Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/1992 - Regular Meetings CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _-9 Present x x x x x x x Motion x All Ayes Motion x All Ayes Motion All Ayes C x REGULAR COIINCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:00 P.M. DATE: September 28, 1992 Mayor Sansone presented Proclamation designating October, 1992 as NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH RECOGNITION MONTH to Jean Boyd and Connie Bean. Mayor Sansone accepted the presentation of second gift of $360,000 to the City for the construction of the new CENTRAL LIBRARY from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation by Elizabeth and John Stahr, Co- chairmen (refer to agenda no. 10). Reading of the Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of September 8, and Regular Nesting of September 14, 3.992, was waived, approved as written, and ordered filed. Reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. 1. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing regarding CONSTRUCTION OF CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG 62ND STREET BETWEEN NEWPORT SHORES DRIVE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Report from the Public Works Department. It was recommended that inasmuch as staff did not deliver, mail or post the notices in time to hold a lawful hearing tonight, the public hearing be rescheduled to the meeting of October 12, 1992. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, motion was made to continue the above hearing to October 12, 1992. 2. VACATION OF STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR THE CONVERSION OF PUBLIC STREETS TO PRIVATE STREETS WITHIN TRACT NO. 7247 (SPYGLASS RIDGE). Report from the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director stated that in response to a petition received from property owners in the Spyglass Ridge community, and a request from the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, the proceedings for abandoning the public street easement in that area have been initiated. The analysis is rather extensive and is described in detail in the staff report. The staff feels that the proposed vacation of the streets can be satisfactorily accomplished if a number of conditions are fulfilled which are enumerated in the staff report. He highlighted some of the proposed conditions, and in doing so, recommended that Condition No. 10 be deleted as it is felt the concern is adequately addressed in Condition Nos. 2 and 3. He Volume 46 - Page 311 Iw Cnstr 62nd /Btw Npt Shrs_ Dr /PCH (74) Street (90) Rdg CMMIL M99ER6 0 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 noted that seven of the property owners who signed the petition for the vacation have rescinded and withdrawn their names. He stated that a letter was received in opposition to this proposal from Karl. Wolf to which the City Attorney has responded, and is included with the staff report. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the City Attorney and staff that this vacation can proceed and that the objections Mr. Wolf has raised have been satisfactorily answered. In response to inquiry by Mayor Sansone, the City Attorney stated that the Spyglass Ridge Community Association has amended its CC&R's to cause the Association to take over the operation and maintenance of any streets vacated by the City Council. The CC&R's also provide that no obstruction or structure can be built within the right -of -way that would[ interfere with access. The Public: Works Director also pointed out that the residents have been informed of the costs of the proposed vacation as set forth in the petition, as well as the estimated annual cost to the homeowners. Reference was made to the letter from Karl Wolf dated August 10, 1992, to which the City Attorney responded that he supports staff's position that the Association will have control over the streets once they are vacated. He stated that inasmuch as the Association has amended their CC&R's to provide jurisdiction over the streets, they have covered their bases, and if the property does not revert to the adjoining homeowners, it is his opinion, the property reverts to the homeowners association. Ken Petersen, 1600 Sea Bell Circle, President of Spyglass Ridge Community Association, reviewed the history connected with this proposal; stated their committee has worked long and hard with the homeowners and the City to get this matter to this point; and they feel it is a win -win situation for everyone involved, and urged its approval. Dr. Donald Turner, 3938 Ocean Birch Drive, Member of the Board of Directors of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association, stated they are grateful for all the help they received from the City relative to this project; however, they would like to request that Condition No. 7 regarding the retaining of the 15 foot easement and the placement of the sidewalk to provide for the public view of Buck Gully be deleted. lie stated that they appreciate the fact that the City is attempting to protect the public interest regarding the view; however, they feel there has not been any public interest demonstrated. The condition would also place an unnecessary financial burden on their Association. Volume 46 - Page 312 7042111 INDEX Vacation/ Spygl Rdg COUNCIL MEIN 0 • • W, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 Jim Manning, 3841 Ocean Birch Drive, stated he was in support of the proposed vacation and to make the area a private community. The "vista" is primarily enjoyed by the people in the neighborhood, and he feels that what The Irvine Company will be providing in the future "up the hill" will be a much better alternative as to a view with much improved parking. He noted that even though seven property owners have withdrawn their support for the vacation, it still leaves 75% of the community association in favor of privatisation. John Atkin, 1601 Castle Cove Circle, spoke in opposition to the