Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments - Non-AgendaCC �+�+nee a' rry n7`2Pa .r pe �Ynk� P�wre i o. QQ J) �\ C. Newport . Citizens For Safe Speeds ccEV1UVCGty S NC)m --ToP 1 C- Newport Beach City Council, September 10, 2013 Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council — My name is Geoff Willis and I am a partner at Sheppard Mullin and am here tonight representing Newport Citizens for Safe Speeds. For the past two years you have received incorrect guidance from your staff regarding dangerous and unsafe speeds of drivers on residential streets in Newport. I have worked with City staff for the past nine months attempting to correct what originally looked to me like a simple misunderstanding of the law. Tonight, I have provided you with copies of the written communications with staff and other materials detailing the simplicity of the solution to this dangerous problem. You have been told that you have no choice but to raise speed limits on residential streets if speed surveys show that the majority of drivers are driving faster than current speed limits. This is simply not true. On residential roads not a part of the state or federal highway system, you as the City Council, have virtually unfettered discretion to set speed limits and CalTrans has a policy specifically deferring to your discretion. In 2006, you adopted an ordinance creating "traffic calming measures" for situations just like what we are talking about tonight where driving speeds in residential areas consistently exceed safe speeds. In other words, if drivers are consistently breaking the speed limit on a street, the City could take steps that would result in slower and safer speeds. SMRH:410083625.1 Unfortunately, in 2011 you were incorrectly told that you had no choice but to raise speed limits to match unsafe driving speeds rather than taking steps to slow down dangerous drivers. The truth is that many of your neighboring cities including Fullerton and Mission Viejo and many others have taken exactly the opposite approach and redefined streets as local and reduced speed limits to 25. These changes were made even where speed surveys had previously shown faster driving speeds. The City of Truckee has defined all of its roads as "local" and reduced speed limits to 25 for the entire town. The proposed changes by each of these cities have been approved and supported by CalTrans. Staffs mistake is simple, they have based all of their opinions on the belief that clearly residential streets are somehow NOT residential as defined by the California Vehicle Code. No explanation is given for this belief and it is simply wrong. The California Vehicle code defines a street as "residential" if it is faced by 13 or more houses. As shown in the pictures presented to you, this particular section of local road is faced by 21 houses. The facts are the same in more than a dozen neighborhoods where speeds have been increased despite unreasonable safety risks. Your complete discretion to set safe speed limits is emphasized in the Vehicle Code which states that speeds should be set taking into paramount consideration what is reasonably safe. All of the streets in question are zoned residential and designated as residential under your General Plan. The solution to return Newport's streets to safe speeds is simple, approve a road map plan change and submit it to CalTrans recognizing these residential roads as local. CalTrans has reviewed and approved these requests routinely. CalTrans has provided your staff with the application and directions on how to seek approval for these changes. SMRH:410083025.1 -2- I hope that tonight can open a dialogue so that the City can act to reduce speed limits and to consider traffic calming measures on streets currently unsafe. SMRF1:410083625.1 '�' May 1, 2013 VIA E -MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Aaron Harp City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Email: aharp @newportbeachca.gov Re: Speed Limit for Tustin Avenue Between 22nd and 23rd Dear Mr. Harp: Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Canter Drive. 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 main 714.513.5130 main fax www.sheppardmullin.com 714.424.2894 direct gwillis@sheppardmullin.com File Number: 35AZ- 176259 I have been retained by a group of Newport Beach residents concerned about the health and safety risks caused by cars travelling at high rates of speed on Tustin Avenue between 22nd and 23rd streets (the "Segment "). This Tustin Avenue Segment is narrow (less than 36 feet wide), entirely residential, lacks sidewalks and is functionally further narrowed by prevalent street parking. Speed of traffic concerns on this Segment are made even more significant by the fact that the lack of sidewalks results in residents frequently biking, running or walking their dogs in the street just beyond cars parked on the street. It is apparent from simple visual observation that the vast majority of the traffic on the Segment is travelling at speeds far in excess of the speed limit. Until City residents raised concerns about the dangerous speed of the flow of traffic, the Segment had an unposted prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour. A 25 mile per hour speed limit is consistent with the City's General Plan (http://www.newportbeachca.gov /PLN /General Plan /Figures /FigCE1 MasterPlanofStreetsandH ighways 11x17color web.pdf). Despite this planned and safe speed limit, it was obvious from simple visual observations that the vast majority of the traffic on the Segment was travelling at speeds far in excess of that speed limit. These anecdotal observations were later demonstrated to be accurate by a traffic speed survey conducted by the City which showed that 85% of the traffic on the Segment was travelling at 36 miles per hour or faster, at least 11 miles per hour faster than the then current speed limit. A copy of that City traffic speed survey is attached hereto. From anecdotal observations, virtually all of the traffic on the Segment (90 % +) is using the Segment as a cut - through to either avoid the slowing caused by the presence of crossing - guards on nearby Santa Ana Avenue during the morning rush hour or the slowing caused by Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page 2 multiple stop lights on Irvine Boulevard in the afternoon. These natural "traffic calming measures" on other streets has unfortunately dramatically increased the number of cars and the speed of those cars on the Segment. Residents first contacted the City about the unsafe traffic speed conditions on the Segment almost two years ago. Residents near the Segment were seeking the "traffic calming measures" required by the Newport Beach City Code through City Policy "L -26" adopted on September 12, 2006, and attached to this letter. As stated in the City's Policy, in the case of unsafe traffic speed conditions like those found on the Segment, the City should take steps to reduce the speed of traffic on the Segment to reduce average speeds to safe conditions. In pertinent part the City's Policy provides: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY The City has developed Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines in an effort to provide residents with traffic concerns access to traffic management measures that can serve to alleviate their concerns. It is the intent of this policy to identify traffic calming measures; establish speed and volume thresholds for the implementation of measures; and define step -by -step procedures to address neighborhood traffic concerns. GENERAL The Goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program are A. Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with "demonstrated speeding concerns" (as defined in this Policy) to levels consistent with residential speed limits, or other posted speed limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code or the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local (cut- through) traffic by making the streets less attractive as commuter routes. C. Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs that will address residential traffic concerns This shall be accomplished by the preparation of a traffic calming pamphlet; holding neighborhood meetings; and public hearings before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. D. Implementation of selective police enforcement actions in neighborhoods with traffic related concerns. E. Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times, which may potentially be caused by implementation of neighborhood traffic calming measures. SheppardMullln Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page 3 F. Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one residential street (or neighborhood) to another when implementing traffic calming measures. G. Respond to complaints in a timely manner. The City's adopted Traffic Calming Policy was directly triggered by the concerns of the City residents near the Segment. The City's need to utilize its Traffic Calming Policy was made even more clear by the criteria established under the Policy itself: The implementation of Level 2 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph. 2. The section of road shall have no more than one lane in each direction, and shall be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb - to -curb. The street segment shall also be at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs. 3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500 and 4000 vehicles per day. 4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85 percentile speed is greater than 32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or greater than 37 mph on a posted 30 mph street. Speeds above these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern." 5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6 percent or less. 6. The street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment such that there is adequate sight distance, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. Level 2 measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of traffic to parallel local residential streets. 8. Proposed Level 2 measures will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety response times. All of these criteria are met by the conditions on the Segment and the City should have implemented Traffic Calming Measures. City staff did begin the street safety review process IIT�'�333 = Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page4 correctly by agreeing to conduct a traffic speed survey on the Segment. Not surprisingly to the Segment's residents, the traffic speed survey showed that the vast majority of the cars traveling on the road were driving at least 11 miles per hour faster than the then current prima facie 25 miles per hour speed limit for the Segment. A simple reading of the City Policy quoted at length above demonstrates that the traffic speed survey results should have required staff to consider and implement Level 2 Tools as provided in the Policy. Instead, City staff turned the adopted City Policy on its head and made traffic conditions on the Segment more dangerous by actually increasing the speed limit on the Segment and posting 30 miles per hour speed signs overriding the previously unposted prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. In written communication to City residents, City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer Tony Brine detailed his legally incorrect reasoning for raising the speed limit on the Segment: The Vehicle Code outlines a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph would apply to a local street "unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code ". The procedures set forth in the Vehicle Code indicate that the results of an "engineering and traffic survey" have to justify the prima facie speed limit or the roadway can be designated a "speed trap ". This is the process that was used to establish all of the speed limits throughout our city. Caltrans Policy Directive 09- 04 and the California MUTCD both state that "When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed ". The speed limit can be reduced an additional 5 mph with conditions and justification. This is a Standard, not guidance. The term "shall" is mandatory. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to determine if a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is appropriate. With the 85% speed of 36 mph, the lowest we can set the speed limit on Tustin Avenue is 30 mph, Perhaps the city of Truckee felt comfortable that a 25 mph was the correct posting on their roads. It is my responsibility as City Traffic Engineer to continue using the Caltrans Policy Directive and the MUTCD as the method to establish the proper speed limits in our city, and not make Tustin Avenue an exception to the rule. Westminster Avenue and Cliff Drive are both streets within residential areas with 30 mph speed limits. The final speed for this segment of Tustin Avenue should be, and will remain, at 30 mph. This is the appropriate and enforceable speed limit. (Emphasis in original.) Attached to this letter is a copy of this correspondence from the City Traffic Engineer. �x 70D =, 9e Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page 5 According to this opinion from the City's Traffic Engineer, the results of the traffic speed survey gave the city no choice but to increase the speed limit for the Segment. Unfortunately, the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer is simply legally incorrect and actually improperly reverses the presumption of California law that safety is the first and primary concern when establishing a speed limit. The opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer is in opposition to both CalTrans' policies and the policies of cities around the state of California that have kept their focus on safety first. If the City continues to follow this incorrect legal opinion, my clients fear that the City will incur the significant and continuing liability coming from speed limits set without concern for safety. The California Vehicle Code is very clear about the priorities and findings the City must make in determining speed limits. The prima facie limits are as follow and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code, and, if changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof: (2) Twenty -five miles per hour: (A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residential district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code. Cal.Veh. Code §22352 (a)(2)(A). There are several essential findings a City must make before increase the prima facie speed of a street: Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45,50, 55, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonably safe. Cal.Veh. Code §22357 (a)(emphasis added). Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour in a business or residence district ... is more than is reasonably safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonably safe. Cal.Veh. Code §22358.3(emphasis added). Mr. Aaron Harp May 1, 2013 Page6 Accordingly, in direct opposition to the opinion provided by the City Traffic Engineer, the City has absolute discretion to decrease, increase or keep unchanged a speed limit, regardless of any traffic speed survey, based upon what the City determines to be "reasonably safe." In fact, if the City raises the speed limit (as it has already done in the present case), it is required to make all of the following legally supported findings: (1) the increase in speed limit is necessary to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic; (2) the increase in speed limit is both reasonable and safe; and (3) that a change in speed limit is the most appropriate to facilitate orderly movement of traffic AND is safe. Instead, the City Traffic Engineer did not allow the City to make any of these findings and instead incorrectly opined that the City had no legal choice but to increase the speed limit based upon the traffic speed survey. The opinion of the City Traffic Engineer would render the City's Traffic Calming Policy moot if it were followed. According to the City Traffic Engineer, whenever the City is faced with a traffic speed survey that shows that drivers are travelling greatly in excess of the speed limit, the City should simply raise the speed limit to match the reckless and unsafe driving speeds measured rather than take any of the recommended measures in the City Policy to reduce traffic speed to match the conditions of the street. Under the City Traffic Engineer's theory, there would NEVER be a time when the City's Traffic Calming Policy could be implemented because the City would always be required to raise the speed limit to match the reckless speed of current drivers. The City Traffic Engineer's opinion would eliminate the application of the City Policy to ANY driving or street conditions. This nonsensical result is neither legally correct, consistent with City and state policy nor in any way logical. The City residents near the Segment are seriously concerned that someone is going to be killed by drivers travelling at unsafe speeds. The City has made worse, not better, the driving safety concerns on the street by actually raising the speed limit instead of following its own Policy and putting in place traffic calming measures. We respectfully request that the City take appropriate action to reverse the decision to increase the speed limit on the Segment to 30 miles per hour, that the City act to reduce the speed limit on the Segment to either 20 or 25 miles per hour, that the City put in place reasonable traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on the Segment back to safe speeds and that the City address the Citywide misapplication of state and City laws by a City Traffic Engineer which is putting the residents of the City at risk every day. Sincerely,, Geoffrey K. Willis for SHEPPARD %,MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP t SMRH:408406289.1= Attachments cc: David Kiff, City Manager, City of Newport Beach David Webb, Director of Public Works, City of Newport Beach Tony Brine, Traffic Engineer, City of Newport Beach Tustin Ave between 22nd St & 23rd St Count Data 02/20/2010 02/21/2010 02/22/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010 02/25/2010 Direction Data Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Daily Total 503 491 709 724 767 743 NB 85 %Speed (mph) 35.0 36.1 36.4 36.1 35.0 36.5 Daily Total 360 334 555 550 513 544 SB 85% Speed (mph) 1 36.8 1 36.3 1 37.7 37.4 36.7 37.2 NB +SB Combined Daily ITotal Volume 863 825 1264 1274 1280 1287 + Counters installed 2/19/2010 and removed 2/26/2010 L -26 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT POLICY The City has developed Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines in an effort to provide residents with traffic concerns access to traffic management measures that can serve to alleviate their concerns. It is the intent of this policy to identify traffic calming measures; establish speed and volume thresholds for the implementation of measures and; define step -by -step procedures to address neighborhood traffic concerns. GENERAL The Goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program are: A. Manage the speed of vehicles on residential streets with "demonstrated speeding concerns" (as defined in this Policy) to levels consistent with residential speed limits, or other posted speed limits as determined by the California Vehicle Code or the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Discourage the use of local residential streets by non -local (cut - through) traffic by making the streets less attractive as commuter routes. C. Develop and emphasize focused neighborhood educational programs that will address residential traffic concerns, This shall be accomplished by the preparation of a traffic calming pamphlet; holding neighborhood meetings; and public hearings before the City Traffic Affairs Committee and the City Council. D. Implementation of selective police enforcement actions in neighborhoods with traffic related concerns. E. Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times, which may potentially be caused by implementation of neighborhood traffic calming measures. F. Limit the potential for shifting traffic from one residential street (or neighborhood) to another when implementing traffic calming measures. G. Respond to complaints in a timely manner. L-26 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TOOL BOX Traffic management measures generally fall into three (3) categories: A. Level 1 Tools are comprised of actions and programs that are primarily educational and enforcement based. These tools include neighborhood meetings, police enforcement, signing, and the use of a speed radar trailer. B. Level 2 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to address documented speed concerns. These tools include road narrowing, chokers, gateways, traffic circles, speed bumps, speed tables, and intersection charmelization. C. Level 3 Tools include the construction of physical improvements to reduce traffic volumes on a local residential street. These tools include neckdowns, turn restrictions, cul -de -sacs, diagonal diverters, half -closures. The definitions for the different traffic calming tools are included in the Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines document. OMS The implementation of Level 2 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The street should be primarily a local, residential street with a posted (or prima facie) speed limit of 25 mph or 30 mph. 2. The section of road shall have no more than one lane in each direction, and shall be a maximum of 44 feet in width curb -to -curb. The street segment shall also be at least 800 feet in length, and have no intermediate STOP signs. 3. The volume of traffic on the street shall be between 500 and 4000 vehicles per day. 4. A speed survey must demonstrate that the 85 percentile speed is greater than 32 mph on a posted 25 mph street, or greater that 37 mph on a posted 30 mph street. Speeds above these thresholds indicate a "demonstrated speed concern'. 2 L -26 5. The street must have a sustained longitudinal grade of 6 percent or less. The street must have a horizontal and vertical alignment such that there is adequate sight distance, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Level 2 measures will not be installed if, in the opinion of the City Traffic Engineer, they will result in excessive diversion of traffic to parallel local residential streets. 7. Proposed Level 2 measures will be reviewed by the Police and Fire Departments for potential impacts to public safety response times. The implementation of Level 3 Tools will be considered for those public streets meeting criteria 1, 2, 6, and 7 as noted above, and as required by Level 2 Tools. In addition the following criteria must be met: 1. The volume of traffic on the street shall be greater that 4000 vehicles per day. PROCESS The following step -by -step procedures will be used by the City to address neighborhood traffic concerns: A. A resident will inform the City of a potential problem area. Any traffic calming request is required to include a petition signed by at least five (5) residents within the immediate vicinity of the problem area. B: The City will review the roadway conditions and collect the appropriate traffic speed and volume data. If it is determined that an immediate safety issue exists, staff will initiate a project to address the situation. Otherwise, staff will initiate the appropriate Level 1 traffic calming measures. C. The Level 1 measures shall be in place for a minimum of three (3) months. If the Level 1 measures do not address the residents concerns, the City will review the traffic data that has been collected, discuss the issues with the Police and Fire Departments, and determine if the street qualifies for Level 2 or Level 3 measures. The residents will be informed of the results of the traffic analysis. D. If the traffic data indicates that the street(s) may qualify for Level 2 or Level 3 measures, a survey will be mailed out to the neighborhood to identify specific concerns. After responses to the survey are received, a neighborhood meeting 3 L•26 will be held. This meeting may be used to develop recommended Level 2 or Level 3 implementation measures. A representative of the Public Works Department and the Police Department will attend the meeting. E. A draft improvement plan shall be prepared, and submitted to the residents. The City will schedule a meeting of the Traffic Affairs Committee. The area residents will be invited to the meeting to provide their input. The Traffic Affairs Committee will recommend approval or denial of the project. If approved, the project will be submitted to the residents with an approved petition for signatures. F. A neighborhood representative shall be responsible for circulation of the petition. The petition will be prepared by City staff together with the residents, and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation. The City will provide a map of the affected area. and a listing of all residents' addresses to the designated neighborhood representative. The petition should include only residents or businesses within the affected area. Person(s) circulating the petition shall attempt to contact all affected residences or businesses. Residents must be at least 18 years old to sign. The petition must include the current address, printed name, and signature for each resident. The petition requesting the neighborhood traffic management measures must be supported by seventy (70) percent of the total number of residential units/ businesses. G. If neighborhood support is demonstrated through the petition process, the project will be forwarded to City Council for approval. All Level 2 or Level 3 measures shall be approved by City Council prior to design or construction. If the petition process is unsuccessful, City staff will continue undertaking the appropriate Level I actions. PRIORITY Requests for the installation of traffic calming measures using City funds shall be prioritized by the City Traffic Engineer considering the following factors: 1. Date of petition submittal. 2. Volume of traffic using the street. 3. Percentage of traffic exceeding the threshold speed limit. 4 L-26 4. Other factors including, but not limited to, number of houses, presence of parks or schools, street width, and number of residential driveways. The City shall also take into account any letters of interest from the residents (or Homeowners Associations) to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and construction of the improvements. Adopted - September 12, 2006 9 From: Brine, Tony (mai Ito: tbrine0)newoortbeachca gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:20 PM To: Todd Macfarland Cc: Hill, Rush; Badum, Steve; Webb, Dave (Public Works); Sommers, Brad Subject: Tustin Avenue Dear Mr. Macfarland: I spoke with Sarah Chamberlain at Caltrans last week. Ms. Chamberlain and I have no difference of opinion regarding all of the issues you discussed with me. This includes the process to establish a local street designation, and the fact that a local jurisdiction can set the speed limit based on this designation. Other cities have followed this process, which I am not questioning. I was satisfied with our conversation, and feel there is no additional need to speak with other Caltrans representatives. That said, it is important to understand that the Vehicle Code outlines a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph would apply to a local street "unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code ". The procedures set forth in the Vehicle Code indicate that the results of an "engineering and traffic survey" have to justify the prima facie speed limit or the roadway can be designated a "speed trap ". This is the process that was used to establish all of the speed limits throughout our city. Caltrans Policy Directive 09 -04 and the California MUTCD both state that "When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85'" percentile speed ". The speed limit can be reduced an additional 5 mph with conditions and justification. This is a Standard, not guidance. The term "shall" is mandatory. It is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to determine if a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph is appropriate. With the 85% speed of 36 mph, the lowest we can set the speed limit on Tustin Avenue is 30 mph. Perhaps the city of Truckee felt comfortable that a 25 mph was the correct posting on their roads. It is my responsibility as City Traffic Engineer to continue using the Caltrans Policy Directive and the MUTCD as the method to establish the proper speed limits in our city, and not make Tustin Avenue an exception to the rule. Westminster Avenue and Cliff Drive are both streets within residential areas with 30 mph speed limits. The final speed for this segment of Tustin Avenue should be, and will remain, at 30 mph. This is the appropriate and enforceable speed limit. Tony Brine, P.E., T.E. City Traffic Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949)644 -3329 phone (949)644 -3318 fax tbrine Co)newportbeachca.go SEW Pp� T . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH n "-�.le.z �ri }, v , ?" CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Cq 4FOn ._ . rNr % Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney June 7, 2013 Via E -Mail & U.S. Mail Geoffrey K. Willis, Esq. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 RE: Speed Limit for Tustin Avenue between 22nd and 23rd Dear Mr. Willis: Thank you for your letter dated May 1, 2013 regarding the concerns of your clients over the established speed limit on Tustin Avenue between 22nd Street and 23rd Street (the "Segment ") in the City of Newport Beach ("City"). We have taken the time to review this matter. Our review, conducted in consultation with the City's Traffic Engineer, has determined that the speed limit of 30 miles per hour ( "mph ") is reasonable and safe and has been properly established by the City under the requirements of the Vehicle Code. At the outset, it is important to note that until the City annexed the area that included the Segment, the area was under the control of the County of Orange and the City had no jurisdiction to set or establish speed limits for the Segment. In addition, prior to concerns being raised by area residents, the City had already begun the process of conducting a City wide engineering and traffic survey. The Segment was included as part of this survey and it was this survey that ultimately culminated in the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 2011 -1 that set the speed limit for Tustin Avenue from Santiago Avenue to 23rd Street at 30 mph. (See Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") section 12.24.080.) Turning to your letter, you assert that prior to concerns being raised by residents, "the Segment had an unposted prima facie residential speed limit of 25 [mph]." We presume in making this assertion you are referring to Vehicle Code section 22352(a)(2)(A). If this assumption is true, we do not find your assertion to be accurate. Section 22352(a)(2)(A) only establishes a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph for any highway located in a business or residence district. The Segment, however, is not located within a "business district" or "residence district," as those terms are defined in Mr, Geoffrey Willis, Esq. June 7, 2013 Page: 2 Vehicle Code sections 235 and 515, respectively. Section 22352(a)(2)(A)'s prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH is thus not applicable to the Segment. Therefore, prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2011 -1, as a street that was not located within a business or residence district, the Segment was subject to California's "basic speed law" contained in Vehicle Code section 22350. The "basic speed law" does not set or establish a maximum speed, but rather prohibits a person from driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and In no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Next, your letter notes that an unposted 25 mph Is consistent with the Citys General Plan, We find this contention to be unavailing. The City's General Plan does not establish speed limits on the City's streets. The purpose of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways contained in the City's General Plan, which you cite in your letter, is to organize the City's roadway classification system and to provide for planning of long- term roadway capacity needs. It does not follow that because a street is not "color coded" on the Master Plan as a commuter roadway, secondary road, primary road, etc. that the street must then have a speed limit of 25 mph. There are several instances of streets within the City that are not "color coded" on the Master Plan and have speed limits set In excess of 25 MPH. Further, your letter contends that the City was required to Implement "traffic calming measures" pursuant to Council Policy L -26 because all eight listed criteria were met. This contention is not accurate. As Indicated In the "Criteria" section of Council Policy L -26, Level 2 Tools will be considered for those streets meeting all of the listed criterla. Our review has found that the Segment did, and still does, not meet all of the required criteria to warrant consideration of Level 2 Tools. As you noted in your letter, the Segment did not have a posted speed limit. Further, and as noted above, the Segment was not subject to a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Therefore, the Segment did not meet the first criteria listed in Council Policy L -26 at the time of the initial complaint from residents and the City was not required to consider the Implementation of Level 2 Tools. Finally, your letter contends that the City did not follow the requirements of the Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( "MUTCD "). As indicated above, the premise of your contention that the Segment is subject to a 25 mph speed limit Is Incorrect. In addition, without any factual or legal support, you assert that the City set the speed limit without considering what speed would be reasonable and safe. Here again, your assertion Is without merit. Vehicle Code sections 22357 and 40802 require the City to conduct an engineering and traffic survey prior to setting speed limits. Vehicle Code section 627 defines the term "engineering and traffic survey' and requires such a survey to include and consider many different components, such as prevailing speeds, accident records, conditions not readily apparent to the driver and pedestrian safety. Moreover, Vehicle Code section 22358.5 prohibits the City from downward speed zoning based on conditions that are Mr. Geoffrey Willis, Esq. June 7, 2013 Page: 3 readily apparent to a driver. The City's engineering and traffic survey established that the 85th percentile speed for the Segment was 36 mph which would require a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Then, based on the City Traffic Engineer's training, experience and professional judgment, he found there were conditions present that were not readily apparent to a driver and recommended the speed limit be reduced an additional 5 mph, to 30 mph. (See NBMC sections 12.24.050 and 12.24.080.) Those conditions included a reference to heavy non - school related pedestrian use. In reviewing the accident history, there have been no accidents along this segment of Tustin Avenue from January of 2006 until the engineering and traffic survey was completed. In fact, through the end of May of 2013, there have still been no accidents along the Segment. The 30 mph speed limit was posted in March 2011. This speed limit is both reasonable and safe based upon the conditions present, traffic volumes and accident history. Moreover, in following the Vehicle Code and MUTCD, the lowest speed limit that can be posted and allow for legal enforcement is 30 mph based upon an 85th percentile speed of 36 mph. We believe it is also worth noting that the remainder of Tustin Avenue between 17th Street and 22nd Street has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. In sum, the City has determined that the legally correct, reasonable and safe for the Therefore, at present, the City will not be traffic calming measures. Sincerely, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE � u', C, # Z�_ Aar n C. Harp City Attorney ACH:KER:emg Segment's posted speed limit of 30 mph is public, and a legally enforceable speed limit. seeking to reduce the speed or implement cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager Dave Webb, Director of Public Works Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer (A 13. 003001 - Willis from ACH 6.7.13 c , v ;r Ao i „st r -gasr ,fv°' G ` 1 L � Stl v YP'p fr. Li Z1 4FE3SL�5 "sirrP�' 1R0 r x i . i 3`•4': F� f 'f f u 1 c; a S' • 15 �-a' ae+�"d's�ry �5 � ;� fir' • t r y I 4�•y -- � r c if I 1 jr y'y i I � ; y 1:�• it } - •J $ I t �►FA <�� •� it ur�u�fi> 1''1 1� Cir n��. °� ��j �• �� i l il, y�.�A� It � I IVJ y''rl j 1 `rl , '� c � �-s } < '' N C �} j4. y'Y-'/ (i III! �F �� � 1• ti mod,• t r .? 4 •1� �' l i X11 1 MEL, 01— NONE' ���1111' '1'] tat] F 1 •L {F _ y • ,, ii -7 =ry - s„� I I �ss_h � Try, •. � n •4 ' I II �I + c - ve°r- 6l -7 =ry - s„� I °. -f♦ 4 6 r. C� i 1, f l �I i ' I II �I + c °. -f♦ 4 6 r. C� i 1, f l �I i �'�� 4 t alt ✓. f <rY;,. Ai r _ y(JfW i Yi' ._ ®fie •�� j ' d� L� f F- -;La — '4 t c d - '9 F t , F- -;La ! ,. �d Lti elii^ t. .�.� timed r I I i r *7 L`k t ! ,. �d Lti elii^ t. .�.� timed r I I i r *7 L`k 2i C,Lt Tov- -, ( CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .CITY - COUNCIL STAFF REPORT APPROVED d06? AIR, 2.2 2006,�� By City council City of NewportBeach Study Session No. ss2 August 22, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL po�ffY lrl� FROM: Public Works Department r`ler Antony Brine, P.E. 949 - 644 -3311 ortbrine@ city.newport - beach.ca.us SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDELINES, �O RECOMMENDATION: Review the "Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines" dated July 2006 and direct staff to place the guidelines on a future City Council Agenda for final approval. DISCUSSION: The guidelines presented to the City Council are the culmination of comprehensive research by staff in the field of traffic calming. This research included reviews of many similar national and international programs, attendance review of periodicals and textbooks on the subject, ar California Traffic Calming Users Group. Staff used tra cities of.Pasadena, Ventura, Sunnyvale, Portland (Or( County (Florida), and Boulder (Colorado) as reference: draft guidelines. The initial draft guidelines were characteristics of Newport Beach neighborhoods. at local and national seminars, d membership in the Southern ffic calming programs from the gon), Houston (Texas), Collier in the preparation of the initial tailored to meet the unique The topic of neighborhood traffic calming has been discussed at several City Council meetings and study sessions in the past two years. Staff reports for the Council meetings of June 22, 2004, and July 27, 2004, presented neighborhood study updates, a summary of previous traffic calming practices in the city, definitions of traffic calming "tool box" measures, and a discussion of evaluation processes and funding policy. The previous staff reports are attached for reference. At the August 10, 2004, City Council meeting, the Council approved Resolution No. 2004 -75 creating a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Ad Hoc Committee. The members of the Committee included Mayor Webb, Councilman Rosansky, the City Manager, the Public Works Director, the City Traffic Engineer, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief. Meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee were held between December 2005 and April 2006. The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the initial draft guidelines and provided specific Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines August 22, 2008 Page 2 comments and direction which led to the "Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines" submitted to the Council at this meeting. The final Guidelines include a comprehensive step -by -step process addressing the receipt of a resident request, collection of traffic data, review of the existing neighborhood conditions, and implementation of different levels of traffic calming measures. The step -by -step process is the backbone of the program. The way in which the public and the residents are treated by staff, and the process by which various alternatives are analyzed is as important as any physical improvement or administrative regulation implemented. The process, however, cannot include Public Works staff only. This program requires significant citizen involvement. Residents will seek to create traffic management programs in their specific neighborhood, and their active and on -going participation is absolutely necessary to achieve a successful program. A project developed by both staff and the residents jointly will have a greater likelihood of area -wide acceptance. Another key aspect of the program is the neighborhood petition process. Should a particular street or neighborhood qualify for traffic management improvements, surveys will be mailed out and neighborhood meetings will be held to discuss a potential project. The next step would be to invite residents to a Traffic Affairs Committee meeting to discuss and review a draft project plan. Should a draft plan be approved by the Traffic Affairs Committee, the residents will be required to circulate a petition throughout the neighborhood for signature. The Guidelines require that the petition for support be signed by 70 percent of all residential addresses. This petition process is a very important part of the overall program. It places responsibility on the residents to discuss the issues with their neighbors, and garner support for a proposed project. The previous City 'Road Bump" program was ultimately eliminated by the City Council in 1994 because, in some cases, misinformation and insufficient support led to divisiveness among neighbors regarding proposed projects. As part of this Program, the guidelines state that the City Council shall establish an annual budget for traffic calming improvements. The annual budgeted amount in the last several CIPs has been $ 50,000. It should be noted that a limited number of traffic calming improvements can be completed within this established budget. Because it is anticipated that the requests for improvements will exceed the budget, the Program includes a priority process for budgeting of improvements. The proposed program guidelines do not require funding from residents to install any improvements. However, a higher priority will be assigned to projects where residents or Homeowners Associations commit to provide funding for all or part of the costs of the design and construction of improvements. The neighborhoods most recently studied were Newport Heights /Cliff Haven, and Newport Hills /Harbor View. Community meetings were held in each neighborhood to receive input and to discuss the respective projects. Both neighborhood studies, with proposed improvements, were completed in August 2004. The planned improvements in these neighborhoods were placed on hold pending the approval of city -wide Traffic Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines August 22, 2008 Page 3 Calming Guidelines. Approved uniform guidelines,. minimum speed and volume thresholds, and other criteria need to be in place so that every neighborhood in the city could be analyzed in a consistent and fair manner. The Capital Improvement Program for 2006 -07 includes $187,000 for improvements in Newport Heights /Cliff Haven, and $40,000 for improvements in Newport Hills /Harbor View, Environmental Review: Not applicable at this time. Prepared by: Antony Brine, P.E. - Principal Civil Engineer Works Director Tustin Ave between 22nd St & 23rd St Count Data 02/20/2010 02/21/2010 02/22/2010 02/23/2010 02/24/2010 02125/2010 Direction Data Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Daily Total 503 491 1 709 724 767 743 NB 85 %Speed(mph) 1 35.0 1 36.1 36.4 36.1 35.0 36.5 Daily Total 360 334 555 550 513 544 Sit 85 % Speed (mph) 36.8 36.3 37.7 37.4 36.7 37.2 NB +SB Combined Daily Total Volume 863 825 1264 1274 1280 1287 Counters installed 2/19/2010 and removed 2/26/2010 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Leo Gallagher fmailto:leo gc,llagheri?dot.c_.qcv) Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:37 AM To: toddLInetcomworldwid.a.crm Cc: Sarah Chamberlain - Subject: Newport Beach: FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines Ili Todd, Cities are responsible for initiating requests for changes in functional classification of streets within their jurisdiction. The FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines are written with flexibility. If the City of Newport Beach follows the Flowchart to Change Functional Classification, we will be glad to expedite. Newport Beach General Plan CRS Mao 14W22 Thank vou, Leo Gallagher Statewide Functional Classification Coordinator Di =vision of TSI, MS 38 Department of Transportation P.O. Box. 942874 Sacramento; Ca 94274 -0001 (916) 654 -1134 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sarah Chamberlain [mailto:sarau chamberlainc jot. ca. r._o_v_] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:33 AM To: Todd Macfarland Subject: Functional Classification changes (See attached file: Funcchange.xls) Hi Todd, Above is the form that needs to be completed for changing the classifications of any arterials, major, minor, collectors and locals. Then you will need to print out the CRS maps and circle the changes in red. Once this form and maps are completed it needs to be sent to me for concurrence of the changes. A letter explaining /justifying the changes needs to be written and submitted to myself and SCAG. These changes will need to go through the City Council and a Resolution needs to be passed and a copy of the resoluation will become part of the packet. Once these things are done, you will submit all the does to myself and to SCAG. If the changes are reasonable I will write a concurrence letter and SCAG will also need to write a concurrence letter and mail it to me. I will then submit the packet to FHWA and they will hopefully agree with the changes and the CRS maps will then reflect the changes. If you have any questions please contact me. Sarah 949.756.7626 - - - -- Original Hessage ----- From: Sarah Chamberlain (raai.l*_:o:s-<:rah chambcriain@dot.ca.qcv] Sent: Friday, April. 