated that it
was approved by every member sitting at the dais except for Council
Member Rosansky. He stated that it was based on a recommendation by
a subcommittee because they had not drafted the GPA language. He
noted that, if the City entitled the resort the way it typically did, it would
not require a vote. However, if you put the resort in terms of rooms and
floor area which the current Measure S guidelines now require, it
would've required a vote_ He emphasized that Council decided that this
is an important project and it should be put before the electorate and it
should be done in a way that maximizes the information. He stated that
the City has adhered to this process since the agreement was approved.
Council Member Heffernan stated that City Attorney Burnham
represented that night that, if Council went along with the contract that
was proposed, the voters would have as much information if it had gone
through the Planning Commission and Council. He indicated that he
does not see this. City Attorney Burnham believed that the EIR is a very
thorough document that has elevations and more details about the
project than would typically be in a GPA. Council Member Heffernan
stated that the Planning Commission and Council never specifically
focused on the details. City Attorney Burnham reported that Section 423
of the Charter only requires voter approval of a GPA. He stated that
there typically is an EIR for a significant project, but not all the
approvals are always included. Further, there would be no fiscal impact
analysis, market analysis, or the level of review that occurred with this
project.
Council Member Rosansky stated that he does not feel that it is a good
idea to leave the opposition argument to be written by Greenlight
because it gives the impression that Council is supporting the project and
not giving the other Council members the chance to write an argument.
He indicated that the intent of his substitute motion is to either authorize
Council to write both the argument in favor or against, or not be able to
write either argument. He stated that he is willing to change his motion
Volume 56 - Page 1119
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
INDEX
to say that Council will reserve the write to draft the arguments to favor
or against the measure, and designate Council members.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams agreed, adding that Council members who want
to participate in writing the argument in opposition can volunteer to do
so, and those wanting to participate in writing the argument in favor can
volunteer to do so. Further, they can solicit feedback from the
community to craft the language. City Attorney Burnham added that. if
Council authorizes a Council member to file an argument, they are not
precluded from combining with citizens who are like- minded in signing
the ballot argument.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested asking the Mayor to solicit volunteers
on both sides so they could be designated. City Attorney Burnham
believed that adopting the resolution that authorizes any member of
Council to sign an argument for or against the measure addresses the
issue. He stated that staff will research the Brown Act question.
Mayor Pro Tem Adams indicated that the motion is now back to
the original motion.
Regarding the ballot measure language, Council Member Webb asked if
"110 guest units" will be interpreted in the future as being 110 fractional
units. City Attorney Burnham stated that there has not been a
determination that there will be. fractional units. He reported that there
is nothing in the General Plan that calls out timeshares or fractional
units as a specific land use. He explained that this is part of a resort or
hotel, and is a more general terminology in the land use element than a
specific use. He added that this is the same reason they did not include a
lobby, spa. cafe, or restaurant since they are typically associated with a
resort. He stated that fractional units can be included, but noted that
there is a 75 word limit. Mayor Ridgeway suggested including, "and up
to 12 timeshare ". Mayor Pro Tem Adams suggested "and not more than
12 timeshares" City Attorney Burnham stated that he could include
"including up to 12 timeshare units" in parentheses after °110 guest
units ". Council Member Webb suggested changing "bayside property" to
"hayfront property ", and taking out "guest" in "guest units ". City
Attorney Burnham indicated that he does not want people to think they
could have dwelling units.
City Clerk Hark-less read the amended ballot measure language and
reported that it is 75 words long. City Attorney Burnham agreed with
Mayor Ridgeway's suggestion to amend the language to read, "inclusive
of 12 timeshare units" so it does not sound like they can add 12 more
units.
In response to Council Member Rosansky's questions, City Attorney
Burnham reported that the American Legion is on a separate parcel of
land according to the legal description in the 25 -year lease. He indicated
that the City has not violated the Subdivision Map Act because it can
divide property without complying with the Subdivision Map Act. He
noted that the American Legion was allocated 7,000 square feet in the
land use element to keep it separate. Council Member Rosansky asked if
the change in the land use designation will not include the American
Volume 56 - Page 1120
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
Legion Post so it will remain recreation and environmental open space.