proposed vacation, stating he does not want to live behind a "gate." He feels the proposal will change his lifestyle and that the existing "village" atmosphere should be allowed to remain. Karl Wolf, 1633 Castle Cove Circle, stated he was in opposition to the proposal for the reasons enumerated in his letter to the City Council on August 10, 1992. He stated his main concern was the liability for the 10 foot high sound wall constructed in the right -of -way on Ocean Birch by The Irvine Company, with the approval of the City and without objection from the homeowners: association. He stated that children could fall from the wall resulting in a lawsuit against their association; therefore, he felt it would be "unconscionable" for the City Council to approve, this vacation without a clear understanding as to who will end up owning the streets and thereby be liable. He also cited what he felt were errors in the proposed resolution. In conclusion, he urged the Council not approve the proposal in the absence of 1008 support from the homeowners association. In response to Mr. Wolf, the City Attorney stated he does not think the City Council would have a problem requiring the association to add the word "homeowners" to 1.(a) and 1.(b) of the resolution so that the policy insurance and the obligation for indemnification would extend to the City and the individual homeowners. In addition, the City could also condition the resolution of vacation on the recordation by The Irvine Company of a quitclaim deed, quitclaiming all their rights, title, and interests in the streets to the homeowners association. He felt that if the resolution is modified whereby the homeowners are named insured on the policy of insurance, and if the resolution is amended so that the association has the duty to defend and indemnify the homeowners with respect to the use of the streets, this should alleviate some of Mr. Wolf's concerns. Volume 46 - Page 313 Lsi0 Rdg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS \ \ \�0�1 *1\ September 28, 19'92 • Motion All Ayes • E x Robert E. Harris, 1600 Reef View Circle, addressed the Council and stated that he is president of his own insurance agency and specializes in underwriting homeowners associations, developers and contractors. He discussed liability issues, and advised that the proper way to insure it homeowners association is by way of a comprehensive general liability insurance policy. The policy can be written in any amount; insure the community association and its members jointly or individually; and can include any liability assumed by contract. . Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Following additional discussion, Council Member Cox moved to adopt Resolution Mo. 92 -102, deleting Condition Ho. 10 as recommended by staff, and Condition Ho. 7 as requested by the homeowners association, as well as the deletion of Item (e) and (i) in the proposed resolution.. In addition, that Item 1 (a) be amended to reflect that the insurance policy limits be raised to five million dollars, and that "individual members of the homeowners association" be added to both 1 (a) and 1 (b); that the policy of insurance Includes the assumption of liability by contract; that sections 1 (a) and 1 (b), include the approval of the resolution of vacation as an event which the association has to protect the City should there be litigation; and lastly, to amend the resolution to provide for any hardship cases that may arise; further, find that the following streets are unnecessary for present or prospective public use and ordering the vacation subject to conditions, of Reef View Circle, Harbor Crest Circle, Castle Cove Circle, Bay Cliff Circle, Sea Bell Circle and a portion of Ocean Birch Drive and Spy Glass Hill Road, located in Tract Ho. 7247; authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the Spyglass Ridge Homeowners Association providing for the fulfillment of the conditions attached to the vacation with the form and content of the agreement to be approved by the City Attorney and the Public Works Director; and direct the City Clark to have the agreement and resolution concurrently recorded by the Orange County Recorder after the agreement has been executed. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing regarding Modification Mo. 4039 (called up by Council Member Hedges at the Council meeting of September 14, 1992) - Request to permit the reconstruction of an existing second floor deck and railing (11 feet 8 inches± in height) which currently encroach five feet beyond the front property line, into the public right -of -way along West Ocean Front. The revised deck and railing are Volume 46 - Page 314 MINUTES Vacation/ Spygl Rdg (94) 4039 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES September 28, 1992 proposed to encroach five feet into the Modifica- required five foot front yard setback, tion 4039 where the Zoning Code limits such construction to three feet in height; • located at 7400 West Ocean Front, on the southwesterly corner of West Ocean Front and Olive Street, in West Newport. Report from the Planning Department. The Planning Director noted that the existing deck is being modified to conform to the City's Oceanfront Encroachment Policy. The deck currently extends 10 feet beyond the home (five feet beyond the property line). The applicant is removing the front five feet of the deck, and the second five feet between the home and the property line is proposed to remain. The deck takes access from the second floor window slider, and if the modification is disallowed, the glass slider would have to be removed and replaced with fixed windows. The Modifications Committee approved the subject request on September 1, 1992, but it was called up by the City Council on September 14, 1992. The Modifications Committee was of the opinion that since the proposed deck is adjoining a second floor sliding door, and since the Uniform Building Code requires some form of safety