Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 07-10-2001City Council Meeting July 24, 2001 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes DRAFT Study Session July 10, 2001- 4:10 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Present: Proctor, Glover, Ridgeway, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: Heffernan, O'Neil (excused) CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted the large audience in attendance at the meeting for Item No. 3, Newport Harbor Policy Issues. He challenged the group to become as involved with the City's airport effort. 2. PROPERTY AND GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWALS. City Manager Bludau announced that Item Nos. 14 and 15 on the evening agenda, General Liability Excess Insurance Renewal and Property Insurance Renewal, recommend approval of the renewals, both at an increased cost. City Manager Bludau stated that he placed the item on the Study Session agenda to give the City Council the opportunity to ask questions of staff on what was done to try to get the best insurance coverage. Risk Manager Farley introduced the City's broker, Mark Zahoryin of Cal Surance. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the insurance market is currently very difficult, primarily due to reinsurance and capacity. He stated that the Insurance Company of the West (ICW), which has been the City's carrier for several years, has gotten out of the municipality insurance business. Mr. Zahoryin stated that Royal Indemnity is being recommended for the general liability excess insurance coverage because they provided the best rate. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City has been with Zurich Insurance Company for property insurance for the past seven years. He stated that Zurich offered an 11% increase for the renewal, which was favorable in the current market. He added that Westchester Fire Insurance Company offered the best rate for the separate coverage of the City piers. With regards to the difference in conditions coverage, Mr. Zahoryin stated that seven carriers declined to bid, four carriers were not pursued due to high indications and six quotes were received. Mayor Adams confirmed with City Manager Bludau that the quotes received were used in the preparation of the budget. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the City had been self- insured in the past seven years for piers or other property. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City Volume 54 - Page 350 [No report] City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 iii 4 self- insured the piers during that period and, seven years ago, added earthquake insurance. Mr. Zahoryin further explained that three separate policies are used to cover the City's two piers, and they include policies for all risk, earthquake and wave wash or flood. At Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's request, Mr. Zahoryin provided some history on the City's coverage for all risk, not including the piers. In 1998, the total insured value was approximately $35.6 million and the premium was approximately $58,000. In 1999, the value increased to approximately $75.6 million and in 2000 to $79.9 million. Mr. Zahoryin added that the carrier that was covering the piers, Zurich, increased the pier premium in the current renewal by 40% because the piers are not sprinklered. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the piers would be sprinklered in the future- Public Works Director Webb stated that they would not, due to cost. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway observed that the City is only covered for $5 million. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City actually has various layers of insurance, uses several insurance companies and is covered for $35 million. He added that the total premium for property and earthquake in the current renewal increased by 19.3 %. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the City had any earthquake claims since 1933. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City had not had such claims, -but that earthquake coverage is in consideration of a potential catastrophic loss. Council Member Glover confirmed with Mr. Zahoryin that the earthquake coverage is for the City's own property and buildings. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that every public agency is dealing with the increase in insurance rates. He noted that the Sanitation District has discussed the problem, and has considered self- insurance. He felt that it was too large of an issue to discuss in such a short period of time. City Manager Bludau stated that he felt satisfied that staff and the broker had done everything possible to receive the lowest rates. Council Member Glover stated that she understood that insurance didn't pay on claims for earthquake damage unless a building was completely destroyed. Mr. Zahoryin stated that, based on the value of the building, the coverage does apply to the percentage of the building that is damaged. He recommended that the City not pay for earthquake insurance to cover minor damage, and to only cover the catastrophic losses. Council Member Proctor asked if the City should consider more self - insurance. City Manager Bludau stated that he didn't think so and felt that the increase in coverage was acceptable. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the property insurance seemed reasonable, but that the general liability excess insurance appeared to be skewed. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City is self- insuring on earthquake coverage in an amount of approximately $5.7 million. Volume 54 - Page 351 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 Council Member Proctor noted the drop in the City's amount of self - insurance over the past seven years. He asked what precipitated the decrease. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the current amount of self- insurance is where the City has wanted to be, but couldn't in prior years due to a soft market. He added that in 1994/1995, the premium with a $1 million Self - Insured Retention (SIR) at $10 million in coverage was $343,000, and noted that the current limit is $25 million. Referring to the current premium of $331,000 for general liability excess insurance, Council Member Proctor asked for the history of what the expenses were in the previous year. Mr. Zahoryin stated that the City had no incidences over the $500,000 SIR. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if this had been true in prior years also. Mr. Zahoryin stated that it had. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked why the City is continuing to pay over $300,000 per year when it has never had a claim. City Manager Bludau stated that the insurance is paid to cover a big event and it is unknown when one could occur. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway pointing out that he is talking about general liability excess insurance, Mr. Zahoryin stated that the catastrophic potential for liability claims are just as significant. Council Member Proctor asked if an increase in the deductible should be considered. Mr. Zahoryin recommended not increasing the City's deductible because if the market continues to harden and the City decides to lower the deductible, the cost differential would be greater. He added that the reason the City received the lower quote from Royal Indemnity was because the underwriter used to be with ICW and was familiar with the City's account. Council Member Glover stated that it's natural to question having insurance when it's not being used. She additionally noted that the City used to have trouble getting insured and she's appreciative that the City is currently less vulnerable. 3. NEWPORT HARBOR POLICY ISSUES. City Manager Bludau stated that Council Member Bromberg requested that this item be discussed at a Study Session. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the majority of the water area in Newport Harbor is State Tidelands, given to the City in a grant in the 1920's. He stated that the zoning code for the City stops at the U.S. Bulkhead Line. The property past the Bulkhead Line is controlled by the City's Harbor Permit Policy, Council Policy H•1. Harbor Resources Manager Melum displayed exhibits illustrating the Bulkhead Lines in the peninsula area. He pointed out the areas on the harbor that are excluded from being built on by City policy, which included Balboa Island and two locations on Lido Isle. He noted that the harbor is approximately 95% built out, so that the majority of the construction is for revisions and maintenance on existing structures. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the City's harbor permit policies were originally drafted in 1964, have been in effect since that time Volume 54 - Page 352 INDEX Harbor Permit Policy /Council Policy H -1 (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX and haven't been revised considerably. He stated that the policies have worked well and staff is only recommending some housekeeping changes. He added that different kinds of construction are permitted on different locations in the harbor. He displayed exhibits of some of the types of construction and vessels that are permitted. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the major issues being dealt with under the harbor permit policies are dock construction, dock revision and the berthing of vessels. He stated that a property's permit zone is determined by an extension of the side property line to the Bulkhead Line. He stated that in some locations where the channels are wide, permitted zones are increased past the Bulkhead Line. Mayor Adams asked if two vessels can be placed in a permitted zone. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that they could, as long as the boats stay within the bay ward extension of the side property lines. He continued to display exhibits of different boat and dock configurations in the harbor that followed setback and policy requirements. He added that the pierhead and project line restrictions apply to structures only, and not to vessels. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the harbor policies are general and allow different types of structures throughout the harbor, which are determined by property size, and the pierhead or Bulkhead Line location. He stated that this has resulted in a diversity of structures throughout the harbor and has worked very well. Council Member Bromberg stated that he'd like specific information presented about Balboa Island. Harbor Resources Manager Melum confirmed that the Balboa Island section was included in the original policies adopted in 1964. He read the current policy. He stated that staff has interpreted the policy to mean that no new docks will be allowed to be constructed on Balboa Island. He added, however, that the City has allowed remodeling, if kept within the existing structures' square footage. And, additionally, has not given consideration to the size of the vessel the new structure might be able to accommodate. Council Member Glover asked if anyone had been deprived of having a boat under the harbor policies. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the City has denied dock applications in the past. He added that a large number of properties on Balboa Island do not have a dock. Per Mayor Adams' question, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that staff takes into consideration the impact of a remodeled structure on beach area or swimming activities. Per Council Member Bromberg's question, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that staff looks at the beach and the immediate water adjacent to it. Council Member Bromberg cited an example of a vessel whose bow is resting in the sand, although surrounded by water. