HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-1996 - Special MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Special Meeting
July 16, 1996 - 8:00 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover
Watt and Mayor Hedges
CLOSED SESSION [See separate Closed Session agenda]
CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None
RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. FOR SPECIAL MEETING
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. IRWD /OCWD /CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AGREEMENT.
Mayor Pro Tern Debay briefly explained the status of the agreement and
reported that City Manager Murphy and City Attorney Burnham have been
meeting with the staff from the other agencies. She said that they will present
an explanation, review the agreement, accept Council questions and then open
the public hearing for questions from the audience.
Mr. Murphy reported that staff is recommending that Council act to approve the
agreement tonight. He stated that earlier in the day members of the press were
briefed. He said it was helpful to take them through a description in a
descriptive form (picture form) of actually what the intertie project is all about
• since it is an integral part of the proposal, and then present the Executive
Summary, the front page of the agreement.
Referring to a diagram, Mr. Murphy pointed out Newport Bay and noted that
there is an existing project, Green Acres Project, which operates out of the
Orange County Water District Plant, west of the Santa Ana River in the City of
Fountain Valley. He said the proposal to expand the Green Acres Project has
been discussed for some period of time. He said the existing Green Acres line
stops just short of the City of Newport Beach. The GAP II project which is
embodied within the agreement would provide for the construction of the
extension of this system from the current location to a location near Jamboree
and Bayview. The construction cost is estimated at $2.4 million and would be
bome by the Orange County Water District. He said that there is a requirement
to facilitate reclaimed water being sent from the plant of the Irvine Ranch Water
District through the pipeline over to the plant in Fountain Valley. The new
pipeline which has to be constructed would be constructed through a joint
contract which would actually be entered into by the Orange County Water
District, but the portion of the construction from the Michelson Plant to the
intertie at Bayview and Jamboree would be paid for by the Irvine Ranch Water
District. Irvine Ranch would also pay for the design of one section and the
Orange County Water District would pay for the design of another section.
Pointing to the second section, he said that it is also estimated to cost $2.4
million. The preliminary numbers were provided by a preliminary feasibility
study that was approved by Council and is currently underway and being paid
for by Fletcher Jones Motorcars as a gift to the City. He said the next phase is
to implement the end user agreements. The actual construction cost of bringing
• the pipeline into Newport Beach is $3.7 million and would be bome by the
Orange County Water District and would be offset by a $500,000 contribution
from the City of Newport Beach. The $500,000 contribution would be lent to the
City by the Irvine Ranch Water District to be repaid over 15 years at 6.4%
interest, which is basically what they are earring today on their investment
portfolio. He said that the purpose of having the City put the money in is so
there is a cost benefit ratio which would encourage them to build the project.
Volume 50 - Page 214
INDEX
IRWD/Wetland Water
Supply Project
(C -3096)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
INDEX
The Orange County Water District manages the groundwater basin and all of
the retailers set their price based on the cost of recharging the basin. The retail
entities have indicated to the Orange County Water District in the past that they
only want to do cost - effective water reclaimed programs, therefore they need to
get to a 1.5 cost benefit ratio. In order to get that on this project, the City needs
to contribute the $500,000.
Mr. Burnham explained that the agreement commits OCWD, IRWD and the
City to fund, design and construct the facilities, but it also commits IRWD to
send 4.6 mgd of reclaimed water to OCWD when that interne is complete and it
commits OCWD to accept that amount of reclaimed water for a period of 15
years. In terms of the excess supply of reclaimed water available to IRWD that
could go down the bay, the intertie reduces that by 4.6 million gallons for a
period of 15 years, at least. He noted that the agreement has both a physical
component and a flow - commitment.
Mayor Pro Tern Debay said she understood that the payment is made from the
proceeds that the City gets from selling reclaimed water and it won't come out
the General Fund.
Mr. Murphy explained that several years ago the City entered into an
agreement with the OCWD to facilitate Green Acres Phase II and under the
terms of that agreement, the City agreed at that time to charge those reclaimed
water users that were identified, 80% of the retail rate to encourage them to put
in the infrastructure in order to utilize reclaimed water. Since the City wants to
recover that loan, OCWD has agreed to allow the City to amend that agreement
to increase the charges to an anticipated 95% of the retail rates, therefore
moving from 80% to 95% versus the terms that the City is bound to today with
the OCWD. He said he believes the City can recover that in probably a 7 -8
year period. He also noted that the first payment is not due until 12 months
after the receipt of the loan. In response to a member of the audience, Mr.
Murphy explained that the City could do better and would not have to repay the
loan if the citizens would accept higher water rates. He explained that the
objective is not to impact the other water users in the City and that the water
users using the reclaimed water system would repay the loan by having their
retail rates raised from 80% of the retail rate paid by everybody else to 95 %.