railing, that the applicant's request • was reasonable in this particular case. Charles Goldsworthy, applicant, 7400 West Ocean Front, addressed the Council in support of his request. He stated he purchased the property in 1988 and the existing deck was in place at that time. It is his understanding from neighbors that the deck was built some 25 years ago. When he bought the property, he was not aware that the deck was illegal and encroached onto City property. When he was notified by the Public Works Department that he would need to modify his deck, he did not realize he would have to remove the full 10 feet, and that is why he applied for a modification. He displayed four photographs of homes along the Ocean Front where similar encroachments exist and stated that his house is not the only one that has a balcony in the setback area. He stated there are no objections from his neighbors; that he felt his request was reasonable due to the circumstances in the area, and urged approval of the request. Angelo Cassara, 7306 W. Ocean Front, and • David Granoff, 7308 W. Ocean Front, addressed the Council in support of Mr. Goldsworthy's request, stating the proposed modification will not block either of their views. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Vollme 46 - Page 315 • Motion A* N Motion Ayes Noes r i !a r a•.. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 Council Member Hedges commented that after reviewing the City's Oceanfront Encroachment Policy, he could not locate any contemplation that property would be allowed to continue to encroach into the setback line. The four homes depicted in the photographs referenced by the applicant will also have to be brought into compliance with City policy by way of either reconstruction or demolition. He felt it would be unfair to allow the proposed second story modification and indicated he will oppose the request. Council Member Plummer indicated she felt the whole issue of balconies encroaching into the setback area should be reviewed further, rather than dealing with individual property owners case -by- case at this time. x Council Member Cox commented that he did not feel it was appropriate for the City to penalize a property owner who bought his residence three years ago by having to "tear -it- apart" to conform to code, when in fact the house did comply with City code years ago. He also felt this was a subject the Council has dealt with many times before throughout the City, and in many instances, the properttes were allowed to be "grandfathered ".in. In view of these comments, he moved to sustain the action of the Modifications Committee and approve the request. In response to questions raised by Council Member Hart, the Planning Director advised that the staff was unable to locate a building permit for the deck; however, there was a building permit issued for the dwelling itself which referenced the glass slider on the second floor, "and if the deck was not permitted, there would be a glass slider going out into thin air." Council Member Turner pointed out that it is a known fact that all along the oceanfront: there are a number of encroachments without the benefit of permits, and as a result, the City did adopted an Oceanfront Encroachment policy. However, the City also has other policies which allow modifications to setback areas to allow such encroachments. Therefore, he felt the recommendation of the Modifications Committee should be upheld, recognizing that the City is attempting to bring the properties along the Ocean Front into conformance to the best of the City's ability. x x x Following discussion, the motion to x x x x sustain the action of the Modifications Committee was voted on and FAILED. x In view of the foregoing, Council Member x x x x Hedges moved to overrule the decision of the Modifications Committee and deny the x x x request. Volume 46 - Page 316 O „i ma Modifica- tion 4039 jV [414 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \7\ September 28, 1992 4. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing regarding Modification No. 4040 (called up by Council Member Hedges at the Council meeting of September 14, 1992) - Request to permit the reconstruction of an existing first floor deck and railing (6 feet 4 inches± in height) which currently encroach 5 feet± beyond the front property line, into the public right -of -way along West Ocean Front. The revised deck and railing are proposed to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback, where the Zoning Code limits such construction to 3 feet in height; located at 7306 West Ocean Front, between Olive Street and Sonora Street, in West Newport. Report from the Planning Department. The Planning Director noted that the revised deck and railing are proposed to encroach five feet into the required five foot front yard setback, where the Zoning Code limits such construction to three feet, in height. The applicant was not aware: that in addition to the required removal of existing improvements within the public right -of- way, that a five foot front yard setback is required for construction above three feet in height (except for permitted bay windows and eaves). Upon the applicant's effort to obtain a building permit to reconstruct the first floor deck and railing, he was informed that a modification to the Zoning Code was required. The finished floor level of the first floor is approximately three feet four inches above the sand, because the sand in this location forms a hole in front of the dwelling. There is also a stair that goes from the finished floor elevation of the deck down to the sand which has been previously allowed by the Public Works Department in accordance with the Oceanfront Encroachment policy. If this modification is denied, the property owner would be required to remove the entire deck, and close up the slider opening in the front of the structure. This request was unanimously approved by the Modifications Committee. Angelo Cassara, 7306 