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that staff would interpret the design and use of a structure that would result in a vessel being high and dry during low tide as impacting the beach. Council Member Bromberg commented on staff looking at the structure and not the vessel, as mentioned earlier. Harbor Resources Volume 54 - Page 353 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Manager Melum stated that the interpretation of the policy is made by staff, and is not codified. He added, however, that prior to the mid -90's, all permits on Balboa Island required City Council approval. Council Member Bromberg asked what action the City would take if a vessel were found to be high and dry during low tide. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that per policy, the City's only opportunity to make a determination is when the request for the structure revision is made. Mayor Adams asked how a determination could be made by staff if the size of the vessel is not known. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that only a guess of the possibilities can be made. He added that in some cases, the applicant will inform the City of the vessel type and in other instances, the City will require vessel information. Mayor Adams suggested that U- shaped docks can limit how close a vessel can get to the beach. Per Council Member Bromberg's question, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that there are limitations to how far a property owner can dredge towards the bulkhead on Balboa Island, but generally not elsewhere in the harbor. He added that this is probably due to the old bulkhead that is around Balboa Island and also to maintain the sandy beach. Mayor Adams asked why the City is limited to dealing with the issues by Council policy versus having the policies codified. City Attorney Burnham stated that Chapter 17.24 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code deals with structures in the harbor and refers to the harbor policies, and that additional details could be added. Council Member Bromberg asked about a vessel docked above eelgrass. With regards to regulations, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that he is not aware of it being a problem. Additionally, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that eelgrass is only considered when looking at a revision to an existing structure. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if sand replenishment is taken into consideration when reviewing permits for the south side of Balboa Island. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that all sand is required to remain or be returned to the beach. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway additionally asked if the changing of the beach during the year is taken into consideration. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that most boat owners do not want their boats to be beached, so they will ask the City for a dredging permit. He stated that this provides the City with an opportunity to consider sand replenishment. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked for staffs opinion on the issue of Mr. Cook's dock. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that Mr. Cook presented a proposal to the City to reconfigure his dock. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that it appeared that the reconfiguration would land lock two adjacent moorings, and confirmed this with the affected mooring owners. The City advised Mr. Cook that the permit would most likely not be approved for this reason. Mr. Cook reconfigured the dock, but the City denied the application due to the impact to the beach, the two mooring owners and the adjacent pier owner. Harbor Resources Manager Melum Volume 54 - Page 354 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX stated that Mr. Uook has since submitted another application and staff is in the process of reviewing it. Noting the location of the dock as 1106 and 1108 South Bay Front, Council Member Bromberg stated that the channel in that area is fairly narrow and asked how far a vessel can encroach into the channel. Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the general rule is that a vessel can extend beyond the structure by the width of the boat, if there is no hazard to navigation. Per Mayor Adams' question, Harbor Resources Manager Melum stated that the size of the vessel is only indirectly limited by the policies. He stated that the applicant is only required to disclose the size and number of vessels when engineering information is required by the Building Department. Dick Ashoff displayed some photographs of Carole Diane, a vessel moored near Marine Avenue and Amethyst Avenue. He stated that the vessel is approximately twenty feet high and fifty feet long, and has a major impact on Balboa Island. Mr. Ashoff continued to display several photographs of the vessel, and its relationship to the beach and the channel. He noted that the vessel rests on the sand during low tides. Ben Schmid, 203 Pearl Avenue, stated that he and his family utilize both the south and north sides of the bay. He suggested that the City adopt a new ordinance to limit vessel length to forty feet between the Grand Canal and Garnet Avenue. Bill Pierpoint, 124 Apolena Avenue, stated that he and his wife have chosen to live on Balboa Island due to the unique lifestyle it provides his family. He stated that they enjoy the beach, swimming and boating. He stated that his family doesn't want to see the eroding of the character and charm of Balboa Island. He stated that it's the only public island on the bay and special care must be taken to ensure that access to the beaches and water are maintained. He added that he understands private property owner rights, but feels that approving the mooring of Mr. Cook's vessel would set a dangerous precedent. Council Member Proctor asked if taking testimony from the audience on a pending application would cause a due process problem. City Attorney Burnham stated that it wouldn't since it was made clear earlier in the meeting that the agendized item is a general discussion of the harbor permit policies and the speakers' comments, so far, have been relevant to the issue. Council Member Proctor asked about the application and appeal process. City Attorney Burnham stated that the process begins with the Harbor Resources Manager, with appeals to the City Manager and then the City Council. Tom Houston, 206 Ruby Avenue, stated that he swims and kayaks in the bay, and is concerned about maintaining Balboa Island's unique nature and beaches, which are used by guests of the island. He expressed his frustration with the proposed location of Mr. Cook's vessel, stating that there are other locations in the harbor that would be better. Mr. Houston referred Volume 54 - Page 355 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX to the staff recommendation Tor changes to the Balboa Island section of the Harbor Permit Policy, and stated that he disagrees with removing the language about swimming in the bay and using the water and the beach. He stated that a lot of effort has gone into maintaining the water quality in the bay, so that people can swim. Blocking access to this swimming shouldn't be allowed and he requested that the City Council deny the application of Mr. Cook. Pete Swift, 1719 Skylark Lane, stated that he performs dock repairs and revisions in the harbor and has seen applications for Balboa Island denied, indicating to him that Balboa Island is special. He stated that there's already many restrictions and he's worried about more rules and regulations being added for the docks. He stated that the harbor is there to accommodate vessels. Pam Sigband, 1110 S. Bay Front, requested that the City Council evaluate the long -term impact that any pier approval would have on the future of Balboa Island. She stated that the island has been the City's number one tourist attraction for years, and the charm and the public's enjoyment of a special place needs to be preserved. She stated that oversized vessels will severely impact the safety of the island's beaches by obstructing navigational visibility and the viewing of bay activities. Ms. Sigband stated that a single person should not have the right to take away the public's enjoyment of the bay. Bob Wachtler, 314 Sapphire Avenue, stated that he is against large vessels on South Bay Front because they cause hazard issues to the waterway, safety issues for swimmers, and impede the public's use of the island's beaches. Mr. Wachtler stated that everyone should be proud of Balboa Island and share in the responsibility of protecting it. He stated that the qualities of the island need to be preserved for tourism and the City's economy. He suggested that tough, new regulations be put into effect. John Van Vlear, 495 Dove Street, stated that he is an attorney representing the Cooks. He commended the large turnout at the meeting and stated that the Cooks also understand the uniqueness of Balboa Island. Mr. Van Vlear stated that large vessels are not unique to Balboa Island, however, and he presented several photographs of vessels around the island. He stated that the harbor permit policy is workable, and allows management of the harbor and the interests of boat owners and property owners to coexist. Council Member Bromberg stated that many of the vessels in the photographs presented by Mr. Van Vlear are not as large as the Cook's vessel and many do not impact the beaches. Jim McClaren stated that a 58-foot vessel has been moored near the Cook's property for several years, and two others are also on the island. He noted that they are motor yachts, not sailboats. He stated that the length of the vessel is less important than how far out it extends into the waterway. Mr. McClaren noted other large vessels and stated that the Cook's vessel is a pilot house yacht, which means it is lower than a sport fishing vessel. He concluded by stating that approval of the Cook's vessel would not set a Volume 54 - Page 356 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 precedent. INDEX Council Member Bromberg asked if a pending permit application would be affected by a moratorium on permits. City Attorney Burnham stated that it could depend upon the terms and conditions set by the City Council on the moratorium. Council Member Bromberg stated that the concern of many of the speakers is legitimate. He stated that it is time to look at the harbor permit policies and possibly tighten them up. He noted that the Harbor Committee would be reviewing the Harbor Permit Policy, specifically as it relates to Balboa Island, at their meeting on July 24, 2001. Council Member Bromberg requested that staff prepare a report for the City Council meeting of August 14, 2001, with recommendations from the Harbor Committee and staff on the existing Harbor Policy, specifically as it relates to Balboa Island. He stated that the language in the policy that deals with Balboa Island and the impacts on the beach, swimming and land with respect to the use of pier permits for new piers, remodels or repairs should remain. He stated that public views should also be taken into consideration. Council Member Bromberg requested that the report include the impact of pier permits, docks and larger vessels on the beach, swimming, navigation and public views; dredging on and near bulkheads; vessel extension into the channels, specifically into the south channel; and vessel size, in certain locations such as South Bay Front. He additionally requested that staff prepare a report for the City Council meeting of July 24, 2001, with appropriate language for a moratorium on pier permits for new piers, remodels or repairs, for South Bay Front from Garnet Avenue to The Grand Canal. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the harbor permit policies have worked well for quite some time. He stated that he disagrees with creating any new legislation which would make it more difficult in the harbor, because of a single circumstance. He noted that the bigger issue is the charming character of South Bay Front and Balboa Island, and weighing this against the boating industry and the harbor in general. He announced that the July 24, 2001, meeting of the Harbor Committee would take place at 7:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Member Bromberg pointed out that a review of the harbor permit policies is not anything against boat owners, and only a quality of life issue. Council Member Glover requested that a list of the Harbor Committee members be provided to her. She stated that if the Committee is comprised primarily of Balboa Island residents, it wouldn't be representative of the overall water community. She added that she is hesitant to change anything that is working well. She stated that each request is unique and she is confident that the right decisions have been made. Council Member Glover stated that it appears that a moratorium is already in place for Balboa Island. Mayor Adams stated that those in the audience that did not have a chance to Volume 54 - Page 357 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 speak at the current meeting would have the opportunity at one of the future meetings mentioned earlier. 4. CITY HALL SPACE OPTIONS. City Manager Bludau stated that the 2001 -2002 Capital Improvement Program budget allocates $345,000 for Phase I of the City Hall Space Expansion project. Public Works Director Webb stated that there is a deficiency of space in the City Hall complex. He displayed photographs of current conditions in some of the offices, hallways, work areas, public counters and storage areas. Public Works Director Webb stated that he attempted to come up with a plan that could be accomplished within one year. He presented a drawing of the current City Hall complex. Public Works Director Webb stated that some of the options for increasing the space at City Hall include installing mobile offices outside of the Professional/Technical building, expanding the lobby in the Professional/Technical building, demolishing the jail and installing mobile offices, expanding the engineering area and adding a second story above the Revenue Division. Public Works Director Webb displayed drawings of the various options and photographs of the existing sites. He stated that the total cost of Phase I, which would include all of the options except the addition of the second story, would be $348,000. He stated that the second story would cost approximately $250,000, and would be budgeted in the next fiscal year. Council Member Glover stated that City Hall used to be beautiful, and the addition of walls over the years has created an unwelcome atmosphere. She suggested that if extra space is needed, an architect needs to be hired. She stated that she opposed mobile offices. Mayor Adams stated that he is also concerned about the aesthetic impacts. He acknowledged that the space is needed and temporary units could be used for a short -term solution in a crisis situation, but that they should not be considered a long -term fix. He agreed that an architect should be consulted. Council Member Proctor stated his support for spending more money and time, and doing it right. Council Member Bromberg stated his support for hiring an architect. Mayor Adams stated that the only option he could support is the addition of the second story. City Manager Bludau stated that the greatest need for expansion is in the Professional/Technical building. Mayor Adams suggested that staff bring the item back for further discussion at the Study Session of July 24, 2001. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. Volume 54 - Page 358 INDEX City Hall Space Options (35) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 10, 2001 ADJOURNMENT - 6:10 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on July 5, 2001, at 2:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 54 - Page 359 INDEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes ®���� Regular Meeting July 10, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. INDEX STUDY SESSION - 4:10 p.m. CLOSED SESSION - 6:10 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT - None. ................... A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:05 P.M. FOR REGULAR AR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor Mayor Adams Absent: None C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway. D. INVOCATION - Reverend Dr. George Crisp of Christ Church by the Sea, United Methodist. E. PRESENTATION Presentation of Certificate of Merit from the Orange County Section of the American Planning Association, California Chapter, for the Balboa Sign Overlay project. Presentation to Public Works Director Don Webb in recognition of his 33 years of service to the City. F. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC G. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): • Council Member Heffernan requested that the City Attorney generate a report for the Telecommunications Committee relative to Federal preemption on the City's cable contracts. • Council Member Heffernan reported that the lifeguards have rescued 1,490 people since April 1, 2001, 408 people this month, and have conducted 183 medical aids. Further, they have 15 regular employees, 192 seasonal lifeguards, 36 oceanfront towers, two bay towers, one command vehicle, three supervisor vehicles, seven patrol vehicles, and Volume 54 - Page 360 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 L" three boats. He commended the lifeguards and stated that keeping the ocean safe for the tourists is a great attribute. Council Member O'Neil announced that the Fourth Annual Newport Coast Triathlon will be held on Sunday, July 22 at Crystal Cove State Park at 6:00 a.m. Council Member Proctor stated that he watched "Beach Watch" on The Learning Channel about the Newport Beach lifeguards. He indicated that it was one of the most impressive documentaries that he has ever seen. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Removed at the request of an audience member. 2. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 3. Removed at the request of an audience member. 4. MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 2.12, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND CHAPTER 2.32, DUTIES OF CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. Introduce Ordinance No. 2001 -14 and Ordinance No. 2001 -15 and pass to second reading on July 24, 2001. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 5. Removed at the request of an audience member. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 12.54 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF SCOOTERS ON THE OCEANFRONT BOARDWALK. Adopt Ordinance No. 2001 -10 amending Chapter 12.54. Removed at the request of Council Member Heffernan. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 8. MODIFICATIONS TO CITY CLERKS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (C- 3080). 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2001 -58 adjusting the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement with the City Clerk; 2) direct staff to prepare an amended Employment Agreement to include the proposed work schedule change, as well as previously approved changes, in order to accurately reflect the terms and conditions of Harkless' employment as City Clerk; and 3) authorize the Mayor to Volume 54 - Page 361 INDEX Ord 2001 -14 Ord 2001 -15 City Traffic Engineer Duties (66/74) Ord 2001 -10 Scooters/ Oceanfront Boardwalk (70) Res 2001 -58 C -3080 City Clerk Employment Agreement (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 execute the updated Employment Agreement with the CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 9. CORONA HIGHLANDS WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, STREET REHABILITATION AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS — AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3345). 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award a contract (C -3345) to Majich Bros. Inc. of Altadena for the total bid price of $1,475,700 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; 3) establish an amount of $145,000 to cover the cost of testing and unforeseen work; 4) authorize a budget amendment (BA -001) transferring $53,539 from Account No. 7281- C5100586 to Account No. 7281- C5100595 and transferring $81,911 from Account No. 7181- C5100537 to Account No. 7181 - 05100595 (Corona Highlands Street Improvements); and 5) authorize a budget amendment (BA -001) appropriating $166,800 to Contributions Account No. 7251- C5100595 and increase revenue estimates by $166,800 into Account No. 250.5901 to reflect the property owner's contributions for the driveway improvements. Council Member O'Neil abstained from voting on this item. 10. NEWPORT DUNES STORM WATER DIVERSION (C -3297) — COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) 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 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. 11. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE NEWPORT BACKBAY SLOPE STABILIZATION COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Newport Backbay Slope Stabilization Cost Sharing Agreement DOO -107 between the City and the County of Orange. 12. IRVINE TERRACE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (C -3298) — COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) 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 4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance. 13. APPROVAL OF A COOPERATION AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. 1) Approve the project plans for the Back Bay Drive Road Reconstruction between Jamboree Road and Shellmaker Road; 2) approve a Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement between Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and the City of Newport Beach ($122,162.25 City's share) for the Volume 54 - Page 362 INDEX C- 3345BA -001 Corona Highlands Water Replacement, Street Rehab and Storm Drain Improvements (38/40) C -3297 Newport Dunes Storm Water Diversion (38) C -3392 Newport Backbay Slope Stabilization (38) C -3298 Irvine Terrace Streetlight Replacement (38) C -3434 Back Bay Drive Road Reconstruction (38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 reconstruction of Back Bay Drive between Jamboree Road and Shellmaker Road as part of OCSD's Backbay Trunk Sewer Project and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement; and 3) establish an amount of $10,000 to cover the cost of unforeseen work. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 14. GENERAL LIABILITY EXCESS INSURANCE RENEWAL. Approve the renewal of the excess general liability insurance coverage with Royal Indemnity for FY 2001 -02 for $331,000 in annual premium. 