13, 2012 8:23 AM To: Todd Macfarland .Subject: RE: Functional Classification changes Correct, as the Traffic Engineer needs to go to the City Council and have the change recorded in the form of the Resolution. The formality of it is to then come to us and SCAG and have FHWA puts an official stamp on the CRS map. Sarah - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Sarah Chamberlain [mailto:sarah chamberlain +;+dot_cafciov] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:23 AM To: Todd Macfarland Subject: Definition of Residence District per CVC. Hi Todd, Below is the link and residence definition. Sarah iittp__/ /•:r•ir• . cimv . ca_no-- /puma /-rctop /d0'_ /vc�15. h tra Residence District 515. A "residence district" is that portion of ahighway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one - quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists. ermination of Street Types an • Each local; region, state and federal highway is3aeti by,the latest functional usage and federal -aid syst.eer submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (F Local streets, according to federal definition, consist. of 411 r ads" �no��defined as arterials or cone- :actors on thefederal aid syst6 maps The California Vehicle Cb de additionally idefi nes a local toPstreet as that which is either classified' as a local street on the ed ral system map, or meets specific conditions (primarily providing access to abutting residenttaf property; roadway width j; of 40"feet or less, not more thani one -half of'a mile of length �unter1rupted by traffic signals, and not more than one traffic `lane to each- direction). Streets that do not meet this definition are copnsidered "none docal." J W MOM q O� O A� Lg'O my •L 4� O C E 1.- U N V E ai N. m N C m Z L 3 `"a Q L.* cn N b N, N �, O N N •� L 0 Q 0 (D An 'n C) +„ a+ Q 'L' d •� 'd C N N 0 •� O 19 �. .0. N �. N N ;_ -p U E & m -0 E �' " , v L N m O .a N N 'pN, O Q. . E, Z m0y... pG T C c m O N. CL m 7 m 4•- U1 H h cp > 0 `V N a, N E .�. N E E m C�a w�c— �mj.ZT O G Xa C.fi N N'`'.N m' io N !R C Vl ' Cc:) O U fp co C p �" O D1 O. N C L m '` a U cn w �, — N a L- O O C �� O h i C 'a �r F= p \o �, N f6 E N o, E N W °i � Ni v- N E t N. eD 0 a u v _a m E V Tx N 'L 1,L N n O LL .o F y C. 5 Y U Vi 4 O L' 4 n� m OJ 4 © QI 4l J bi I. 0 0 0A. A % rl 1� i � I i I i c L €� N x o �=J M l' L Ifil � '� CJ Nil I6i � L1 III ` y 5` o >s <, (A r1 W C O 1� LL l� a. ;y 1 J i c w 0 n O h N IF lu 3 C w IP, 0q> D \)� lilt' / \}� } 111111' 1 IF` II 1 NAM � 1 ��i City Council Minutes City Council Regular Meeting January 11, 2011— 7:00 p.m. II. CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m. A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code 5 54956.9 (A)i: Two matters: 1. City of Newport Beach v. Back Bay Court, LLC, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2010-00385190 2. Mead v. City of Newport Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30 -2010- 00342608 B. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation - Exposure to Litigation (Government Code i 64966.9(b)): Two matters: 1. Potential exposure to litigation arising from threat of violation from California Coastal Commission for brush clearance allegedly being performed without a Coastal Development Permit on City Sunset Ridge Park property prior to City ownership. 2. Potential exposure to litigation from allegations that the Morningside Zoning Agreement was not properly adopted under state law. C. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code 4 54967(b)(1)): The City Council will meet in closed session to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of three public employees. Titles: City Manager; City Clerk; and City Attorney D. Conference with Real Property Negotiator (Government Code 6 54956.81 : Property : 19762 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445- 132 -009 City Negotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer Negotiating Parties: South Coast Thrift & Loan (First California Bank) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment Property 19742 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445- 132 -011 City Negotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer Negotiating Parties: Bates Johnson Building, Ltd. Volume 60 - Page 5 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment Pronertv: 19712 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, APN 445. 132.018 City Negotiator: Dave Webb, City Engineer; Andy Tran, Senior Civil Engineer Negotiating Parties: CIP Centerpoint 123, LLC Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment III. RECESS N. RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING V. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle VI. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Hunt reported that, regarding II.B.2 (potential litigation relative to Morningside Zoning Agreement), Council unanimously authorized the defense of the matter if it is fled, but instructed staff to keep the lines of communication open since the filing party is a citizens group from the City. VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Hill VIII. INVOCATION-Mr. Frank Carpenter 1 P-14 Junior Lifeguard of the Year Fire Chief Morgan highlighted the accomplishments of 9 year old Junior Lifeguard, Christopher Hughes, and provided him with a certificate and scholarship check. He also introduced Lifeguard Battalion Chief Rob Williams, Lifeguard Captain Brent Jacobsen, Junior Lifeguard Instructor Jenna Murphy, and Junior Lifeguard D Group Leader Jeff Pratt. K NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC XI. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- Council Member Daigle announced that-she attended the swearing -in ceremony for Supervisor Moorlach, along with Council Member Hill, Aviation Consultant Tom Edwards, and many members of Air Fare, the Airport Working Group (AWG), and the Sahta Ana Heights PAC. She noted the importance of working with Supervisor Moorlach on airport issues. Council Member Curry announced that February 6 marks the centennial birth of former President Ronald Reagan and that, on January 27, the Lido Theater will be premiering Ronald Reagan An American Journey. He noted that, if approved; Item S27 will allow the City to accept, private donations to be used toward the creation of a statue or similar work honoring former President Ronald Reagan. Council Member Selich requested-that Council discuss the property at 443 Harbor Island Drive at a Volume 60 - Page 6 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 future meeting since it has been sitting uncompleted for four years. Mayor Henn discussed the boat parade, announced that the boat parade awards ceremony will take place on January 28, stated that the Lido Village conceptual plan was discussed at the study session and will be recapped at Speak Up Newport on January 12 at 6:00 p.m., announced that he attended the Yacht Association Installation, announced that Restaurant Week will be held January 21 to January 28, reported that Council will conduct its annual priority setting meeting on February 5 at 8:30 a.m. at the OASIS Senior Center, announced that the Mayor Facebook page will be started shortly, and stated that he intends to continue the Meet the Mayor sessions throughout the City during his term. XII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. READING OF AHNUTESIORDINANCES AND RESOL UTIONS 1. MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2010 AND REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2010. Waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed. Council Member Daigle requested that the December 6 minutes be amended to indicate that she believed that the Balboa Yacht Basin rates should be the same as Cal Roo rates; and that the December 14 minutes be amended to reflect that she expressed her gratitude to everyone. 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. C. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 5. RESOLUTION UPDATING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES FOR 2011 UNDER THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE. Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -2 adapting the 2011 Designated Employees List. 6. CITY COUNCIL'S REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2011. Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -3 relating to the City Council's 2011 meeting calendar. 7. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE MEASURE M2 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM (CTFP). Adopt Resolution No. 2011.4 approving the submittal of the Newport Beach Widening Project to the OCTA for funding under the M2 CTFP. 8. RESOLUTION RELATING TO ADOPTING MOORING SUB- PERMIT FEES. Adopt Resolution No. 2011.5 establishing mooring sub - permit fees,, effective immediately, as recommended by the County Board of Supervisors. D. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 11. 20-10 -2011 SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 4661. a) Approve the project plans and specifications; b) award Contract No. 4561 to Grigolia & Sons Construction Company, Volume 60 - Page 7 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 Inc. (Grigolla & Sons) for the total bid price of $475,370.00, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract; and c) establish an amount of $95,000, approximately 20 percent, to cover the coat of unforeseen work and anticipated work not included in the original project limits. 12. OASIS SENIOR CENTER REBUILD PROJECT - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 3888. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City CIerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and c) release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance. 13. EASTBLUFF PARK AND BONITA CREEK PARK RECYCLED WATER RETROFITS - COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT NO. 4134. a) Accept the completed work and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the project; b) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials Bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code; and c) release the Faithful Performance Bond one year after Council acceptance. 14. CORPORATION YARD FLEET SHOP CNG MODIFICATION PROJECT (CONTRACT NO. 4315) - BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES. Approve Budget Amendment No. 11BA -021 appropriating $20,000.00 from unappropriated AQMD Fund Balance 290 -3605 to Account No. 7290 - C8002014. 15. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT WITH MERCHANTS LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE FOR CITY MEDIANS AND ROADWAYS. Approve the amendment to the existing agreement with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc. for the landscape maintenance at OASIS Senior Center at a cost of $50,000 per year. 16. CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH RAINBOW DISPOSAL TO PROVIDE REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE AT CITY BEACHES. Approve the ten year agreement with Rainbow Disposal for the collection of beach refuse containers at a cost of $127,441 per year. 17. JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT - ANNUAL AWARD. a) Approve the agreement to transfer funds for Fiscal Year 2010, Justice Assistance Grant annual award, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement per Council Policies F -3 and F- 25. Therefore, to comply with Council Policy F -3, the City Manager may accept grants or donations of up to $30,000 on behalf of the City; and b) approve Budget Amendment No. 11BA -027 increasing revenue estimates in the amount of $13,322 in Account No. 129 -5257, and increase expenditure appropriations in Account No. 1290- 7095. 18. FUNDING FOR MULTI -YEAR SUPPORT FOR COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH (CAD) AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. a) Approve an expenditure of $161,279.29 for hardware and software support for the Police Department's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) from Northrop Grumman (formerly PRC) for July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011; b) approve an expenditure of $185,093.24 for hardware and software support for the Police Department's CAD and RMS from Northrop Grumman for July 1, 2011 to June Volume 60 - Page 8 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 30, 2012; c) authorize a single- source contract with Northrop Grumman, the product manufacturer of the Police Department's CAD and RMS systems; and d) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with the vendor, as approved by the Office of the City Attorney. E. MISCELLANEOUS 19. ACCEPTANCE OF THE UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCIES (UPA) GRANT FUND ALLOCATION. a) Accept the UPA Grant Fund Allocation in the amount of $20,000.00 to be utilized for reimbursement of the completion costs associated with the implementation of Assembly Bill No. 2286, which requires all regulated businesses and UPA to use the internet to file required Unified Program information electronically; b) approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -022 to deposit $20,000.00 UPA Grant into Account No. 2330 -489G; and c) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -44 approving the acceptance of the Unified Program Agencies (UPA) grant fund allocation. ' 20. APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR TO THE COUNCILICITIZENS AD HOC COMMITTEES, THE JOINT GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEES, AND THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES. Confirm the appointments outlined in the staff report. 21. BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT A CHECK FROM CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR LITERACY SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 10/11. Approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -026 to accept a check from the California State Library to improve the Newport Beach' Public Library Literacy Services and Programs. 22. BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EMERGENCY METHANE BLOWER REPLACEMENT AT NEWPORT TERRACE LANDFILL. Approve Budget Amendment No. '11BA -024 transferring a total of $14,827.78 from Environmental Liability unappropriated fund balance, 292 -3605, to Environmental Liability, Services Professional 8i Technical, 3155 -8080, to fund the emergency replacement of one (1) methane gas blower at the Newport Terrace Landfill. S27. RESOLUTION RELATING TO ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR A STATUE OR SIMILAR WORK HONORING THE BIRTH CENTENNIAL OF RONALD REAGAN. Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -10 relating to accepting donations for a statue or similar work honoring the birth centennial (February 6, 2011) of former President Ronald Reagan. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (3, 4, 9 and 10) and noting the amendment to Item 1 by Council Member Daigle. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle XIII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. ESTABLISH UPDATED SPEED LIMITS ON CITY STREETS. In response to Council questions, Public Works Director Badum explained how the speed survey is used to determine speed limits on most arterials throughout the City. He further discussed the rationale. for changing the speed limits near Cameo Shores due to the transition Volume 60 - Page 9 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 zone and indicated that speed mitigation measures can be looked at for the area. City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that the City is no longer allowed to round down the speeds, explained that free flowing conditions are required when the surveys are taken, and emphasized that the speed limits need to be enforceable for the Police Department. Regarding Vista del Oro, he stated that the speed limit was changed to make it consistent with the rest of the street. City Manager Kiff noted that traffic calming measures will be discussed at the next study session. Council Member Curry pointed out that the City is acting on State mandates and that failure to act in response to the survey means that the Police Department cannot enforce any speed laws and the courts could not uphold speeding tickets. Farhed Shah- Hosseini, Cameo Highlands Homeowners Association Board Member, stated that the community is opposed to increasing the speed limit and expressed concern for pedestrian traffic. Dan Pierson expressed concern for pedestrian traffic traveling to and from Cameo Shores to Corona del Mar. Robert Hawkins requested that Irvine Avenue between Westeliff and Santiago be re- surveyed due to the configuration of the road. Nicole Foster, Cameo Highlands, requested that the speed limits be reduced due to pedestrian traffic. She noted that electric vehicles can only go 35 mph but the speed limit will be 45 mph. City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that leaving the speed limit at 35 mph would be a speed trap, there is nothing written to lower the speed limit in order to encourage the use of electric vehicles, and pedestrian counts were not conducted. Public Works Director Badum noted that this area is signalized, as opposed to the pedestrian areas of Riverside Avenue or Lido. Leann Bowman, Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association Board Member, expressed concern for pedestrian traffic if the speed limit at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road were increased to 50 mph. Karen Tringali provided statistical information for Cameo Highlands and expressed hope that this information is enough to warrant reconsideration. BJ Johnson expressed concern for the speed limits at the entrances into Corona del Mar, believing that they are too high already. Motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Curry to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter 12.24 (Special Speed Zones) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding increasing and decreasing State speed limits, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; and b) upon final adoption of the Ordinance, direct staff to replace/modify all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed limits. Council Member Selich requested that Council Member Rosansky amend his motion to also conduct further study on Irvine Avenue between Westcliff and Santiago, Vista del Oro in Eastbluff, Coast Highway and Cameo Shores, and on Bayside Drive. Amended motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Curry to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter 12:24 (Special Speed Zones) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding increasing and decreasing State speed limits, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; b) upon final adoption of the Ordinance, Volume 60 - Page 10 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 direct staff to replacelmodify all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed limits; and c) direct staff to conduct further study on Irvine Avenue between Westcliff and Santiago, Vista del Oro in Eastbluff, Coast Highway and Cameo Shores, and on Bayside Drive. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 4. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR LICENSE FOR CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT OFFER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ON- SITE CONSUMPTION IN COMBINATION WITH LATE HOURS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND /OR DANCE (PA2010 -041). Acting Planning Director Campbell reported that the operator license would apply to new or expanded operations, and would be looked at concurrently with the use permit process. He noted that the license runs with the operator and is not transferrable. Associate Planner Murillo utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the operator license process and noted that it is issued by the Police Chief, but appealable to the City Manager. Council Member Selich expressed support for the operator license, but indicated that he envisioned that the request would go before the Planning Commission, not the Police Chief. Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that staff believes that the proposed process will allow for quicker enforcement, be a better approach, and still provide due process. He discussed a proposed amendment (Section 5.25.060.B) relative to public noticing. Mayor Henn requested that the. Police Chief solicit public input and take that into consideration prior to making any decisions. Council Member Hill requested clarification relative to when a use permit ends that runs with the land and when an operator license would begin. Council Member Selich expressed concern that the appeal process would not reach the City Council level. City Attorney Hunt indicated that using the same process as a use permit may make the operator license difficult to enforce all the way to termination. Further, as written, the process provides for more flexibility in addressing operational issues. He added that use permits convey property rights, but licenses or permits do not have constitutional protection and are a privilege, not a property right. Council Member Curry indicated that proposed Section 5.25.050.B addresses the issue of due process and noticing. Police Chief Johnson reported that he oversaw this type of issue and had similar authority in Long Beach. He reviewed his methodology for reviewing the licenses and emphasized that he is pro-business but businesses need to. be responsible. He indicated that it was never conveyed to him if getting an operator license is a burden. Associate Planner Murilllo stated that operators would only be able to appeal to the City Manager. Mayor Henn expressed the opinion that resident should also be able to appeal the license. City Attorney Hunt indicated that the ordinance can be amended to include this, if desired. Marcia Dossey believed that the City needs more establishments for dancing and suggested that the Police Chief also review the impacts of the adjoining businesses, especially if they have entertainment. She noted that these establishments generate revenue and agreed that the Police Department should provide the enforcement, not Code Enforcement. She believed that Council should be the appellant body and requested that the review period be longer Volume 60 - Page 11 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 than 10 days. John Kenney believed that the City should maintain a representative form of government. Dan Pierson believed that Council should hear the appeals and expressed concern with giving the Police Chief this type of authority. Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner, believed that the Planning Commission should make the initial findings and is able to separate the use permit and operator license issues. He expressed concern that this process gives authority to investigate, adjudicate, and enforce to one person. He pointed out that the operator license should not conflict with the use permit. Acting Planning Director Campbell reported that staff is proposing Section 5.25.050.D that does not allow the conditions to be less restrictive than required by any applicable use permit. Council Member Rosansky suggested that, in order to avoid redundancy, use permits should not address hours of operation so it does not run with the land. He recommended having the operator license address this issue. Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that the use permit typically addresses hours of operation because conditions are applied to the use permit. He noted that the Police Chief will make more restrictive conditions depending on how the business operates and will not be changing any land use rights. Charles Unsworth, Planning Commissioner, stated that citizens are entitled to some type of notice. He believed that the Police Chief can provide information to the hearing board, but it is not appropriate for him to make rules, adjudicate it, and then impose sanctions to revoke the license. George Schroeder noted that there are areas in the City that have overconcentration of liquor licenses. He agreed with being pro - business but cautioned against overeaturation. Ali Zadeh, Port Restaurant, expressed support for the Police Chiefs role since he also provides enforcement; however, suggested more analysis before changing the law. Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, seconded by Council Member Daigle to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011.2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011, with the addition of Section 5.25.050.B, but change the noticing period from 10 days to 14 days; addition of Section 5.25.060.1), include the ability for the public to appeal the operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the City Council, not the City Manager; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the application fee for an Operator License. Mayor Henn noted that the noticing period requests written comments and suggested changing the 14 days to 21 days. Amended motion by Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, seconded by Council Member Daigle to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and incorporating Chapter 6.26 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to second reading on January 26, 2011, with the addition of Section 5.25.050.B, but change the noticing period from 14 days to 21 days; addition of Section 5.26.050.D, include the ability for the public to appeal the operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the City Council, not the City Manager; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the application fee for an Operator License. Mayor Henn believed that the appeal process to the City Manager is the most legally Volume 60 - Page 12 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 defensible method and proposed a substitute motion. Substitute motion by Mayor Henn, seconded by Council Member Hill to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011, with the addition of Section 5:25.050.13, but change the 10 days to 14 days; addition of Section 5.25.050.1), include the ability for the public to appeal the operator license; and allow the decision to be appealable to the City Manager; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -1 establishing the application fee for an Operator License. Council Member Rosansky expressed support for trying the proposed process, noting that it can be amended if necessary. Council Member Selich indicated that protecting the ordinance is more important than how appeals are handled. He agreed that it can be adjusted in the future if necessary. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry Noes: Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Council Member Daigle 9. APPROVAL OF THE POINT OF DISPENSING SITE PLANNI14G SERVICES AGREEMENT. In response to Council Member Daigle's question, Fire Chief Morgan clarified that this would only be activated if there was an emergency, but the City has the option to utilize flu shots as part of a drill. Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Mavor Pro Tem Gardner to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -6 approving the Point of Dispensing Planning Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 and authorizing the Mayor to act as the "Authorized Agent" to execute for, and on behalf of, the City any actions necessary to implement the Agreement and obtain financial assistance provided by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry Noes: Council Member Daigle 10. AWARD CONTRACT FOR BALBOA YACHT BASIN MANAGEMENT. Mayor. Henn requested that staff also develop a fiscal year 2011.2012 capital improvement program for the Balboa Yacht Basin for an amount not to exceed $50,000 over the next two years that goes beyond the maintenance items listed in the staff report: Motion by Mayor Henn, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to a) approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Basin Marine, Inc. for Balboa Yacht .Basin management for three years; b) approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -023 appropriating $35,165 from the unappropriated Tidelands Fund Balance Account No. 230 -3605 to Harbor Resources Account No. 2371 -8080; and c) direct staff to develop a fiscal year 2011 -2012 capital improvement program for the Balboa Yacht Basin for an amount not to - exceed $50,000 over the next two years that goes beyond the maintenance items listed in the staff report. Volume 60 - Page 13 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle XIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Mayor Pro Tem Gardner discussed the Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee meeting and announced that they will be conducting an outreach program to solicit input relative to implementing sharrows on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. Mayor Henn reported that the Finance Committee discussed pension liability, decreasing the number of investment managers, the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Citywide parking meter services, revenue trends, and how the State budget may impact the City. XV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 23. NEWPORT BUSINESS PLAZA (PA2006 -164) - 4699 JAMBOREE ROAD AND 5190 CAMPUS DRIVE - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP200 8-007 - PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2009-001 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010 -006 (COUNTY TMPM NO. 2010 -101). City Manager Kiff indicated that Council can require a Development Agreement (DA) or will need to adopt findings in order to a waive the need for the DA. Acting Planning Director Campbell explained the policies in the General Plan that require a DA, discussed why larger projects have been required to have a DA, and highlighted NBMC Section 15.45 that provides for conditions that could waive the requirement. He reported on the review process if a DA was required. In response to Council questions, Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that applying fair share traffic contribution fees is required regardless if there was a DA. He reported that DAs are reviewed by Planning Commission and the City Council. Council Member Rosansky reviewed why he feels that a DA is necessary. Council Member Selich believed that he could make findings that would require a DA. Council Member Daigle noted that the project is a public benefit since the location is at the gateway to the City. Mayor Henn opened the public hearing. Meg Shockley, representing the applicant, discussed why the waiver is appropriate and explained how the project has changed due to concessions they have made. Regarding the potential public benefits that are listed on page 5, Acting Planning Director Campbell indicated that they have not determined the costs involved with implementing the improvements. Mayor Pro Tern Gardner indicated that she would be willing to waive the DA if the applicant conducted some of the improvements. John Young, applicant, indicated that they would be willing to do the first four items on the list, as long as it was just in front of the property and not all along the main streets. He believed that the suggested improvements would cost $50,000 to $100,000, but should be reviewed by Public Works to determine if they are needed. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Henn closed the public hearing. City Manager Kiff noted that the street trees should be standard size. It was the consensus of Volume 60 - Page 14 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 Council that all the improvements should be subject to review and approval by Public Works. Council Member Rosansky expressed support for the improvements, but believed that the issue should be continued to January 25 for further review. Council Member Hill believed it is appropriate to further define the DA policy for gray areas. Motion by Council Member Daigle, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to a) waive the requirement for a development agreement and approve the project as recommended in the October 26, 2010 staff report; b) adopt Resolution No. 20117 which includes findings in support of a waiver of the requirement for a development agreement for the project; c) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -3 approving Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2009 -001, and pass to a second reading for adoption on January 25, 2011; and d) include as conditions of approval of the project the following public benefits, subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department: 1) Enhanced aesthetic improvements to the surrounding pedestrian easements, installation of non - standard sidewalks, pavers and landscaping; 2) Improvements to the median/island at the southwest corner of Campus Drive and Jamboree Road, including enhanced landscaping that would be maintained by the applicant; 3) replacement of existing street trees along Campus Drive and Jamboree Road; 4) and change -out of existing streetlights with new LED streetlight heads. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 24. HOAG- MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN SERIES 2011 HEALTH CARE FACILITY REVENUE BONDS. City Manager Kiff provided the staff report and noted that the item was heard by the Finance Committee who recommended bringing this before Council for approval. Mayor Pro- Tem Gardner emphasized that the City is not responsible for these bonds. Mayor Henn opened the public hearing. Dennis O'Neil, representing Hoag Hospital, recommended approval and noted that the consultants are also in attendance to answer any questions. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Henn closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Rosansky, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -8 authorizing the preparation, execution and delivery of the City of Newport Beach Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds (Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian) Series 2011 in an amount not to exceed $120 million, and authorizing the execution and delivery of certain documents and directing certain actions in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, .Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle It was the consensus of Council to hear Items 25 and 26 together. 25. AMENDMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9 - FIRE Volume 60 - Page 15 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 CODE 26. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES AND NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND 2009 UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL AND HOT TUB CODE. Interim Community Development Director Fick provided the staff report, discussed the public workshops that were conducted, and highlighted the amended recommendation relative to the installation of sprinklers for additions or reconstruction projects. Interim Community Development Director Fick and Fire Marshal Gamble explained the current regulations related to sprinkler systems and the recommended amendment to the Fire and Building Codes. They noted that the amended recommendation does not impact smaller homes. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner noted her preference to have the threshold for sprinklers be based on a percentage and not just percentage and square footage. Council Member Curry stated that the proposed method could be costly for smaller homes and noted that the amended recommendation was vetted through the Building Industry Association (1319). Council Member Selich expressed the opinion that a change is not needed. Interim Community Development Director Fick introduced a proposed amendment and indicated that the proposed amendment would have only affected six homes over the last 12 months. Council Member R.osansky believed that the amended recommendation is a good compromise between what Mayor Pro Tem Gardner and Council Member Selich want. Motion by Council Member Rosanskv, seconded by Council Member Curry to introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.050, Section 9.04.060, Section 9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120, including the amendment to the sprinkler system requirement, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011. Mayor Henn opened the public hearing. Brion Jeannette, architect, stated that the ordinance as written is acceptable, but added that he supports staffs amended recommendation for sprinkler systems. He suggested including an alternate means and methods statement that would allow the Building Official to make amendments when the circumstance merits. Interim Community Development Director Fick expressed support for this. Amended motion by Council Member Rosanskv. seconded by Council Member Curry to introduce Ordinance No. 2011.4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.050, Sectign 9.04.060, Section 9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120, with the amendment to the sprinkler system requirement and adding an alternate means and methods statement, and pass to second reading on January 26, 2011. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle Regarding the Building Code, W.R. Dildine stated that no other municipality has made amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code, took issue relative to the Minimum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) increase from 7 to 8 for HVAC air filters; and expressed concern that the Task Force on Green Development reviewed code issues. He discussed commercial dishwashers, elevator standards, and the responsibility of the design Volume 60 - Page 16 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 11, 2011 professionals. He believed that the amendments will be difficult for the Building Department to inspect. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner stated that several architects were members of the Task Force on Green Development, and that a representative from the BIA attended all the meetings and signed off on the recommendations. Deputy Building Officer Jur(ii confirmed that the ordinance is only requiring a MERV with a higher value than 7, not necessarily MERV 8. Motion by Council Member Rosansky, seconded by Council Member Curry to a) introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -6 relating to adoption of the subject codes and amendments (2010 California Building Codes and Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2009 International Property Maintenance Code and 2009 Uniform Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Code), with the amendment to the sprinkler system requirement and adding an alternate means and methods statement, and pass to second reading on January 25, 2011; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011- 9 setting forth findings for the proposed amendments for adoption on January 25, 2011. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council. Member Curry, Council Member Daigle XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None XVII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None XVIII. ADJOURNMENT -10:30 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 5, 2011, at 2:60 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular. Meeting was posted on January 7, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ^l� � �rUV•V City Clerk Volume 60 - Page 17 CITY OF NEWPORT HFACH City Council Minutes City Council Regular Meeting January 25, 2011 — 7:00 p.m. I. STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. II. CLOSED SESSION - 6:68 p.m. A. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code $ 64966.9 Sg)l: One matter: Statue Report on Pending Litigation: We will report on a global basis on all pending litigation involving the City. This is an informational item only. No action, however, may be taken on any item unless it is specifically noticed below. Basabe vs. Avila, et al, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30.2010. 00433049. Pacific Shores vs. City of Newport Beach, USDC Case No. SACV 08 -00467 AG (PLAx). Newport Coast Recovery vs. City of Newport Beach, USDC Case No. SACV 09 -0701 DOC (ANx). B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code $ 64967(b)(1)): The City Council will meet in closed session to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of two public employees. Titles: City Manager and City Clerk C. Conference with Legal Counsel - Exposure to Litigation (Government Code $ 64966.9(b)): Potential exposure to litigation from allegations that the Morningside Zoning Agreement was not properly adopted under state law. III. RE , ssE IV. ' RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING V. ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle VI. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Hunt reported that just prior. to entering into tonight's Closed Session, Council votec unanimously to add Morn u. City of Newpdrt Beach which has threatened litigation arising out o: the Morningside Settlement Agreement. The item arose after the Closed Session Agenda was posted. No reportable action was taken with the exception of the matter of Basabe v. Avila, et al foi Volume 60 - Page 23 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 which Council voted 7 -0 to authorize defense of the matter. VII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Council Member Rosansky VIII. INVOCATION - Reverend Karl Stuckenberg, Newport Center United Methodist Church CDR Proclamation Designating February 6, 2011, as Ronald Reagan Day - Mayor Henn read the proclamation and presented it to Larry Porricelli, Regency Theaters District Manager. X. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC XI. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIRE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (VON- DISCUSSION ITEMI Council Member Hill announced that he and his colleagues attended the OPIS Network "Helping 100 Businesses in 100 Days" workshop. Mayor Pro Tom Gardner announced that the Citizens Bicycle Safety Committee will meet on Monday, February 7 at 4:30 p.m. in the Fire Conference Room. Council Member Daigle announced that she attended the business workshop and stated that it is the City s intent to remain proactive with respect to business. She reported that a makeup session of the "Helping 100 Businesses in 100 Days workshop will be held this Saturday at 9:00 a.m. at the OASIS Senior Center. Council Member Curry encouraged everyone to .take advantage of "Restaurant Week." He announced that he attended in the Police promotion ceremony. He noted the premier of the film Ronald Reagan - An American Journey on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Lido Theater and noted that attendees will have an opportunity to view a clay model of the Reagan memorial and meet the artist. Council Member Selich attended the 1/1 Marina Foundation Beach Challenge fundraiser to raise money to aasist marines with unexpected expenses for their families. Mayor Henn discussed the 1/1 Marine Foundation fundraiser and related events. He encouraged everyone to participate in the February 5 e -waste collection event from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Newport Coast Community Center and the February 5 Council Priority Goal Setting Session at the OASIS Senior Center at 8:30 a.m. He reported that he also attended the Sister Cities dinner, the Speak Up Newport event, the launch party for Restaurant Week, and multiple DAR.E graduations. He announced that his newest granddaughter, Reagan Victoria, was horn a week ago today at Hoag Hospital. XII. CONSENT CALENDAR B. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION a. CITYWIDE SPEED LDHT ORDINANCE - SECOND READING. (700 -20]11 a) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -1 amending Chapter 12.24 (Special Speed Zones) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding increasing and decreasing State speed limits; and b) direct staff to replace/modify all speed limit signs requiring changes to reflect new speed limits. Volume 60 - Page 24 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 26, 2011 C. 5. NEWPORT BUSINESS PLAZA (PA2008 -164) - 4699 JAMBOREE ROAD AND 6190 CAMPUS DRIVE - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2008 -007 - PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2009-001 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2010- 006 (COUNTY TMPM NO. 2010 -101). [100 -20111 a) Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -3 approving Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2009.001 to amend the Koll Center Newport Planned Community text. 6. AMENDMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9 - FIRE CODE. [100 -20111 Conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -4 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), by amending Section 9.04.040, Section 9.04.050, Section 9.04.060, Section 9.04.070, and Section 9.04.0120. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES AND NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION OF THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND 2009 UNIFORM SWIMA4ING POOL AND HOT TUB CODE. [100 -2011] a) Conduct second reading and adapt Ordinance No. 2011 -5 relating to adoption of amendments to the 2010 California Building Codes and Newport Municipal Code, and adoption of the 2009 International Property Maintenance Code and 2009 Uniform Swimming Pool and Hut Tub Code; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -9 setting forth findings for the proposed amendments. 8. PUBLIC PIER TIME LIMITS AND RULES: ORDINANCE RELATING TO AMENDING THE TIME LIMITS AND RULES FOR THE CITY S PUBLIC PIERS. [100 -2011] Introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -6 amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 17.01.030, Section 17.25.010, and Section 11.20.060 which amends the time limits and rules for the City's public piers, including the added definition for "Dinghy" or "Tender," and pass to second reading on February 8, 2011. 9. BUCK GULLY RESTORATION PROJECT - CONTRACT NO. 8780 - ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND). [38/100 -2011] Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -12 approving the Buck Gully Restoration Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on the basis of the entire environmental review record. 10. RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE PAYING AND REPORTING OF THE VALUE OF THE EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTION FOR PART -TIME EMPLOYEES AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 1100 -20111 Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -13 to modify the paying and reporting of the value of the Employer Paid Member Contribution to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) for Part -time Employees and City Council Members. �oI�K�)�Y!1ls7.•S� ��L 12. DREDGING REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT RENEWAL AND SEDIMENT Volume 60 - Page 25 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 TESTING - APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NEWFIELDS (C41713). [38/100 -2011] Approve a Professional Services Agreement with NewFields for sediment analytical services for the renewal of the City's RGP -54 at a contract price of $112,500, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. 18. PURCHASE OF 2011 JUNIOR LIFEGUARD PROGRAM UNIFORMS. [100- 2011[ Award the 2011 City of Newport Beach Junior Lifeguard Program uniform purchase to Quikailver, for the total cost of $138,000, plus tax. 14. GRANT OF EASEMENT AND JOINT USE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 2700 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (C- 4715). [381100 -20111 Approve the Grant of Easement and Joint Use Maintenance Agreement between the City and Mariners Mile Company (Ned McCune, Grantor and General Partner). F. MISCELLANEOUS 16. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JANUARY 20, 2011. [100- 2011) Receive and file written report. 19. PAPER REDUCTION PROJECT - I- PAD /TABLET PILOT. [100- 20111 Receive and file. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, seconded by Council Member Rosansky to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items removed (1, 2, 4, 11, 15, 17, 18 and 20) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle III ` i OLD 1. MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2011. [100 -2011) In addition to the amendments provided to Council, Council Member Hill requested that page 2 of the minutes be amended to read, "...believed that more pedestrian pods are needed..." Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as amended, and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Aye a: Council. Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Jim Mosher reminded Council that the City, in accordance with Charter Section 412, is required to read at least the titles of each ordinance and resolution before adoption. City Attorney Hunt responded similar to his response in October 2010 that this is a convention utilized as part of the City's culture and that it does not result in any failure to report or provide information to the public. All of the City's agendas, agenda items, Volume 60 - Page 26 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 ordinances and resolutions are posted on the internet. The nuance exists that Council has the power to control its own agenda and, in his opinion, the Council need not take action contrary to its current practice to fulfill its obligation. Motion by Council Member Selich. seconded by Council Member Rosansky to waive reading in full of all ordinances.and-resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosanaky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 4. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -2 PERTAINING TO A MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE AN OPERATOR LICENSE FOR CERTAIN ESTABLISHMENTS THAT OFFER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR ONSITE CONSUMPTION IN COMBINATION WITH LATE HOURS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND /OR DANCE (PA2010 -041). (100 -20111 Milo, speaking as a musician, believed that the proposed ordinance would allow police to blame the musicians and certain ethnic groups for crowd disruption. Mayor Henn explained that there is an appeal right through the City Manager. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner stated that she was also opposed to the ordinance but would further consider the matter. Council Member Hill pointed out that the ordinance does not focus on musicians and crowds, but on the operator of the establishment. Motion by Council Member Hill, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to a) conduct second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2011 -2 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code and incorporating Chapter 5.25 establishing the requirement for an Operator License; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011 -11 establishing the fee for filing an appeal of the Chief of Police's determination on an Operator License. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry Noes: Mayor Pro Tem. Gardner, Council Member Daigle 11. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JON C. HINLEY DBA ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SERVICES (ECIS) FOR GREASE CONTROL DEVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM, GREASE CONTROL DEVICE PLAN REVIEW AND SERVICES, AND POST SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW INSPECTIONS. (381100 -20111 In response to Council questions, City Manager Kiff stated that in the past, the City has not charged for this type of inspection because the City believes that the inspections are essential to keeping the bay and ocean free from sewer spills. He also stated that, if a restaurant has a tank that was less than 750 gallons, the facility would be subject to more frequent maintenance depending on the type of food provided by the establishment. No establishment is required to go back and reinstall a larger receptor. However, new improvements would require compliance with the 750 gallon tank requirement. Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to Volume 60 - Page 27 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 26, 2011 approve an agreement with ECIS for grease control device inspection program, plan review services and post sanitary sewer overflow inspection services for one year with an option of two one -year extensions, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tom Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 16. CORONA DEL MAR WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT NO. 4608. [381100 -20111 Dick Nichols stated that he was not clear whether this report pertains to a water or sewer main. He also asked what it was supposed to do, why it was needed at this time, and why the City needed a 30 -inch main going to a 24 -inch main- City Manager Kiff reported that the City has a Water Main Master Plan. Each year the Council assigns money from the water rate revenue to continue upgrading the City's water main system on a priority basis, depending on the age of the main, and this project is consistent with the City's Master Plan. Council Member Daigle added that this project is related to a water transmission main since it comes from the Big Canyon Reservoir. Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Selich to approve a Professional Services Agreement with PSOMAS of Santa Ana, for design and construction support services at a not- to-exceed fee of $302,617, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tom Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 17. REQUEST FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER SPECIALTY LITIGATION COSTS - PARTICULARLY GROUP HOMES LITIGATION. 1100 -20111 Council Member Daigle questioned the Specialty Litigation Costs, indicating that footnote 2 stated that the Office of the City Attorney is prepared and capable of handling this matter in -house if directed to do so. She wondered whether it might be more cost- effective to handle these matters with outside counseL City Manager Kiff responded that he believed Council Member Daigle was referring to the Morn o. City of Newport Beach mattes during which he identified the amount of money he anticipated it would cost the City tc litigate the case should it actually be filed and pursued. Council Member Curry states that he would defer to the City Attorney to determine whether a matter should be handles in -house or referred to outside counsel because the City has a good track record it successfully dealing with these types of issues. Council Member Selich indicated that he appreciated that this matter was before the Council now rather than after monies have been spent. Denys Oberman asked why the City decided to enter into a 26 -year agreement with s business owner who has refused to comply and who apparently disrespects this community and this business owner was not required to apply for a use permit in a manner required o: other similsr business owners. City Attorney Hunt responded that this is a very complex issue that was addressed in the context of the Morningaide Zoning Agreement for whist many public hearings were held and that matter is not the subject of the matter at hand. Volume 60 - Page 28 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 He believed that the speaker's questions go beyond the scope of the published agenda. The Council deliberated the matter and determined that this project brings value to the City that renders this matter worth pursuing and this item simply addresses the cost of that matter, should it be filed and prosecuted. Mayor Henn stated that it is germane to the City's obligation to defend the matter and City Attorney Hunt agreed. Dick Nichols stated that this item is about group homes and that the business is supposed to have a license to operate these types of homes. Mayor Henn pointed out that this item is about a budget amendment. Jim Mosher stated that he could not understand what amount is being requested. City Manager Kiff stated that the $262,000 is intended to cover the budget for the balance of the year. The other amount is what he forecasted for the balance of the year that was available from other budget accounts. The net budget increase is $262,000. Lori Morris believed that Mr. Nichol'a question was valid. City Attorney Hunt explained that this request is for monies for out -of- pocket expenses the City would likely incur as a result of multiple litigations during the balance of the year. It highlights where the money has been spent to date and what he anticipates will be spent for the balance of the next six months. There is a possibility that a small portion of that amount may be utilized should the City be sued by Morningaide Recover and whether, in that event, the City Council will decade to utilize in -house counsel or seek outside counsel. He emphasized that he wanted the Council to see what the anticipated expense would be for the balance of the year. This item is not about Morningaide Recovery and this agenda item is not specifically about group homes, but discusses the expenses for outside counsel and the need to augment the City's budget to cover those expenses. Motion by Council Member Selich, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to approve Budget Amendment No. IIBA -028 to transfer $262,900 from reserves to budget line item 0510.8657 in order to cover the cost of Group Homes litigation and other specialty litigation year to date and through the balance of the year. The motion carved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tom Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 18. REVIEW OF OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MISSION, GOALS AND STANDARDS. [100 -20111 Jim Mosher believed that the Office of the City Attorney needs to improve its interface with the public. He urged Council to scrutinize this office more carefully. Motion by Council Member Selich. seconded bv'Council Member Rosanakv to receive and file. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosanaky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 20. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COUNCIL POLICY F -14 AND PURCHASING POLICY F -5. [100 -20111 City, Manager Kiff presented amended language relative to reporting out contract Volume 60 - Page 29 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 information to Council. Jim Mosher questioned Council's desire to delegate contracting authority to certain staff members and asked whether the Brown Act would be subverted. He requested that typos be corrected. City Attorney Hunt stated that there is no issue with respect to the Brown Act since the provision states that it is a notification and it is not polling the Council. He added that, if any Council Member wishes to have an issue brought to them regarding an emergency contract, that one Council Member can take that action. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Gardners questions, City Attorney Hunt explained that "Department Director" is clear within the organization and the Municipal Code needs to be updated because the City is currently reorganizing. He stated that staff is comfortable that Department Director titles meet the City's needs for the long term. He indicated that he was not familiar with any conflict between F -5 and F -14 and that the City Clerk's Office maintains contracts. Motion by Council Member Curry, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to adopt Resolution No. 2011 -15 amending Council Policies F -14 (Authority to Contract for Services) and F -5 (Purchasing Authority for Goods and Materials). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle XIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES - None XV. 21. MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT (PA2010 -046) - 36 RIDGELINE DRIVE - TELECOM PERMIT NO. 2010 -005 - REQUEST FOR A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PERMIT TO INSTALL A SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM. [100- 2011] Acting Planning Director Campbell provided the staff report. Council Member Curry abstained from participating in this decision because, although he lives outside of the 500 foot notification radius, he can see the facility. Motion by Council Member Rosansky, seconded by Council Member Selich to a) review the application, pursuant to Section 15.70.070(F) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and b) adopt Resolution No. 2011.16 approving Telecommunications Permit No. 2010 -005, subject to the findings and conditions of approval. . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosaneky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Daigle Abstain: Council Member Curry Without objection, it was the consensus of Council to consider Item 23. prior to discussing Item 22. Volume 60 - Page 30 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 26, 2011 26. FIRST READING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04.070 AND 6.040.240 OF TITLE 6 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND RECYCLABLES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 6.04. (100- 20111 Police Lieutenant Martin thanked staff for their help in drafting the proposed ordinance and provided the staff report. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner asked who should be called when violations are witnessed and Lt. Martin responded that either Code Enforcement or the Police Department. However, his department prefers to respond to more significant violations because higher priority calls might be delayed. Mayor Henn stated that it was his understanding that adjacent cities have more stringent ordinances that call for tougher penalties and, as a result, Newport Beach has been widely known as a target of opportunity and low risk. Lt. Martin agreed and stated that if the proposed ordinance is adopted, it will give enforcement much greater leverage to prosecute. Mayor Henn stated that given these facts it would be incumbent upon staff to make sure that it is widely publicized that Newport Beach has put themselves in the ranks of other cities that have implemented this type of policy and for enforcement to make some arrests. Although this may be a low priority matter, he would encourage the Police Department to raise the priority to a higher level and make some arrests. He asked if this ordinance permitted the impounding of vehicles. Lt. Martin responded that if the police department arrests the commercial operator, the vehicle can be impounded. Council Member Rosansky asked if this kind of behavior was typically done at night and Lt. Martin responded that the usual times are early morning and early afternoon, but it can occur at any hour. Motion by Council Member Rosanskv. seconded by Mavor Henn to introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -7 amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 6.04.070 and 6.040.240 of Title 6 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to collection of garbage and recyclables and penalties for violations of chapter 6.04, and pass to second reading on February 8, 2011. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner pointed out that the offenders seem to know the trash pickup schedule. Cindy Roller thanked Chief Johnson and the Police Department for their responses and proposing these changes because she believed it would make a difference on the Peninsula since there are daily occurrences in her area. Dan Persol thanked Council for considering this new ordinance. Lori Morrie thanked Chief Johnson and the officers who respond quickly when called. She believed that the new ordinance will greatly deter the offenders. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 22.. LIDO VILLAGE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. (100 -2011] Acting Planning Director Campbell provided the staff report and recommended that if Volume 60 - Page 31 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 appropriate, the City Council approve Alternative 5B. Tim Collins, TC Collins and Associates, announced that tonight's presentation materials will be uploaded to the City's website. He indicated that this presentation would conclude hi company s contract obligations with respect to this project, but that his firm would be available for further input should the Council so determine. Mr. Collins presented an overview of the conceptual plan as he moved through the PowerPoint presentation that included additional information and conclusions set forth by Council during the January 11 Study Session. Todd Larner, William Hezmalhalch Architects, spoke about the architectural structure of the plan as it would beat function within the footprint, and how it would best capture the synergy of the surrounding uses and merge the indoor /outdoor lifestyle of Newport Beach for the current and long term future uses. City Manager Miff discussed the City's community centers and their programs and how the proposed facility would enhance those programs. He further outlined staffs recommendation- In response to Council questions, City Manager Kiff stated that there would be some repetition in facilities and programming but the primary need for the community is the full sized gym; due to challenges during the recent storm with the waves coming so close to the lifeguard facility and parking lot, it would be appropriate to consider relocating that facility to perhaps the Marina Park where portions of the facility could be used as training rooms; since it consistent with coastal uses; and a smaller second story gym could be contained within the height limits shown on the drawings, but a full size gym would probably require adding 10 to 15 feet to the facility height. Mayor Pro Tem Gardner recalled that the Council had not reached full agreement on the retail aspect of the plan and asked for further discussion on that subject this evening. She stated that she was concerned because there had been some very thoughtful public input that was in conflict with earlier discussions. Council Member Daigle stated that she also has concerns about whether the City would be further restricted with respect to future retail. In addition, she confirmed that the discussion about housing type would require further study because no decision had been reached. Council Member Hill stated that, although building the community center would take away from the profitability of the site, he believed that this is a good opportunity for a community center. He added that, if the City could achieve the community center with little or no capital cost and produce a revenue stream to pay for the ongoing operations costs, that would be the perfect solution. He expressed support for including the gym, believed the gym would draw individuals to the retail areas, and the gym would offer a synergistic marketing opportunity. He noted that, if the City closed the 15 Street . community center, it could be leased and that location could be used for assisted living housing, and the the money could be pledged into COPS which may be able to fund the capital costa to build the center. He suggested keeping Finley Avenue as joint use and believed that the canal would be costly to construct and maintain. He emphasized that the area needs to remain a space for people. He expressed opposition to building the sky bridge since it would take people away from the retail environment; however, the sky bridge path should be the path for the public. He requested that the loading area be fully screened with an articulated concrete wall on the east side. Mayor Henn indicated that he agreed with the community that Council should move forward carefully. He emphasized that this is a concept plan only and this matter will not Volume 60 - Page 92 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 26, 2011 be concluded this evening since Council has many facets to consider before reaching final decisions, like determining how the specific planning for the area proceeds forward with the concept plan as a launching platform, and as Council continues to refine it more public input is received, and financial analysis is completes. Don Howard, Duda Company, representing the owners of the Via Lido Plaza, expressed support for Alternative 5B. He asked that Council approve the concept this evening with two exceptions: 1) removal of the sky bridge and 2) further discover the opportunities for access on Finley Avenue. Mr. Howard stated that his group strongly encourages a parking management study that includes taking a close look at the party boat permitting process and how those permits would impact the parking apace availability required for the retail operators. Mr. Howard submitted additional letters of support from tenants and property owners. Council Member Selich believed that the grocery store area had been increased and that there were insufficient parking spaces. Mr. Howard stated that at Alternative 5B would include rooftop parking spaces. Hugh Helm, Lido Isle resident, stated that he appreciated Mayor Henn's comments about the Council taking time to complete its due diligence in order to make the best possible decision. He encouraged Council to work out the lot line adjustment issue with Via Lido to allow them to proceed with their planning. He agreed that the project is an effort to revitalize the area so the City is successful in the future and is designed to be a destination. He added that the Lido Isle Homeowner Association agrees that the canal and sky bridge should be eliminated, and recommended market value housing. Louise Fundenberg, Central Newport Beach Homeowner Association, asked that the Council delay its decision until more outreach is conducted and other alternatives are considered. She indicated that the association believes that the City should move forward with the lot line adjustment and retain Finley Avenue access, but not commit to development restrictions that would limit the value of the property. Lyndon. Golin, Regency Theaters, stated that he would welcome any enhancements to the communal experience of the theater and the center in general. Craig Batley agreed with Mayor Henn about slowing down the process and congratulated the City on holding seven public input meetings because people need to understand the project. He stated that he did not understand what adopting the concept plan means, how the project would move forward, and what components would be included and implemented. Bob Rush believed that the discussion and analysis is incomplete and wondered what would be agreed upon tonight and whether a center would attract the type of visitor that would provide sufficient revenue to sustain it. Linda Mein, Lido Isle, stated that she was surprised about how many rehabilitation clients are in the area and expressed the opinion that their presence would deter residents and visitors away from the center. Robin Sinclair remembered the communal spirit that existed 25 years ago and would love to have a revitalized area downtown rather than having to go to Fashion Island. Denys Oberman felt that some of the proposed uses might cannibalize hotel uses but Volume 60 - Page 33 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 supports the destination and urged Council to commit to the anchor uses before City Hall uses were finalized. She also encouraged Council to look at market rate residential uses that would be compatible with surrounding uses, rather than assisted living and affordable housing which would be more suitable for other areas. Willie Longyear stated that he would like Council to consider an open space/central plaza with high quality housing. He believed that the Lido Village seems to have been taken over by recovery homes which has placed a burden on the area. Dave Olson, Via Lido Drug, felt the project would work to the benefit of the community and other retailers in the area. Lori' Morrie stated that residents may benefit from the proposed uses but expressed concern that meeting rooms and some businesses would be taken over by rehabilitation facilities. She also expressed concern about parking and'agreed that the canal should be removed, stated no preference relative to the sky bridge, but stated that people need to cross the street, safely. She also felt an anchor hotel would help. . Mayor Pro Tern Gardner felt that if the meeting rooms were staffed with City personnel, there would be strict operating hours and users would not be allowed to linger. Motion by Mayor Henn, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gardner to approve the amended Alternative 5B as the concept plan, with the following changes: 1) Village center size up to 15,000 square feet, subject to further review upon receipt of a master plan study from staff for City facilities and programming in the westaide of Newport Beach; 2) a residential element of approximately 85 dwelling unite of market rate housing; 3) no determination for now as to includoin of retail elements on the site; 4) elimination of the sky bridge; 5) retention of greenbelt and public plaza areas, but deferral of canal feature pending further study for feasibility and cbst; 6) require parking demand for party boats . docked at Lido Marina to be satisfied outside the planning area upon rebuilding of the marina; and 7) incorporation of points of consensus reached at the Council Study Session of January 11, 2011, to the extent not inconsistent with this motion, including dual access for Finley Avenue, the need to complete the Via Lido Plaza lot line adjustment quickly, willingness to consider density increases in return for open area, and willingness to consider height variances in return for improved view plane and more open apace. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council .Member Hill, Council Member Rosen sky, Mayor Pro Tern Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle 24. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL AND STAFFING CHANGES IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. [100 -20111 City Manager Kiff provided the staff report and requested that Council approve the staffing changes outlined in the staff report. In response to Council questions, City Manager Kiff explained the division of duties, indicated that he is considering contracting out some of the services but has not made a decision about moving forward in that direction at this time, and believed the City has not dearly defined economic development to determine whether this can be handled in- house. Volume 60 - Page 34 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 25, 2011 Council Member Hill congratulated City Manager Riff on this thought process and direction. He viewed the Deputy Community Development Director position as an ombudsman for business and an overview position that could coordinate fire, traffic, etc. He believed the economic development function should report directly to the Community Development Director. In the essential job duties description, he suggested adding a bullet dedicated to economic development. Council Member Curry congratulated staff on improving the City's operations and said he would like to see a more customer centric focus as a part of these changes. Council Member Daigle felt it was essential to modernize the CiWa organization and agreed that the Deputy Community Development Director should oversee all areas of concern for better integration. Mayor Henn stated that he was pleased to move into this phase of organization and encouraged the inclusion of a strategic IT plan. Jim Mosher expressed concern that regarding the proposal since these changes, according to the Charter, require an ordinance. City Attorney Hunt agreed, but reported that there will need to be a change to the ordinance and staff requires direction from Council in order to make those changes. He added that once staff has direction from Council the ordinance will be brought before the Council for approval- Motion by Council Member Selich, seconded by Council Member Rosanskv to approve proposed staffing and organizational changes for the Community Development Department and City Manager's Office. City Manager Kiff noted that he will add customer service and economic development bullets to the Community Development Director's job description. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tem Gardner, Mayor Henn, Council Member Selich, Council Member Curry, Council Member Daigle XVI. PUBLIC COMMENTS Joel Ojora, Protect Our Parks, reminded Council that it has been 6% years since a hotel at the Marina Park site had been rejected by the voters and 54 years since a park was recommended on the site. He asked for statue report on the Marina Park project with emphasis on the resource analysis and where the project fits in the City's overall vision. Mayor Henn indicated that there has been a lot of work done on the Marina Park project and believed that a meeting of the Marina Park Committee would be held in about a month to update the residents. Craig Morrisette, Central Newport Beach Community Association, stated that the association is disappointed that the Marina Park project was not on the Coastal Commission's January 2011 agenda. He indicated that the association. members are ready to help move this item forward and would be willing to attend Coastal Commission meetings in other jurisdictions. Diane Romick, Pacific Ridge, presented a thank you card to Detective Prouty who assisted with the arrest of individuals who had overtaken a property in her neighborhood. Volume 60 - Page 35 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 28, 2011 Mayor Pro Tem Gardner hoped that Council consider moving Public Comments to an earlier spot on the agenda. XVII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -None XVIII. ADJOURNMENT -10:22 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 19, 2011, at 4:10 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on January 21, 2011, at 4:44 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. dt LfA!YwC�. L��""' City Clerk ' Recording ecretary Mayor Volume 60 - Page a0 PETITION W57in ABC To improve safety by re- classifying o "Local" Road between 23`d and 22 "d street, and put the speed limit back to 25MPH. Due to the lack of sidewalks and increased speed often times over 45 MPH, I am petitioning the city to bring the speeds back to 2SMPH. Many children use this street to go to school, mothers with children, pregnant woman and elderly people as pedestrians use this road. There have been many close calls of people almost being hit by cars traveling well above the speed limit. For safety, it is important to bring the speed back to 25MPH. Name -fodcl 1�7a<�'arly7( fax -j'4"'./ CA2/zOf.r, µ U� U�i�5�1i�Pf it4,� Address Phone Si ture �3 97 Li'rP�c 134Ysa qfg- f 7y -26z 1� 3 v �� /1TP �ayd 9 �� iPlS fa a�5r �L�) Cj 31 -/ 290 a51,;; �ift (V��ttin- Rtic� 5'1a--LR?11 R�� tea. -yla2- (YlcGwvraY. o26-1S 14A ff)y ii7e, Udv SUL 7;'-85- �/ 'Ls4�- i lIL 3q3, i :5,�A- &crow, VAS II %� 9- SW -523y °/`f i 2- �� (n ®Zq 15�i 1353 94- /Vary,( �vdN�,•� � ��s an �o o N L r�S k�71- • bPzI ELLf A,n -All . -. #( �L J- 7�6 Dzrl�- Nr -QC- QCd (, 5 04:j lh_ 2Grz -r45 +&Z, zo 16 �r�s ✓� hohe °r `�`r -7 -,)-a- <-" -9'7 2,fIz s,.eflL11,v z41z i,5M 2-+Z-`7 sl e��a1/15 � 1 StD --�, v (ja Alj-&,�,.1l lak. �U L\ (YVI�hSb A Va-7dL J1-7/)v6 T eUiy I )AY41Z p 1rt-F- DIM Cayjkn qf22-- _A-(n lGlr�l7f ��'bti.c ��r 9'f9�G1fz9y -� 20 itiA- MAPA A- �9y C1)b - Rlco Y-LHI V1AJi1ll0OA --) Cat �b�10 I I \10 Mgmr&, 0 by 411M ore Si�nu7ti�rle 1 �Ui -e'er- V�1 VAOr AIZIcR LI—Al , �3 r dr 45no �J titi rya _�--o98 (�Q.yi�n GGr�c;U � v`�cuuzyn, `s�ivcout kW"\Q N�i A 9 5 s 1 92-� �C 316 Pvr &)aw ,394 611"06 7/' G Z f 3� 6N��a� rJ3 5'J�Gb J flo \ )UYN a �✓l e5a it, � cat �ea7) J-A� U i St1'U - 376 ✓�sfW%�� tig 9 Sq�- 9V yY "7- 7Ye- 52 ;s c7 q � -36, 3 5�_, A/ Go