W. Ocean Front, applicant, stated he purchased the home in May 1987, and the deck existed at that time. He thought the deck was permitted and he was unaware of any encroachment problems until he received notification from the Public Works Department. As a result, he worked with the staff' in developing the proposed modification. David Granoff, 7308 W. Ocean Front, stated he has reviewed the Oceanfront Encroachment Policy and understands the Council's position; however, in this particular instance, "the issue is only a matter of five feet." He stated he felt the City Council's priorities are in the wrong direction. Volume 46 - Page 317 MINUTES ua Modifica- tion 4040 [x:'11 • 0 Motion All Ayes is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL �1\�� 1k01* \ September 28, 1992 X Jerry Cobb, 6304 W. Ocean Front, spoke in support of the applicant. Be stated that the last few blocks along the Oceanfront near the Santa Ana River jetty are very irregular as to ice plant, sand dunes, and variations of three to four feet, and as a result, he is sympathetic with the applicant's problem. With reference to Mr. Goldsworthy's request, he felt there was a big difference between the five foot setback on private poroperty and what is taking place in the encroachment zone, and that in both instances, the primary concern is; the five foot setback. As Council Member Cox indicated, there are hundreds of locations throughout the City where 20 to 30 year old existing conditions were allowed to encroach into private property setbacks. Charles Goldsworthy, 7400 W. Ocean Front, spoke in favor of Mr. Cassara's request, stating that the proposed deck is beautiful, and to deny his application would be "nit - picking." He felt the Oceanfront Encroachment Policy was enacted for "flagrant violators," and not people such as the applicant. Nancy Goldsworthy, 7400 W. Ocean Front, addressed the Council in favor of the applicant's request, stating she is a registered architect, and when the subject property is viewed from the ocean, the grade is approximately one foot below the existing height of the deck rather than the three foot floor adjacent to his residence. Also, the dunes in that area appear to be quite permanent due to the planting, and therefore, she felt the modification would be in conformance with Coastal Commission regulations. Nearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Plummer stated that due to the unusual circumstances involved with this request, she would move to sustain the decision of the Modifications Committee and grant the request. It was also indicated by the Council that they would like to re- visit, at a future study session, the issue of encroachments exceeding three feet in height within the required front yard setback along the Oceanfront. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing regarding: A. General. Plan Amendment No. 92 -2(B) - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to alter the dwelling unit allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. F -3 in order to allow the subdivision of an existing R -1 Lot into two single family building sites consistent with the Volume 46 - Page 318 .►(,!11 ; ma Modifica- tion 4040 (45) 92 -2(E • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 19,92 minimum subdivision standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; AND B. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 29 - Request to amend the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan so as to alter the dwelling unit allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. F -3 in order to allow the subdivision of an existing R -1 lot into two single family building sites consistent with the minimum subdivision standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; AND C. Resubdivision No. 981 - Request to consider an appeal of the property owner C. L. Burnett, Newport Beach so as to resubdivide an existing lot into two parcels of land for single - family residential development on property located in the R -1 District; 2209 Bayside Drive, on the southerly side of Bayside Drive between 81 Paseo Drive and Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Nar. Report from the Planning Department. Appeal application from C. L. Burnett. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, four letters were received In su000rt of the resubdivision from the following: Anthony V. Guanci, John A. Furnish, Michael R. Farley and Harry A. Wallace; and In addition, two letters were received in opposition from Rob Hixson and Judy Hodges. The Planning Director noted that the above three applications were all denied by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1992. He stated that although the subject parcel is of such a size and width that: it can be subdivided pursuant to the City's Zoning and Subdivision Code, the Planning Commission in reviewing the series of requests, were primarily concerned that the current General Plan does not allow the further subdivision of larger parcels into smaller lots for the purposes of allowing additional dwelling units, and it was the intent of the Planning Commission in disallowing this particular amendment to adhere to the requirements which were established by the City in 1988 when the General Plan was amended. Also, there was some concern expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the location of this property on Bayside Drive, and the volume and speed of the traffic on the street, specifically with access to an additional lot. Since this particular application was denied, the staff has received an inquiry regarding another subdivision of a large lot on the inland side of Bayside Drive which will also require a General Plan Amendment. Volume 46 - Page 319 29 am k w «- • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 Lynn Burnett, 706 Harbor Island Drive, applicant, addressed the Council with the following information in support of his request. He and his wife own the