15. PROPERTY INSURANCE RENEWAL. Approve the renewal of the entire property insurance coverage outlined in Attachment A of the staff report for FY 2001 -02 for a total premium of $394,795. 16. RESPONSE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED "SEWAGE SPILLS, BEACH CLOSURES - TROUBLE IN PARADISE?" 1) Approve the response from the City of Newport Beach to the Orange County Grand Jury's April 25, 2001 report entitled "Sewage Spills, Beach Closures - Trouble in Paradise ? " - and 2) direct Assistant City Manager Kiff to return within 120 days with a report and recommendations on how to better protect the sewer system and the Bay from grease blockages resulting from all commercial kitchen operations in the city. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 3, 5, and 7), and noting Council Member O'Neil's abstention on Item No. 9. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2001. Jim Hildreth, The Grand Canal, I'd like to have the tapes reviewed. The — I'm talking Volume 54, Page 335, under J, Public Comments. The last sentence on Page 336 says, "Mr. Hildreth added that the closest dock that might be considered as an alternative has been locked." That is misstated. It's not that it might be considered, it cannot be considered because the individual does not want people to trespass on his property, and that is the reason why he has a gate and lock. Thank you. In response to Mayor Adams' question, City Clerk Harkless stated that Mr. Hildreth's comments are transcribed close to verbatim. Volume 54 - Page 363 INDEX General Liability Excess Insurance (47) Property Insurance (47) Orange County Grand Jury Report (51/54) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Motion by Council Member Glover to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 3. NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA NO. 14). Dolores Otting stated that Council met at an offsite location in January and one of the topics discussed was the Newport Coast annexation. She indicated that one of the conditions of the annexation was to keep Newport Coast in one Council district; however, during the meeting, splitting them up was discussed. She believed that this type of talk makes people vote for things like Greenlight and not trust government representatives. She added that she believes that current residents would prefer that Newport Coast stay one district because splitting them up might give them more power in two or three different districts. City Manager Bludau noted that the staff report before Council is for modifications in the Annexation and Development Agreement between the City and The Irvine Company, and has nothing to do with negotiations with Newport Coast representatives. He reported that the City did indicate in those negotiations that, when Newport Coast did become part of the City, they would remain in one Council district. However, as the Charter requires the City to adjust Council districts in order to divide the population equally, Council cannot make any promises to keep them in one district. He clarified that this has always been what was said and that this was acceptable to Newport Coast. Mayor Adams added that the City will place Newport Coast in its own district initially, but there is no legal way the City can guarantee leaving them as one district in the future. Motion by Council Member Glover to introduce Ordinance No. 2001- 13 adopting Development Agreement No. 14 and pass to second reading on July 24, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Volume 54 - Page 364 INDEX Ord 2001 -13 C -3432 Newport Coast Annexation and DA 14 (21/38) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 5. MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 7.04.050 OF THE NBMC - PROHIBITION OF DOGS IN CARROLL BEEK PARK. Jim Hildreth. I'd like to have this read exactly what it is — a little bit more discussion on it. Exactly what does this mean? Is that the dogs are not going to be allowed in this park? I mean, is it a day — during the daytime hours? Is it just not even going to be there? I'd like to know more about what's going on. Thank you. City Attorney Burnham reported that the ordinance, if adopted, would prohibit dogs in the park at all times throughout the year. Motion by Council Member Brombere to adopt Ordinance No. 2001- 9 amending Section 7.04.050. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None KOLL OFFICE SITE B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 97 -3(B), ZONING AMENDMENT NO. 905, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 119, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 16, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) NO. 158. Council Member Heffernan stated that, while the City is conducting an extensive General Plan Update, the Development Agreement (DA) is requiring the applicant to contribute over $110,000 to the $500,000 study for the Specific Airport Plan. He expressed concern that, if the DA is approved and the study is completed, the owner will already have his mitigation measures in place and the study will have no impact on the project. Further, the DA calls for a two -level interchange at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. He stated that he will be voting against this ordinance and believed that the City should not be allowing this before the General Plan Update is completed. Council Member Heffernan stated that the last General Plan Update was conducted in 1988 and that 1,060,000 square feet was approved in this area and that the owner built out this project, except for 15,000 square feet. He indicated that, after Greenlight was approved, they now want to increase by 250,000 square feet to make more money on an area of the City that was considered intense enough to have 1,060,000 square feet in 1988. He believed that the proposed project would also create more traffic and intensity that would add 1,000 more people who will want to use the John Wayne Airport (JWA). He reiterated that this project should be postponed until the General Plan Update is completed and that this is too intense a development on a very constrained corner. He pointed out that the owner will also get a 25 year fixed mitigation cost no matter what happens in the future, and that this is inconsistent with Greenlight. Volume 54 - Page 365 INDEX Ord 2001.9 Dogs/ Carroll Beek Park (62/70) C- 3433/Ord 2001 -11/ Ord 2001 -12 Koll Office Site B/ GPA 97 -3(B)/ Zoning Amendment 905/ Traffic Study 119/ Development Agr 161 EIR 158 (38/45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX City Attorney Burnham reported that revisions have been made to the ordinance approving the DA and the ordinance approving the zoning amendment. He clarified that the revisions, which have already been presented to the interested parties and are available on the table in the lobby, clarify that the zoning ordinances would not take affect unless the electorate approves the project's General Plan Amendment (GPA). Council Member Glover asked if this project meant a grade separation would occur. Mr. Burnham stated that the DA does not require the City to construct a grade separation at Jamboree and MacArthur as an outgrowth of the project. He indicated that the DA does mention possible ways to mitigate long term traffic impacts and identifies grade separations as a possibility, but does not mandate the City to construct or plan/design the improvement. Mayor Adams believed that these types of issues will be taken up in the Circulation Element as part of the General Plan Update. He pointed out that the project will also be contributing $2 million to fund items in the airport area that are identified in the General Plan Update. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Burnham indicated that this property is not within Alternative G of the JWA expansion plan. Mayor Adams indicated that Mr. Arst requested extra time since he is speaking on behalf of Greenlight. Phil Arst, representing Greenlight, utilized the overhead projector and presented copies of his overheads to Council. He stated that Greenlight recommends that the Koll proposal to increase its building entitlements by a factor of 15 be rejected. He indicated that the project would add 1,700 auto trips a day, contribute to unsatisfactory traffic conditions with no current solutions, create more demand for airport use and expansion, and provides no real economic benefits. He believed that the DA also contains clauses which place the City at considerable liability to cover contingencies for the developer. He stated that Council should not sell the resident's quality of life for $30 /resident. Mr. Arst asked why the City should grant a developer a 15 times entitlement increase so it can increase traffic congestion; why grant a developer a $15 million windfall; why create one of the highest density building sites in the City; why rely on the developer's traffic analysis that is outmoded by the City's own proposal to increase the allowable passenger cap at JWA; and why, when the City is spending $1 million for a General Plan Update, permit the developer to gain a major entitlement that may or may not be granted in the Update. Mr. Arst believed that the City's fiscal analysis of the developer's project is badly skewed. He noted that it claims that the City will net $50,000/ year when, at best, it will be $10,000 /year and more realistically be a net loss of $10,000 /year. Volume 54 - Page 366 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Mr. Arst noted that Irvine charges 17% more than the $2.45 million that Koll will be paying the City. He added that the City is giving Koll a development entitlement windfall that could cost up to $15 million if they were building in Irvine. He reported that Irvine requires a Transfer Right Purchase if the property owner does not have entitlement for the 1,700 cars /day traffic that is being generated. He stated that, at $30/square foot, this would cost up to $15 million. Mr. Arst believed that the Koll project represents a potential loss and future liability to the City. He noted that the benefits of the project include the $2.45 million to the City with a ±$10,000 /year revenue. However, losses include the $1.7 million expenditure on MacArthur and Jamboree that may be scrapped in the future if a grade separation is constructed, and the cost of a storm drain hookup that is not defined as a City cost. He expressed concern about the City's assumption of liabilities for the developer. He indicated that, if the State makes additional mandates, the City has to adjust the DA to make the developer whole. He added that the DA exempts Koll from future traffic fees and assessments, and the City assumes risk of conformance if it is assigned to a third party. He indicated that the developer would also be exempt from future impact fees if the City determines that it needs some type of upgrade for the public good. Mr. Arst indicated that Greenlight is concerned that the DA is receiving preferential treatment at taxpayer expense. He stated that the DA requires expeditious approval of Koll's permit processing and believed that a homeowner would have to wait to have their permit processed if staff is working on Koll's project. He added that this attitude is throughout the DA, believing that they do not even need to comply with City laws, regulations, or ordinances at signing, and can be exempted from normal City commencement