Don Beatty, Balboa, asked if the pipe would be able to handle the 4.6 mgd of
water.
Mr. Burnham pointed out that on page four under the descriptions of the Green
Acres Phase II and the Intertie the pipelines are described as having a nominal
capacity of 7.8, which means they can handle at least 7.8 on an average basis
and up to 10 mgd. He said the pipelines will be sized to accept all of IRWD's
excess reclaimed water.
Dolores Otting said that the six customers that the City has, notably the Big
Canyon Golf Course, have been under the impression that they have been
putting in the pipeline and the reason they were spending this money was
because in turn they would be able to buy the water at 80 %.
Mr. Murphy explained that part of the agreement today with the OCWD for the
end users is that they would be reimbursed a portion of those capital facilities,
which is included within the $6.1 million. Mr. Burnham explained that the
reimbursement would be made by OCWD and it is their intention to use the
$500,000 that the City contributes to reduce their retrofit reimbursement
obligation. Mr. Murphy explained that the percentage that they will get back has
• to be determined by October 1, 1996 and some discussions have been held
with the end users.
Mr. Burnham explained that without this agreement and the City's contribution,
there would not be a connection of Green Acres Phase II, so the retrofit costs
that they have incurred to date would just sit there without any benefit to Big
Canyon because OCWD does not see the end users in Newport Beach being a
Volume 50 - Page 215
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
1,1111
sufficient market without the City's contribution to warrant construction of the
facilities. By entering into this Agreement, the City will make the water
available and while it is unknown what the final agreements will be with the end
users, it will still be a savings as compared to the price of potable water. He
said that the City may be able to work out agreements with the major
purchasers to revert back to the 80% once the loan has been repaid.
• In response to Mrs. Otting, Mr. Murphy explained that the City, in conjunction
with the OCWD representatives, have been working together to sell the end
user agreements to the six entities.
Mr. Burnham explained that the next three sections of the agreement all relate
to different scenarios for the discharge of reclaimed water. He explained that
there is a scenario where there would be no discharge of reclaimed water during
the 1996 -97 winter and another scenario where there might be no discharge of
reclaimed water in perpetuity. If neither of those scenarios occur, this
agreement will result in a reduction in the amount of reclaimed water
discharged pursuant to the NPDES permit granted by the Regional Board (a
reduction from 5 mgd to 3.2 mgd). In consideration of the agreement to reduce
the flow into the bay, assuming the condition to no discharge is not satisfied, the
City is agreeing not to appeal the permit, not to litigate the adequacy of the EIR,
not to oppose the modification of IRWD's consolidated use permit to allow them
to use reclaimed water to irrigate the marsh so long as that water does not
discharge into San Diego Creek, and to request modifications to the Brewer Bill
in a way that would implement this agreement. The third part of this agreement
are the conditions the City has to satisfy to preclude any discharge of reclaimed
water into the bay during the period from October 1, 1996 through March 31,
1997. First, the City has to get the Sanitation District of Orange County to
calculate IRWD flows for purposes of determining their contributions to various
funds as if IRWD was discharging 3.2 mgd of reclaimed water into the bay, and
essentially CSDOC would reduce the flow calculations by that amount. The
• second thing the City needs to do is convince the Regional Board that they can
learn as much about the science of this particular project without the discharges
by enhancing the monitoring program, enhancing the modeling, and doing a
better job of studying the conditions within the ponds and the conditions in the
bay so the discharge of reclaimed water is not required to prove or disprove
IRWD's claims regarding nutrient reduction. The third thing the City needs to
do is to have the scientists agree on the enhancements to the modeling and
monitoring programs. The fourth thing is for the City to get end user
agreements by October 1, 1996. He noted that he and Mr. Murphy believe that
With some diligence the City will be able to satisfy all of the conditions to no
discharge of reclaimed water in 1996 and 1997. He noted that the last part of
the agreement identifies the issues that the City and IRWD need to resolve in
order to prevent the discharge of reclaimed water on a long -term basis. Those
issues are to get GAP II and the intertie fully operational, which staff believes
will occur on or before October 1, 1997; to give OCWD the ability to lawfully
dispose of reclaimed water that it can't use and to solve the problem that IRWD
would have in irrigating it's duck ponds if it sent all of its reclaimed water to
OCWD. He noted that there are alternate sources of irrigation for the ponds,
but the sources of water may be costly or require environmental documentation.
Finally, an agreement has to be made on maintenance of the summertime
diversion and bay monitoring during at least the 97 and 98 winter and summer
seasons. He said he personally believes that the City will ultimately be able to
reach agreement with IRWD on these various issues and preclude discharge if
the science does not prove IRWD correct.