property on Bayside Drive with another couple. Their property falls within Statistical Area No. F -3 of the General Plan which has 900 existing dwelling units and projects future growth of 172 additional units. With respect to the resubdivision, there are three major issues: 1) Bayside Drive access to the site, 2) lot size, and 3) appropriateness of the resubdivision in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Because Bayside Drive between El Paseo and Carnation Avenue is a winding road, they have given careful consideration to site access, and therefore, the proposed resubdivision would locate driveways at the center of the lot so that visibility to the left or right is optimum (displayed in the exhibit of the proposed driveway access). "in addition, on -site parking and vehicular circulation has been designed so that cars can quickly exit Bayside Drive when entering the site, and because all turning movements take place on -site, cars will head out onto Bayside Drive rather than back out when leaving. The present size of the subject lot is .58 acres or 25,221 square feet, but because of the approved policy regarding bulkhead location for the property, places the bulkhead 40 feet landward of the property line, approximately 4,000 feet is lost to the seaward side of the wall. Taking this into account, the net overall lot size is still in excess of 21,000 square feet. The net size of each parcel is still twice the minimum lot size specified in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Both parcels comply with minimum design standards relative to lot area, width and depth. In conclusion, they feel that two homes would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than would a single home of almost 27,000 square feet, and urged approval of their request. Charles Wheeler, 401 Avocado Avenue, owner of the property adjacent to the applicant, expressed his concern with regard to speeding traffic on Bayside Drive and the backing of vehicles out onto Bayside Drive. The staff informed Mr. Wheeler that if the subject request is approved, Condition of Approval No. 4 provides that vehicular access onto the property shall be designed so that automobiles will not have to back out onto Bayside Drive. Volume 46 - Page 320 MINUTES 3PA 92 -2(B: I"ZK" • Motion • E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS VI; \1 A\ September 28, 15192 94 Jan Vandersloot, 2221 16th Street, stated he well remembers the public hearings :relative to the General Plan Amendments: in 1988, and the discussions on the in -fill policy. He felt this request is a resurrection of that in- fill policy, and if the resubdivision is approved, it will open the door to other property owners of large lots. He reminded the Council that shortly after the 1988 General Plan Amendments were approved, a request to subdivide a large lot on Cliff Drive was denied, and therefore„ he felt the Council should deny this request in order to maintain the integrity of the 1988 General Plan Amendments. Judy Hodges, 2200 Bays ide Drive, addressed the Council in support of allowing the applicant to construct only one single family home on the lot and not two dwellings as requested. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Turner spoke in support of the request, stating that he felt by building two homes rather than one, a better view corridor would be created, and due to the size and width of the lot, he moved to overrule the recommendation and action of the Planning Commission; and adopt Resolution No. 92 -103, adopting General Plan Amendment 92 -2(B), amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to alter the dwelling unit allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. F -3 in order to allow the subdivision of an existing R -1 Lot into two single family building sites consistent: with the minimum subdivision standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and adopt Resolution No. 92 -104, approving Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 29 so as to alter the dwelling unit allocation and policy statements for Statistical Area No. F -3 in order to allow the subdivision of an existing R -1 lot into two single family building sites consistent with the minimum subdivision standards of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and approve Resubdivision No. 981 subject to the applicable findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A ". Council Member Watt stated she also remembers the discussions that took place during the 1988 General Plan hearings, and how the Council attempted to provide "safety in numbers" per se, and how the Council tried very hard to not allow density to continue to exacerbate all our other problems of traffic and congestion in neighborhoods. Philosophically, she felt the Council should adhere to the 1988 General Plan desire to leave some larger lots and some provisions for keeping congestion to a minimum in the various neighborhoods throughout the City. Volume 46 - Page 321 MINUTES INS( GPA 92 -2(B s 92 -103 92 -104 • Ayes Noes • E CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 17 a rir.. RRIMAX-0 xlxlxlxlxlxlx September 28, 1992 Council Member Cox stated he also recalls the discussions of what the Council's intentions were when adopting the 1988 General Plan Amendments; however, he does not feel the City Council could foresee at that time how larger vacant lots were going to be developed in the future. In this particular case, inasmuch as there is an oversize :Lot and the evidence itself demonstrates there is room for adjustment to the General Plan, he will support the motion. Mayor Sansone stated that if this application is approved, he would like to see the language in Condition of Approval No. 8 relative to the construction of a five foot wide sidewalk "tightened up," as he does not want decorative sidewalk installed, and with a restriction that no vehicles be allowed to park on the sidewalk. Mr. Burnett agreed to the above recommendation. The motion was voted on and carried. 