and completion time limitations. He stated that this means Koll has no duty to build in a timely manner since they will have a 25 year window without any other expenses to accommodate any changes in the City. Mr. Arst stated that the project contributes to significant long range traffic, adding that, in the year 2020, the project impacts five major intersections and adds 1% or more traffic to five other intersections. Regarding MacArthur /Jamboree and Jamboree /Campus, he noted that it is staffs opinion that these intersection impacts are significant and unavoidable. Mr. Arst believed that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the traffic findings are sufficient reasons to reject the project since there is unmitigated traffic impacts and pollution. He noted that Council can make a finding of "overriding consideration" to pass the project, but the only reason is monetary. He expressed the opinion that this project is detrimental to the public's health since it creates traffic congestion and pollution; the public's welfare since it encourages the expansion of JWA, provides little annual net revenue, and exposes the City to liabilities; and the public's safety since it will slow response times for emergency vehicles and hospital access. Mr. Arst indicated that further detriments Volume 54 - Page 367 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX to the public's welfare include piecemeal planning that will lower the quality of life. He stated that the initial economic benefits are offset by the potential costs of scrapping the initial short term improvement at MacArthur and Jamboree. He reiterated that the developer is paying less than what they would in Irvine and is getting up to a $15 million entitlement windfall. Further, the City is giving them unfair preferential treatment at the expense of the taxpayers. He stated that there is no benefits to the residents in this proposal, only detriments, and that the sum of all the issues makes this project unacceptable. Mr. Arst noted that the City is spending $1 million to update the General Plan, which may or may not include this project, and believed that the Update will be a comprehensive analysis of the entire City. He expressed the importance of retaining the character of the City. He stated that Greenlight suggests placing a moratorium on all "for profit commercial projects requiring a GPA" until the update is approved. Council Member Glover requested a study session item concerning grade separations. Council Member O'Neil noted that the ordinances are being considered for adoption since the public hearing occurred at the previous meeting. He believed that, based on information in the staff reports and at the public hearing, most of Mr. Arst's statements are not true. He stated that, since Mr. Arst was extended the courtesy of speaking, he assumes that Mr. Strader will be extended the same courtesy. However, he does not want Council to get into the realm of reopening this for public hearings to make new findings. Mr. Burnham indicated that, under the Brown Act, Council can take all testimony that is relevant to either ordinance and Council always has the opportunity to modify the ordinances even at second reading. He stated that one of the complications arising from Mr. Arst's presentation today, as opposed to when the public hearing was scheduled on this project, is that Council has certified the EIR, adopted a resolution approving the traffic study, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and made all of the findings that are typically made in conjunction with project approvals. He indicated that it is unusual to have additional testimony about a project like this two weeks after the public hearing when these issues are typically debated. Tim Strader, 3801 Inlet Isle, partner in Kell Center Newport A, stated that he did not see any of Mr. Artst's information prior to tonight. He requested additional time to respond to the points that he feels are erroneous. He indicated that, when he heard Mr. Arst speak about Greenlight, he initially said to let the voters decide. However, tonight, Mr. Arst is recommending rejecting the project without a vote of the people even though he did not attend the hearings to present information. Mr. Strader stated that he has been involved with this project since 1972. He emphasized that this project is not a reaction to Greenlight, noting that the GPA was started in 1997. He noted that the project has Volume 54 - Page 368 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 ii�i5. 4 been delayed because of the expensive information that had to be presented to support it. He believed that the City is the finest place to live because it is a balanced community and that the City adopted a General Plan that requires diversity of land use. He noted that there are only two areas (airport and Fashion Island) in which intense development can take place. He expressed the opinion that traffic has replaced judgment in the City for determining whether development occurs. He explained that traffic studies are a tool and not the final arbiter of good planning. He stated that the traffic study that the City conducted had to assume facts in the year 2020 to come up with the conclusion that there could be a problem in 2020 with a couple of intersections provided every assumption in the study occurred. He indicated that traffic is actually better now than it was in 1980 because of the traffic improvements that the Council at that time approved. Mr. Strader stated that, when they presented this project, they were told that the project would not be approved unless a DA was signed by them that gave the City the opportunity to take a leadership role in the airport area and contribute an additional $2 million toward traffic improvements. He indicated that they are happy to do this and believed that the project is a Greenlight- friendly project. Mr. Strader utilized Mr. Arst's overheads. He stated that they are not asking for a 15 times entitlement, but are asking for 250,000 square feet on a master planned project that has the lowest density in the City of .5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Further, the entire project is 1 million square feet which makes the request a 25% entitlement over the original planned community text. He stated that adding 1,700 auto trips a day is irrelevant and that the a.m. and p.m. peak trips should be looked at in the affected intersections. Regarding creating more demand for airport use, he stated that this is not necessarily true. He believed that Mr. Arst's statement that the project provides no real economic benefits and exposes the City to potential liabilities is false, as supported by the economic study done by the expert on behalf of the City. Mr. Strader took issue with the statement that the City is granting the developer a $15 million windfall and that this creates one of the highest density building sites in the City when it is actually one of the lowest. He emphasized that the traffic study was not conducted by the developer, but by the City, and reported that they are not allowed to conduct its own study by law. Regarding the General Plan Update, he noted that more development may be allowed in the airport area once the City takes the leadership to solve the traffic issues. Mr. Strader utilized an aerial map that shows that the City is only a small part of the traffic generation at the airport area, noting that it is surrounded by Irvine, the County of Orange, and was a part of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which is a 4,000 acre development of The Irvine Company. He explained that the fees in Irvine are greater than the City's because Irvine has a lot more traffic improvements to do than the City. Further, the City's project is only 200 acres of the 4,000 acres. Mr. Strader stated that he is currently working on a project in Volume 54 - Page 369 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Irvine and that Transfer Development Rights are not worth $30 /foot, but that his deals are worth $10 /foot. He believed that this information is irrelevant to the City. He stated that the City will hold an election on this project and that they will be getting the facts out to the people so they can decide. Mr. Strader expressed the opinion that the information in the slide that indicates that the project represents a potential loss and future multi- million dollar liability to the City is a misrepresentation of the facts. He noted that the DA was available for Mr. Arst to make comments before the City adopted it, but he did not do it. Mr. Strader emphasized that the Koll project is not receiving preferential treatment. He stated that they have been involved in the project since 1997, spent thousands of man-hours with staff, and generated thousands of pages of information that has been presented to the City. He pointed out that they have done the same thing that any other citizen of the City has the right to do. He stated they are not getting preferential treatment but are getting a fair hearing. Regarding the traffic impacts in the year 2020, Mr. Strader stated that the statement that it is "...staffs opinion that these intersection impacts are significant and unavoidable" is in the EIR and traffic study; however, they do not refer to 1,700 trips but to a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips which is much less than 1,700. He stated that he does not know what is going to exist in Orange County, Newport Beach, or Irvine in 2020, but what is assumed today may not occur in the future. He stated that Council needs to weigh every issue and not disapprove a project just because the report says there will be a traffic problem. He encouraged Council to give the citizens an opportunity to vote under the Greenlight procedure. Mr. Strader stated that Council is charged with balancing the interests of the City based on the stated policy of diversity in the General Plan. He believed that the Koll project fits all the provisions. He reported that they mitigated every impact and will give $2 million to the City for traffic improvements in the airport area. He urged Council to approve the project so that the voters can express themselves under Greenlight to prove that this is the kind of project that satisfies the requirements. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, Mr. Burnham stated that he recalls that there were no changes to the Koll Center entitlement in the 1988 General Plan. He added that, for the most part, the 1988 General Plan reconfirmed existing entitlements, except in the older commercial areas and in certain residential areas where paper entitlements were eliminated because of the need to make sure that the Traffic and Land Use Elements correlated. Council Member Heffernan stated that things have changed since they were initially entitled and asked what justifies it now to increase the allowed entitlement. He stated that this is why they need a General Plan Update. Volume 54 - Page 370 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Dolores Otting stated that the City bent over backwards for Fletcher Jones only to find out that a lot of the cars are leased out of New York so the City does not receive most of that revenue. She believed that no one in the City wants intense development. She stated that, when she moved here 21 years ago, the only building you could see from the 405 Freeway was the Fluor building and that thinking growth will not continue in another 20 years is short - sighted. She indicated that something has to be done about the traffic. Regarding Mr. Arst's statement that the City assumes millions in liability as a result of possible changes to State and Federal law, Mr. Burnham stated that, if there is a conflict, the City will modify the DA to the least extent possible. Further, Mr. Arst's statement that the Expeditious Processing Provision of the DA will mean that single family homeowners will not get the same type of service is incorrect. Mr. Burnham pointed out that Mr. Arst said that the mitigation fees, especially the $2 million, are fixed in year 2000 dollars; however, he reported that the DA contains an escalator provision that increases the fee by $.50 /square foot each year during the term of the DA. He stated that the statement that Koll receives preferential treatment because they are not required to comply with existing laws is also incorrect. He added that Koll is required to comply with future laws, as long as they do not alter the project. He emphasized that the essence of a DA is to vest the right of a property owner to proceed at the time the agreement was approved. Regarding the comment that, if this project were assigned to a third party, there is not going to be performance of the obligations under the DA, Mr. Burnham stated that he reviewed the Assignment Section and it does not say this. He concluded by stating that he is comfortable that the DA fully protects the City. In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mr. Burnham indicated that no one from the Planning Commission and only Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway aided in drafting the DA. He clarified that the boiler plate provisions of the DA came from the City Attorney's office and are virtually identical to 10 or 11 development agreements that have been approved in the past 15 years. Regarding the traffic study, Mayor Adams stated that the project has been mischaracterized as providing a terrible traffic impact to the City; however, if this was true, he would not be supporting it. He stated that the Net Project Volume figure in the EIR indicates that the intersection that is affected most is Jamboree/MacArthur and reported that, in the peak hour, this project is projected to only add an average of two vehicles per signal cycle at one of the approaches to the intersection. He stated that 1,700 vehicles sounds like a lot of cars in one day; however, one of the City's modestly sized gated communities generates far more traffic. Council Member Glover expressed concern that the "no- growth" citizens of the City seem to believe that any growth means growth for JWA. If this were true, Council should not allow a resident to build a home on a vacant lot because that could mean one more person would use JWA. Volume 54 - Page 371 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX She asked what level this should be stopped and if this should mean that people should not have children anymore because that would mean more seats are going to be taken up by Newport Beach people at JWA. She indicated that it is embarrassing that people in the City who know how committed Council is to getting a JWA Settlement Agreement would believe that Council is encouraging growth and expansion at JWA. She stated that this type of argument is very harmful to the City since this is a critical problem. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the County, over the last five years, has been generating about 45,000 jobstyear, the population growth has been about 60,000 people/year, and there are 34 million people in the State. He reported that, in 2040, there will be 58 million people in the State. He noted that, of the 24 million people, 80% come from natural child birth. Regarding Council Member Heffernan's question about what has changed, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that the job market and population have changed, and that he does not have a solution for traffic other than what is proposed in the report. He stated that he has spoken with Mr. Arst and Allan Beek, and that they know he feels that everything north of Bristol is a different geographical area and that he agrees with them regarding coastal Newport Beach and Fashion Island, and the commercial buildings that impact the residential community. He added that the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) created says that, during the next three years, there is a need for 66,000 new houses in the six county area. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway believed that the Koll project responds to the job market and will continue to, and that it will be foolish of Council to not look at the mitigation measures for traffic in that area. He stated that he met with Mr. Strader and Mr. Burnham, and that he reported the meetings to Mr. Arst and Mr. Beek. He indicated that he told them that they are trying to work on a dollar amount that tries to mitigate future traffic for this project. He believed that they did a good job in negotiating that agreement and that the project adds to the community. He stated that this building is not something that will impact the City's quality of life since it is in the airport area. Regarding the possibility of a grade separation, he stated that this will probably not happen even in 20 years; however, if it does, he stated that it will not occur in a coastal location. He added that Koll Center Newport is .50 FAR and is not a significant FAR compared to some Los Angeles areas that are 5.0 FAR, Mayor Adams expressed the opinion that the City will probably never see a need for a grade separation based on the volume trends that are seen on major corridors in the City. He added that the City will also be getting a contribution for some short term improvements at the Jamboree/MacArthur intersection that will make significant operational improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the airport area works well during the course of the day and that the level of service is extraordinary for a highly urbanized area. He emphasized that the $2 million will be vested in the City and is not contingent, unlike the money from Conexant. He expressed hope that the studies that Volume 54 - Page 372 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Mr. Strader paid $200,000 for will be used in the General Plan process. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway reported that 3,800 acres of the IBC is in Irvine and the County, and that Irvine has already approved over 35 million square feet in that area and will be approving more. Council Member Proctor stated that he is not opposed to the project and has listened to all the comments; however, he will be voting against it. He explained that the traffic impacts are deemed to be significant and that the $2 million will help Council reach the overriding considerations. He stated that, if he makes that call, he needs to be prepared to argue that the voters should support this based on the information they have at that time. He stated that the City is conducting a General Plan Update and that he would be more comfortable if that was already in place. He stated that he does not want to be in the position to support a project to the voters because he votes to support it now. Council Member Bromberg stated that, under Greenlight, it does not matter what Council does because they are not voting on this to a finality. He stated that, if they were voting on this to a finality, he would probably vote against it because the General Plan Update has not been completed. He indicated that he was told by at least two Greenlight proponents that all Council will have to do is make sure that the project is a real project and determine if it should be certified for an election. However, now the people who were saying to let this go to the voters are now saying to not bring it before them. He emphasized that this project is now for the people to decide and that this is the only reason he is going to support the project tonight. Council Member Heffernan believed that the role of the Planning Commission and Council in a post - Greenlight setting is to screen projects, develop mitigation measures, and set approval conditions. He stated that this does not mean that a developer who wants a million square feet will have it approved by Council. He added that the conditions that will be debated will be those included in the DA and other conditions of the project that will apparently be approved tonight. He stated that the Commission and Council must have discretion and take action on what Council perceives is in the best interest of the City, and the voters will confirm or reject Council's judgment. Council Member Bromberg agreed and stated that this should not be a straight pass- through because that would be irresponsible. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to 1) introduce Ordinance No. 2001 -11 approving the Development Agreement and pass to second reading on July 24, 2001; and 2) introduce Ordinance No. 2001 -12 approving the Zoning Amendment and pass to second reading on July 24, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Noes: Heffernan, Proctor Abstain: None Volume 54 - Page 373 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Absent: None J. PUBLIC COMMENTS INDEX Norm Witt, Vice President of The Irvine Company, stated that he has worked with public officials over the last 30 years, but has never met a more formidable public administrator than Public Works Director Don Webb. He noted that Mr. Webb has been demanding and thorough in his requirements to get what he feels is for the greatest benefit to the City. Further, he has also been pragmatic and cooperative, and knows the City's infrastructure like no one else. He believed that the City is a better place because of Mr. Webb's attention to detail. Mr. Witt reported that Mr. Webb has also been the District Eagle Scout Coordinator for about 15 years, and has reviewed every Eagle Scout project and helped improve the projects, as well as chaired the Eagle Scout Character Board. Mr. Witt expressed his admiration toward Mr. Webb for what he has done for the City, thanked him on behalf of The Irvine Company, and wished him well in his retirement. Mr. Jim Hildreth, the 10th of July, if this is going to be recorded verbatim, this will be the first time ever that one of my comments have been recorded verbatim. Please allow me to thank Council Member Mr. Heffernan for his generous offer to pay out of his own pocket the cost of rebuilding the structure that the City demolished. However, permission to rebuild a safe and adequate structure for boat access for J. M. Hildreth, his friends, and family is all I seek. I also would like to apologize to the Police Officer who was on duty during the last Council meeting, it seems that I may have startled him when I rushed out to meet with Mr. Melum. During my meeting with Mr. Melum, I was informed that the Revenue Department, not his office, has custody of billing records, and he added that he was first employed by the City in late 1977, i.e. subsequent to the 24 June 1976 when he met with my father, my younger brother, and me. I informed Mr. Melum of my personal, clear memory of the meeting 24 June 1976 in his office which was at the time at the Newport Pier; how, along with my father and my younger brother, I looked around the front office and walked passed Mr. Melum as he stood at the front desk. I even observed Mr. Armand in his office, apparently listening while rotating