City Attorney Burnham confirmed, adding that the American Legion is a
private club but is a permitted use in the recreation and environmental
open space designation.
Council Member Heffernan asked if there is anything in the ballot
measure that ties it to the EIR's detailed description. He suggested
changing the ballot measure to state "as referenced in..." City Attorney
Burnham noted that the ballot measure is limited to 75 words and this is
the purpose of the impartial analysis which is 500 words. He indicated
that this will give him a chance to try to explain what has happened in
the EIR, what the City has committed in terms of the project
development standards, and the process that would follow. He added
that the City also has the ability to put all of the information in the FIR
on its webpage and explain what the City has done so far, what the
project would look like, and what it intends to do if the voters approve the
GPA. City Attorney Burnham stated that you can't guarantee that the
voters will see the FIR, but you can provide them every opportunity to
see it.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to amend the
language in parentheses to read, "including 12 timeshare units ".
The original motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams. Mayor Ridgeway
Noes:
Heffernan, Webb, Nichols
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Without objection. Mayor Pro Tern Adams moved to continue the
remainder of the agenda except Item 19.
N. CURRENT BUSINESS - taken out of order.
19. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROCKY
POINT PUMP STATION.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that Assistant City Manager Wood provided a
redrafted letter. Council Member Webb asked if he could work with staff
to make some additional modifications. He believed that the
environmental document has not discussed issues like control of methane
gas and traffic control.
Motion by Council Member Webb to approve and authorize the Mayor
to send a letter after he works with staff on amendments to the letter.
Council Member Nichols asked if it would be possible to have someone
from EQAC review the comments after the rewrite. Mayor Ridgeway
stated that this could be done in the future.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Volume 56 - Page 1121
IIU7tK1
1(100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
Ayes:
Heffernan,
Ridgeway
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
K. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Rosansky, Bromberg, Adams, Webb, Nichols, Mayor
Jim Hildreth, Newport Beach, referenced paragraph 6 of the key points
in the City's webpage regarding him. He stated that there are no piers in
the Grand Canal, but access structures called platforms and steps. He
believed that the date was wrong and the City did not say they were
putting in a ladder, but a public access structure. He took issue that the
access structure was also called a dock. He believed that the ladder was
installed in March 2000. Further, the City's willingness to have access in
that location is well documented.
L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES -
None.
M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT
17. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JULY 22, 2004.
Continued to August 10, 2004
N. CURRENT BUSINESS
18. NEWPORT BAY WATERSHED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND
APPOINTMENTS THERETO. Continued to August 10, 2004.
O. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY- 13, 2004 AND ADJOURNED REGULAR
MEETING OF JULY 19, 2004. Continued to August 10, 2004 (Mayor
Pro Tern Adams abstained from voting on this item).
6. PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JENNIFER
BRANIN FOR NEWPORT COAST ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
REVIEW. Continued to August 10, 2004.
8. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 94 (PACIFIC DRIVE). Continued to
August 10, 2004.
9. REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR PROPOSED UNDERGROUND
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 95 (AREA BOUNDED BY L
STREET, BALBOA BOULEVARD, CHANNEL ROAD AND OCEAN
BOULEVARD). Continued to August 10, 2004.
P. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None.
Volume 56 - Page 1122
INDEX
(100 -2004)
(100 -2004)
C -3720
Assessment District
Review (38/100 -2004)
Assessment District
No. 94/Pacific Drive
(89/100 -2004)
Assessment District
No. 95
(89/100 -2004)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 27, 2004
Q. ADJOURNMENT - at 1:15 a.m. on Wednesday, July 28, 2004, in honor of
enlisted men and officers who are coming back from Iraq for rest and
will be returning to Iraq.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on July 21, 2004, 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 56 - Page 1123
INDEX