5.A Public hearing regarding proposal to issue Revenue Refunding Bonds (HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN). Report with proposed resolution from the City Attorney. The City Clerk noted that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Jan Vandersloot citing 17 questions he felt the staff should ask Hoag prior to approval of their request. The City Manager reported that Hoag Memorial Hospital is requesting the City Council to authorize the issuance of revenue refunding bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 898,500,000 to be used for improvements to their property, acquire hospital equipment, and fund implementation of the Hoag's Master Plan. It is Hoag's desire that the 1984 revenue bonds be refinanced to today's lower interest rates. Reference was made to the City Attorney's memorandum on this subject wherein it: was noted that: "The proposed issue provides a number of benefits to the City. First, Hoag will be able to save money using the proceeds of tax exempt bonds to finance the construction of improvements and purchase equipment - -a cost savings that: should be passed along to Newport Beach residents in the form of reduced health care costs. Second, Hoag will be able to improve the quality of health care and do so quickly because it will have funds necessary to acquire Volume 46 - Page 322 MINUTES 92 -2(B; (40) Rev 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 28, 1992 state -of -the -art equipment and Hoag Rev construct improvements to the Bonds campus. Finally, Hoag has agreed to contribute approximately $200,000 towards the construction of public improvements in the vicinity of the Hospital. "Bond counsel for the City has structured the issuing documents so that payment of the bonds is strictly limited to funds received from Hoag or Credit Suisse (the financial institute providing liquidity support for the bonds) and investment earnings on the proceeds. Bond counsel has confirmed that the bonds are not a lien on, or charged against, any fund, revenue or property of the City. The only downside to the City is the investment of a small amount of staff time to review documents and issue opinions." The City Manager stated that based on the significance of this issue, some Council Members have expressed a desire to continue the hearing to October 12, and if that is the feeling of the entire Council, then following public testimony at this time, the staff can address the concerns in a report to the Council on October 12. Peter Foulke, Chief Finance Officer at Hoag Hospital, addressed the Council and stated that they have no objection to continuing this hearing to October 12; however, any longer than that could pose a problem because their existing letter of credit will expire a short time after that date. one of the reasons for refinancing is to change the credit bank with a higher credit rating. Council Member Hart stated that she has a number of questions relative to this matter and offered to meet with representatives of Hoag to discuss them. Michael Stephens, President, Hoag Hospital Presbyterian, stated that revenue bonds issued in 1984 were $62.5 million and the current principle is $58.6 million. Tax exempt bonds for hospital purposes are very commonly issued in. California; consistent with the not - for - profit status of those hospitals, and provides a lower rate of interest. The support of the community and the authorization for the issuance of tax exempt bonds has enabled Hoag Hospital to be ranked 23rd (ranking from highest to lowest) of 33 hospitals in Orange County with respect to average daily charge, and 25th of 33 with respect to average total charge for the entire patient's stay. The reason they are requesting new bonds is twofold: 1) given the deterioration and credit rating of American banks, the backing given to their bonds is significantly Volume 46 - Page 323 ROLL • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \ \\ September 28, 1992 more expensive as the rating of those banks drop, and 2) the balance (the difference between $58.6 million and $91 million) will be used for the purchase of equipment, capital projects, etc. Steven L. Maler, Attorney and Bond Counsel, commented that his practice is devoted exclusively to the handling of tax exempt financings for hospitals and colleges. He stated that the proposed refinancing is structured to fully protect the City with full indemnifi- cation; ark agreement with Hoag to pay all costs connected with the financing; there will be no liability to the City, and the financing will not affect the City adversely to borrow on its own credit. Owen Minney, 447 Nnewport Boulevard, addressed the Council and posed the question: "If the proposed resolution authorizing the issuance of the revenue bonds is not adopted, he would be curious to hear Hoag's comments on what will happen?" Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, addressed the Council and read into the record his letter of September 27, 1992, citing 17 questions he would like the City Council to ask staff and Hoag representatives. In conclusion he stated that "he was not comfortable with the way this request for a bond issue has been made and that it should have been part and parcel of the Master Plan hearings so that the alternatives could have had more careful financial analysis by an independent third party, with the City's participation in the financing of the expansion kept in mind to keep down costs. Also, to portray this bond as a cost savings to health care recipients in Newport Beach is pure BS without guarantees by Hoag and oversight by the City to make sure health care costs are lowered. This bond will probably be used to pay for the increased costs involved in grading 170,000 cubic yards of the lower campus, paying for the increased costs of building in water, over earthquake faults and within a gas mitigation site, ultimately exposing the people of Newport Beach