an ink pen under his nose. When Mr. Armand saw me, he stepped out of his office. Then we observed Mr. Melum getting instruction by my father on how easily to compare two identical documents by placing one behind the other and holding them up to the light. I recorded — the recorded minutes of the 22 May 2001 Council meeting of public comments — I have my three minute address to the City Council depicted in one sentence and I do not reflect my — and do not reflect my need for vindication by City records. During this Council comments segment of the meeting, Mr. Proctor stated that this should have been established back in 1976. This is true, yet as you may have noticed, Mr. Melum cannot locate the least agreement — lease agreement nor any past billing records which will show that all lease and usage rights for the southwest end of the Grand Canal was first granted to J. M. Hildreth. Mr. Melum stated, during the last Council meeting, that his office has records dating back to 1944. It Volume 54 - Page 374 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX cannot locate the records from 1976 to present which I have been asking for. I would like to know the reason for this and I suggest a records audit to find these records. I feel sure that some office may have custody of them. Thank you. • Russell Niewiarowski, 20102 Kline Drive, Santa Ana Heights, New Millennium Group, distributed copies of a transparency. He indicated that he asked to speak at a study session to clear up some myths and misinformation on the OCX -V Plan to secure an airport at El Toro. He invited the audience to look at the proposed flight path of the OCX -V Plan and find their home in relation. He indicated that the red line on the transparency represents the 60 CNEL level and inside that is the 65 CNEL level. He reported that' /. of Planning Area 17 is in the restricted noise development of the current policy implementation line, and that Irvine and The Irvine Company would be assuming liabilities if they choose to build in that area. He pointed out that Shady Canyon, Turtle Ridge, Planning Areas 5 and 6 of Newport Ridge, the upper section of Crystal Cove, Newport Coast, Corona del Mar, Irvine Cove, Emerald Bay, the Pelican Hills Golf Course, and the Marriott Villas are no where near the unsafe noise contours. Mr. Niewiarowski referenced a flier he received from the Airport Working Group which shows a picture of what 450 flights over our heads might look like. He noted that this is three times the current amount. He emphasized that there are more flights over Newport Coast now than there would be from an alternative airport. He reported that it is untrue that South County will not support any airport and noted that San Clemente supports their plan. Additionally, they are also gaining more support from North County cities. He emphasized that the public needs more information and that, if the City gives them money, they will go to bat for the issue. • Ann Watt, New Millennium Group, requested that the group speak at a study session. She stated that she sent letters to all the Orange County Regional Airport Authority (OCRAA) members to invite them to their meetings. She stated that the V Plan is not postponing the efforts to get an airport at El Toro and indicated that they are still waiting for flight analysis and the Record of Decision from the Department of Navy. She emphasized that they need to secure the base as an airport and requested that Council either ask the government that the U.S. Postal Service start operations at El Toro to make it an operating airport or have the base transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to have it leased to the County of Orange. Ms. Watt stated that the Group is excited about its non - profit status and invited all members of the corridor cities, South County, Newport Beach, and any organization to research information on their website (www.ocxeltoro.com) if they want to know more about the V Plan. • Allan Beek, 2007 Highland, stated that the City will be making one of the most important decisions in its history in a few months and noted that the residents of the City have had no chance to say anything about the Newport Coast annexation. He requested that this issue be placed on the ballot since there will probably be a special election in November. Volume 54 - Page 375 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Mayor Adams stated that Council has instruction in the General Plan to proceed with the Newport Coast annexation. Mr. Beek suggested that an amendment to the General Plan be placed on the ballot to remove those instructions so the City finds out if the people want it. He stated that, when the language was included in the General Plan, there was an ordinance that said a vote would be required for any annexation over 100 acres. However, the State has said that the people do not get to vote on annexations. Dolores Otting presented Council with a handout regarding Hoag Hospital bond sales. She reviewed the amount of the bonds since 1984 and noted that the outstanding revenue bonds total $316 million. She referenced the study session minutes from November 8, 2000, and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question relative to whether Hoag will lose its non - profit status because it had $500 million in reserve. She reported that, even with a reserve, Hoag still diverted customers in May and explained what is involved in the diversion of patients. She stated that she has a problem with the City not having a hospital that meets the needs of the citizens and added that the County needs a hospital plan, as well as an airport. She believed that building a four -story women's center by 2005 does not meet the needs of this community and the surrounding area, pointing out that Hoag does not have the latest technology in mammogram and radiation equipment. She also believed that Hoag will be back before the City to borrow another $100 million since that is the amount needed to complete the renovations. Council Member Heffernan reported that the topic of capacity was discussed at the Hoag Hospital Board meeting today. He noted that Hoag is the only hospital building additional rooms. He stated that there is no money in the business and there are too many people using hospital services. He pointed out that people coming to the emergency room can come from places like Long Beach and Fullerton, and that Hoag diverts a minimal amount compared to other hospitals. He emphasized that this is as critical an issue to Hoag as it is to the recipients. K. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES City Manager Bludau reported that there was not a quorum at yesterday's General Plan Update Committee meeting but indicated that a background check is being conducted on the leading consultant candidate to run the General Plan Update process. L. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT 17. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JULY 5, 2001 [MEETING CANCELLED]. No action taken. Volume 54 - Page 376 M-1W.1 Planning (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES IN PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 74 (ISLAND AVENUE FROM EDGEWATER AVENUE TO BAY AVENUE AND WEST BAY AVENUE FROM ISLAND AVENUE TO 7TH STREET ON THE BALBOA PENINSULA). Mayor Adams announced that this was the time and place fixed for the public hearing on protests or objections to the Resolution of Intention, Assessment Engineer's Report, proposed assessments, and all other matters relating to Assessment District No. 74. Further, all written protests and all ballots must be received by the City Clerk prior to the closing of the public hearing. City Clerk Harkless announced that the notice of the public hearing had been given in the manner and form required by law and that a Certificate of Compliance is on file which certifies the mailing of the notice and ballot materials to property owners within the District and filing of the proposed boundary map in the Office of the County Recorder. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. John Friedrich, Assessment Engineer, reported that Assessment District No. 74 is for the undergrounding of overhead electrical, telephone, and cable television utilities and noted that a boundary map is displayed on the wall of the Chambers. He stated that the assessment is on a modified front footage basis to take single family, multi - family, mixed uses, and parking garage uses into consideration. He noted that there originally were 84 parcels, but there are now 85 parcels. He reported that the undergrounding will cost about $551,419 and that individual assessments range from $2,650.88 to $17,041.34 with a Federal Income Tax Component of Contribution (ITCC) Tax that funnels through from Southern California Edison. He noted that their preliminary report showed amounts with and without the tax; however, they will actually be presenting the tax for authorization and that, if it is determined that the tax will never be charged, any tax paid will be refunded to the appropriate property owner. He reiterated that the ballots must be turned in by the end of the public hearing tonight. Mr. Friedrich reported that passage of the district is weighted in proportion to the amount of the assessment. He stated that there is a 30 day cash collection period in which a property owner can pay all or part of their assessment, and that this period will begin a couple of days after they file the Assessment in the Office of the Superintendent of Streets. He indicated that, if any amount of cash is paid, it will save the property owner 6% of the amount and that a notice will be sent out about this. He stated that any assessment that is not paid in cash will automatically go to bond. Volume 54 - Page 377 INDEX Res 2001 -59 Res 2001 -60 Assessment District 74 (89) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 INDEX Regarding electrical service conversion, Mr. Friedrich stated that the contractor will build the facilities in the public right -of -ways and that bringing it onsite is the responsibility of the property owner. He indicated that the City recommends that no one hire a contractor until Edison has completed its installation and added that the City will send out a letter to the property owners to inform them on when to begin connection to the system. He noted that private conversion costs between $1,500 to $3,000. Mr. Friedrich stated that, after the agenda posted, they became aware of a property with a 60 -foot frontage on Balboa Boulevard that is actually two 30 -foot parcels. He reported for the record that the parcel that was formerly Assessment Parcel No. 048 - 071 -016 (Assessment No. 78) has been converted to Assessment Parcel Nos. 048 - 071 -017 (Assessment No. 78) and 048 - 071 -018 (Assessment No. 85). He noted that the parcel is a laundromat and that the parking lot does not have, or has no plans to have, a service drop and that no electricity is being used in the parking lot. He expressed the opinion that the parking lot parcel should not be assessed and that there is sufficient money in the district to absorb this without making any changes to the other assessments. He indicated that he will submit a revised engineer's report that outlines the changes. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Adams closed the public hearing Mayor Adams recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to allow the City Clerk to count the ballots. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Ms. Harkless announced that there were 81.40% of the ballots cast in favor of the proposed assessments and 18.60% of the ballots cast in opposition. She announced that the District passed. Robert Hessell, Bond Counsel, suggested that the motion include the modification suggested by the Assessment Engineer. Motion by Mavor Pro Tem Rid2ewav to adopt Resolution No. 2001- 59 approving contracts for ownership of utility improvements and adopt Resolution No. 2001 -60 declaring the results of the ballot tabulations, confirming the assessment, ordering the acquisition of improvements, and approving the Assessment Engineer's Report for Assessment District No. 74, as modified, since there were more "yes" votes submitted (81.40 %) than "no" votes (18.60 %). The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Volume 54 - Page 378 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 N. 19. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. City Clerk Harkless indicated that each Council Member has a ballot in order to vote for Board and Commission appointments. Mayor Adams announced that Council will be voting for one vacancy on the Board of Library Trustees and that the nominees are Karen Clark and Harry Hamilton. He stated that Council will be voting for three vacancies on the City Arts Commission and that the nominees are David Colley, Lila Crespin (incumbent), Leslie Feibleman, Jeffrey Gould, Kathy Harrison (incumbent), and Pamela Nestande. Mayor Adams announced that Council will be voting for two vacancies on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission and that the nominees are Roy Englebrecht, Greg Ruzicka, Val Skoro (incumbent), and Betty Tesman. He stated that Council will be voting for two vacancies on the Planning Commission and that the nominees are Jeffrey Cole, Mike Kranzley (incumbent), Steven Rosansky, and Ed Selich (incumbent). Mayor Adams thanked the Council Ad Hoc Appointments Committee for all their time spent interviewing the candidates. Council Member Proctor stated that he met some very talented people during the interviews and that it was a very difficult decision. He added that it was wonderful seeing so many people willing to devote their time. Board of Library Trustees Ms. Harkless read the votes, as follows: Council Member Heffernan — Clark Council Member Glover — Hamilton Council Member Proctor — Hamilton Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway — Hamilton Council Member O'Neil — Hamilton Council Member Bromberg — Hamilton Mayor Adams — Hamilton Ms. Harkless announced the appointment of Harry Hamilton to fill the vacancy on the Board of Library Trustees. Citv Arts Commission Ms. Harkless read the votes, as follows: Council Member Heffernan — Crespin, Gould, Harrison Council Member Glover — Gould, Harrison, Nestande Council Member Proctor — Gould, Harrison, Nestande Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway — Crespin, Harrison, Nestande Council Member O'Neil — Crespin, Harrison, Nestande Council Member Bromberg — Gould, Harrison, Nestande Mayor Adams — Crespin, Gould, Harrison Volume 54 - Page 379 INDEX Board and Commission Appointments (24) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Ms. Harkless announced the appointments of Kathy Harrison (incumbent), Pamela Nestande, and Jeffrey Gould to fill the vacancies on the City Arts Commission. Parks Beaches & Recreation Commission Ms. Harkless read the votes, as follows: Council Member Heffernan — Skoro, Tesman Council Member Glover — Englebrecht, Skoro Council Member Proctor — Englebrecht, Skoro Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway — Englebrecht, Skoro Council Member O'Neil — Englebrecht, Skoro Council Member Bromberg — Englebrecht, Skoro Mayor Adams — Englebrecht, Skoro Ms. Harkless announced the appointments of Roy Englebrecht and Val Skoro (incumbent) to fill the vacancies on the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission. Planning Commission Ms. Harkless read the votes, as follows: Council Member Heffernan — Cole, Kranzley Council Member Glover — Kranzley, Selich Council Member Proctor — Kranzley, Selich Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway — Kranzley, Selich Council Member O'Neil — Kranzley, Selich Council Member Bromberg — Kranzley, Selich Mayor Adams — Kranzley, Selich Ms. Harkless announced the appointments of Mike Kranzley (incumbent) and Ed Selich (incumbent) to fill the vacancies on the Planning Commission. Mayor Adams thanked all the people who applied for the Boards and Commissions. He wished success to those who were appointed and thanked them in advance for their service to the City. 20. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW EDC AND EQAC (contd. from 6/26/01). Council Member Proctor reported that Council Member Heffernan, Council Member Bromberg, the Chair of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), the Chair of the Economic Development Committee (EDC), and himself met for 1% hours and unanimously came up with the recommendations in the staff report. Motion by Council Member Proctor to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -61 amending Resolution No. 2000 -90 regarding the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). Volume 54 - Page 380 INDEX Res 2001 -61 Ad Hoc Committee to Review EDC and EQAC (24) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None O. CURRENT BUSINESS 21. CIOSA SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DEBT REFUNDING. Administrative Services Director Danner stated that the staff report is for a proposed refunding of the two outstanding Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement ( CIOSA) issues. He reported that the Series A Special Tax Bond was issued in 1995 and the Series B Special Tax Bond was issued in 1997. He indicated that, since February, he has been meeting with a group to determine if it was worthwhile to refund the issue because of the decreased debt service. He stated that it was discovered that the savings are there if this issue can be insured; however, they still do not have an insurance commitment as of today. He reported that he is before Council today to approve the refunding, in concept, pending the issuance of the insurance or the 3% savings because there is a deadline to get the assessments onto the County tax roll. He anticipated that they will find out about this in the next week. Mr. Danner announced that Financial Advisor Larry Rolapp of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates; Underwriter Sara Oberlies of Stone & Youngberg, LLC; and Bond Counsel Kevin Hale of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP are in attendance to answer any questions. Mr. Danner reported that they have identified close to $400,000 in fair share fees that, regardless if the refunding goes forward, will be used to retire debt. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway's questions, City Attorney Burnham believed that Council is able to approve this in concept. Regarding the bond insurance, Mr. Danner explained that the problem with the insurance is that it is a land -based issue with a number of units in the CIOSA refunding and that the insurance companies are taking a very hard look at it. He stated that the insurance makes the debt service savings worthwhile to proceed. If there is no insurance or the appropriate bond rating, he clarified that the savings would not be there and they would not proceed with the refunding. Mr. Danner pointed out that the resolution before Council permits the City Manager or himself to sign the documents pending the successful outcome of the insurance issue. He clarified that this will not be brought back to Council. Volume 54 - Page 381 firn�./ Res 2001 -62 CIOSA Special Improvement District Debt Refunding (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Council Member Heffernan asked about the deadline. Bond Counsel Hale explained that the resolution is a typical bond financing resolution which authorizes Council and specific City officers to sign off on the documents that would affect the refunding, provided that the 3% threshold is met. He stated that a deadline is not needed and that the resolution becomes an open -ended resolution. Financial Advisor Rolapp added that, in order to roll the special taxes into the 2001 -2002 tax rolls, they have to get to the County by August 10, 2001. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to approve the refunding of the CIOSA Special Improvement District No. 95 -1 Series A and B Special Tax Bonds, in concept if the 30/a threshold is met, and approve the following: authorizing Resolution No. 2001 -62, Bond Indenture, Escrow Agreement, Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Preliminary Official Statement, Purchase Agreement, and various contracts for services with Bond Counsel, Underwriter, Financial Advisor/Investment Advisor, Trustee, Verification Agent, and District Administrator. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 22. BATTERY BACK -UP FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS. Mayor Adams stated that he had previous concerns that traffic could queue up in both directions near traffic signals that are spaced closely together, which would make it impossible for emergency vehicles to get through. He indicated, however, that traffic is normally empty in one direction so the emergency vehicles could proceed on the wrong side of the road to get to its destination. He stated that it is worthwhile to make this type of investment in the major thoroughfares in order to provide circulation through the City during these times. Regarding the minor signals that will be going to a flashing red operation, he suggested that the City come up with specific requirements so there is a standard for liability purposes. Council Member Glover asked if a light would automatically be activated if there was a breakdown at the intersection. Transportation and Development Services Manager Edmonston reported that the system is designed to sense the loss of Southern California Edison power and switch immediately to the back -up system. He confirmed that this serves a variety of uses, including if an accident occurs, and is not just for rolling blackouts. Dolores Otting stated that the system is a great idea. However, she suggested that the City have a trial period at some of these intersections since it has a number of generators that are supposed to work. Volume 54 - Page 382 INDEX Traffic Signal Battery Back -up (85) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 10, 2001 Ned Parsons, 824 West 15th Street, encouraged Council to consider placing the systems at Placentia and 15th Street, and Superior and 15th Street. He stated that the criteria of 45 mph might not be met by those signals; however, the intersections are dangerous and have had a number of accidents. Mayor Adams indicated that Mr. Edmonston might want to look at those intersections. Further, he believed that accident histories should also be considered as a threshold for picking the signals for flashing red lights. Motion by Council Member Bromberg to direct staff to solicit bids for the installation of battery back -up systems for traffic signals at key intersections. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None P. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None. Q. ADJOURNMENT - at 10:00 p.m. in memory of Frances Robinson. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on July 5, 2001, at 2:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 54 - Page 383 INDEX