to significant public health and safety hazards as identified in the Master Plan EIR, not a benefit at all to the people of Newport Beach." Joanne Burns, 300 Cagney Lane, addressed the Council and stated that she opposed Hoag's Master Plan when it was before the Council some months ago and is also against the subject proposal. She posed questions to the City Attorney relative to conflict of interest rules and inquired about the revenue bonds issued in 1984. She indicated she did not feel "this situation was a good one" for the City to be in. Volume 46 - Page 324 MINUTES 3oag Rev 3onds COUNCIL MEMBERS *19101 • So order • • �f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 15192 Rosemary Steinbrecher, 100 Schultz Plaza, also addressed the Council in opposition to Hoag's request. She asked questions of Hoag's representatives to respond to at the next Council meeting regarding their existing letter of credit and the 1984 bond issue. She stated she felt the City was granting a 10 year program of favortism to Hoag Hospital to the detriment of surrounding residential property owners, and that this matter, as well as other major issues proposed by Hoag, should go to a vote of the people. In conclusion, she urged that the City Council not "cater to this special interest group." Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, Mayor Sansone moved to continue this public hearing to October 12, 1992. PUBLIC COZHD?N'PS The Mayor read into the record the following statement: "The Newport Beach City Council reaffirms its complete support and commitment to its policy of a workplace free of discrimination or ]harassment. In the last week several employees have alleged that members of the Police Department violated this policy. The City intends to complete a full and unbiased review of these charges as provided under our policy. "If the results of our investigation find any improper activities under our policy than our City Manager will take immediate and appropriate corrective action. If our independent review determines no wrong doing, then we will totally comit the City's resources to defending the recently filed lawsuit. "The City Council reaffirms its support for the men and women serving the City's Police Department. The City has and will continue to have a top quality Police Department. Any future questions on this issue by the press or public should be directed to our City Manager due to the sensitive nature of the issues and the fact that this is now a matter of pending litigation." Volume 46 - Page 325 MINUTES Rev Motion All Ayes 0 • X CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 CONSENT CALENDAR The following actions were taken, except for those items removed: RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 6. Resolution No. 92 -105 establishing a revised SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE BALBOA PISS PARSING LOT AND CORONA DEL MAR PARSING LOT and rescinding Resolution No. 91 -24.. [Report from the Revenue Manager /Finance Department] 7. Resolution No. 92 -106 recognising the contributions of the NEWPORT MESA IRVINE INTERFAITH COUNCIL to community harmony and interfaith understanding. [Memorandum from the City Attorney] 8. Resolution. No.92 -107 supporting the California Governor's proposal an WORKERS COMPENSATION REFORM. [Report from the City Manager] REQUEST TO APPROVE/FILL PERSONNEL VACANCIES: [Report from the City Manager] 9. One Equipment Operator II, General Services Department. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS For Council information and approval: 10. Memorandum from the Board of Library Trustees and Newport Beach Public Library Foundation concerning PRESENTATION (GIFT) FROM THE NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION. 11. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 12. (Refer to agenda item number 5.A under Public Hearings) For Council information and filing: 13. Report from the Planning Department concerning actions taken by the PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1992. 14. CONTRACT NO. 2879(C) - NEWPORT BEACH UTILITIES YARD E%PANSION, PHASE I - Approve the Project Plans and Specifications; and authorise the City Clerk to advertise for bids for Construction to be opened October 15, 1992, at .10:00 a.m. [Report from the Utilities Department] 15. SPECIAL EVENTS APPLICATIONS - Uphold staff's recommendation to approve the following application (refer to report from the Revenue Manager), subject to conditions in the staff report: Voltage 46 - Page 326 MINUTES • • Motion Ayes Noes • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH x Ix Ix Ix Ix Ix Ix September 28, 1992 APPLICATION NO. 92 -389 - Request for outdoor use of amplified sound In a residential area at the Eastbluff Homeowners Association Clubhouse, by Mr. and Mrs. Alan Maudsley on Saturday, October 10, from 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. for a wedding reception. 16. BUDGET AMENDMENTS - For approval: BA -007, $50,683.63 - Increase in Budget Appropriations, and decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance to budget for expenditures already authorized by Council to pay out on enhanced terminations pay for various retirees; Various Department Account Funds. Apli 92- 389 (40) BA -008, $2,800 - Increase in Budget Appropriations and decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance to budget for a donation for the Literacy Volunteers of America for the purchase of Library computer equipment; Library Fund. [Memorandum (50) from the City Librarian] ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Item No. 11. Memorandum from the City Attorney Council concerning amendment to COUNCIL POLICY Policy L -14, OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT (Existing L -14 Landscaping in "Pier Area "). (69) Council Member Hart stated that she removed this item from the Consent Calendar inasmuch as she felt a full public hearing should be held on this matter, and therefore, will be voting to not approve the recommendation. In view of the foregoing, Council Member Hedges moved to adopt the proposed modifications to Council Policy L -14 as shown on Exhibit "A" with the understanding that the modifications are not effective until the City Council and Coastal Commission have approved any required amendment to the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 17. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92 -36, being, Ord 92 -36 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (45) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR UPPER CASTAWAYS (PLANNING COMMISSION JPCA 764) AMENDMENT 30. 764). Request to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Upper Castaways. This request would provide for the construction of 151 dwelling units and senior citizen housing; property located at 900 Dover Volume 46 - Page 327 CODICIL MEMBERS I Motion All Ayes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 Drive, on the southeasterly side of Dover Drive between Westcliff Drive and West Coast Highway; AND Proposed ORDINANCE N0. 92 -38, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT RE- ZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS RAYVIEW LANDING FROM THE U DISTRICT TO THE P -C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BAYVIEW LANDING (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 767). Request to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 37 so as to reclassify property from the U (Unclassified) District to the P -C District. Also requested is the adoption of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for Bayview Landing. This request would provide for active and passive recreational uses on the site; property located at 951 Back Bay Drive, on the northwesterly side of Jamboree Road between Back Bay Drive and East Coast Highway, across from the Villa Point Planned Commenity. Report from the Planning Department. The Planning Director advised that the above two proposed ordinances have been prepared in accordance with Council action; however, the explanation of each document on the agenda is in error, and therefore, stated that the language "and senior citizen housing" should be deleted from the paragraph above with Ordinance No. 92 -36; and the explanation with Ordinance No. 92 -38 should be amended to delete the words "active and" and add the language after the word uses,. . . "and restaurant, athletic club or senior citizen housing . . . ." Notion was made by Council Member Hart to adopt Ordinance Nos. 92 -36 and 92 -38 as corrected in the foregoing. 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE VACANCY: Motion I x Motion we,, made to confirm (District 4) Ales Mayor Pro Test Turner's appointment of James Farrell to fill the unexpired term of Cheryl. Jaffee ending December 31, 1992. 19. Memo from the Planning Department concerning appointments to the OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD SPECIFIC ARRA PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE, and proposed resolution. Volimae 46 - Page 328 MINUTES Ord 92 -38 GPA92 -2(C) (45). 767 Old Npt SAP Ad Hoc (24) Irke1A • Motion All Ayes • Motion All Ayes x �` .f x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 It was recommended the City Council adopt the proposed resolution repealing Resolution No. 92 -95; and make appointments to the subject Ad Hoc Committee. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Jerry V. Tucker, Temporary Chairman of Old Newport Boulevard Property Owners Association, stating that at their first meeting on September 27, some very important issues were brought up which they feel need to be addressed prior to the appointments to the subject Ad Hoc Committee; and therefore, the twenty members present were unanimous in their vote to ask for a 60 -day postponement for the reasons stated in their letter. In view of the foregoing, motion was made to not adopt the proposed resolution and defer action on the appointments to this committee until November 23, 1992. Sid Soffer, owner of property on Old Newport Boulevard, addressed the Council and stated that he had attended the September 10 meeting of Old Newport Boulevard area property owners, business owners and residents, and it was his understanding at that meeting there was not be any residents from Newport Heights appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee, which is contrary to what is recommended on the agenda and in the staff report. Council Member Hedges commented that he also attended the same meeting, and that there probably has been a misunder- standing which will be corrected between now and November 23. 20. Memo from Deputy City Manager concerning appointments to AD HOC NEST NEWPORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from Robin Sinclair, 216 34th Street, asking to be considered for appointment to the above committee. Notion was made to confirm the following appointments: Lyndi Fauria, Year -Round Resident/Homeowner David Goff, Year -Round Resident/Homeowner Max Morgan, Year -Round Resident /Homeowner Sally Cook, Real Estate Industry Representative experienced in rentals in the study area Todd. Schooler, Architect /Planner Volume 46 - Page 329 MINUTES M01_I J WNptCP Ad Hoc Cmte (24) • • C �f CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 28, 1992 Rush Hill, Architect /Planner Paul. Balalis, At -Large Member v/broad community experience residing outside of the study area Debbie Allen, At -Large Member v /broad community experience residing outside of the study area Jan Debay, Planning Commission Representative Meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m. to closed session to review pending litigation. The meeting reconvened at 11:15 p.m. and immediately adjourned with no action taken. m * * * yt yr tk tlk sr sr & a• m The agenda for this meeting was posted on September 24, 1992 at 8:15 a.m., on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ATTEST: I Volume 46 - Page 330 rim INDEX