Council Member O'Neil asked what the cost is to the City, other than the
•
$500,000 loan.
Mr. Burnham stated that there is a $30,000 contribution by the City for a
construction manager to insure the timely construction of GAP II and the
intertie. The City is also committed to spend up to $15,000 towards enhanced
monitoring or modeling in order to get better scientific results as it relates to the
diversion of stream flow into the ponds and as it relates to the de- nitrification of
Volume 50 - Page 216
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
ponds.
INDEX
Jack Skinner asked whether when all of the consultants are trying to decide
whether it is a benefit, a neutral effect, or a detriment to the bay, if the
consultants do all these tests and it shows that there is no benefit to the bay,
how do you make that judgment, does that mean that they discharge if it shows
• no detriment but it shows no benefit?
Mr. Burnham pointed out that the Regional Board determined that the project
would enhance receiving waters. He said they disagreed with the City's
scientists and agreed with their staff and IRWD's scientists. He explained that a
format has not been established for the report that is contemplated by this
agreement, but a framework has been established for the scientists that the City
has retained to evaluate this project to make sure the monitoring program and
the modeling are adequate and then to work cooperatively with IRWD scientists
to evaluate the data, and hopefully these scientists can reach agreement as to
whether the science proposed by IRWD is correct or whether the City's
concerns are correct. He said he would assume that if they can't reach
agreement there would be a statement of disagreement in the report. The idea
is to have the scientists confirm, if they can, whether the science is good or bad.
If the scientists agree that the discharge that were to have occurred would not
have enhanced receiving waters, then the City will have a very valuable report
to take to the Regional Board. He said that the low flow diversion in the
summer will be factored in, but it would be fair to say that the City is still taking
a position that the potential impacts of the discharges in the winter rather than
accumulating the nutrient reductions that may result from summertime
diversion also has to be looked at. The City will be looking at the potential
impacts of additional nutrient loading in the winter.
Council Member Edwards reiterated that as a result of the permit being issued
on the basis of 'enhancement," if a neutral report is brought back as opposed to
• enhancement or even negative, that does not get over the hurdle of
enhancement under which the project was permitted.
Mr. Burnham stated that if the report shows that this project is neutral, the City
would take the report to the Regional Board and ask them to reconsider their
approval. He reminded everyone that this is a demonstration project and the
idea was to test the science to see if IRWD's conclusions and assumptions were
accurate. He said he thinks that by virtue of this agreement, the City will be
involved in that process to a much greater extent than if we were on the outside
litigating or appealing.
Council Member Edwards asked whether under the CSDOC 3.2 monitoring,
where the reclaimed water is not really being dumped in but it is being
monitored, are the scientists fairly confident that they can do adequate
monitoring without the discharges. Mr. Burnham replied in the affirmative.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Debay, Mr. Burnham explained that under the
NPDES permit approved by the Regional Board the length of the demonstration
project is two years, however this agreement really addresses the first year of
that demonstration phase and turns the proposed discharge into what is in effect
a "dry-run."
Claudia Owen, 2201 Vista Dorado, asked if the two years is starting as of now
or is the first little hiatus not included in the two years.
Mr. Burnham explained that the agreement would count this first year of no
• discharge as the first year of the demonstration phase. He said this will be a
situation where there is almost a year to develop the baseline without the
discharge so it shortens the demonstration to the extent that the actual impacts
of discharges is looked at. In response to Ms. Owen's questions about the
proposed modifications to the Brewer Bill, AB3344, Mr. Burnham said that the
proposed modifications will be discussed with the consultants that have been
hired to see if it can be modified in a way that will specifically advance some of
Volume 50 - Page 217
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
INDEX
the aims under this agreement, which ultimately is to improve bay water quality.
He said that a request will be made to modify the five -year sunset clause of the
bill and further explained that the City is agreeing under this agreement to
modifying the bill in a way that is consistent with the commitments to IRWD and
IRWD's commitments to the City. He said he could not say precisely how the
bill will be modified, but it would be fair to say that it would not contain an
• element that would preclude discharge.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that currently the Assembly bill does have a provision
that would preclude discharge, however that would only be provided if the bill
passes and is signed by the Governor. He explained that the bill has been
amended in the Senate, therefore it has to go back to the Assembly to have
them concur and then the Governor must sign it. He said that staff has been
talking with the Senate, the Assembly and the Governor's office and have
concluded that changing AB3344 to facilitate these things is better than the
potential of possibly having the bill fail altogether.
Susan Skinner - Caustin thanked Council and staff for the amount of time and
effort put into this, even though she doesn't agree with all parts of it and said
she thinks the City is possibly on the road to a win - win -win situation. She asked
whether the program would be killed if the request is made for modification to
the Brewer bill, and for whatever reason the Senate or the Assembly does not
make the modifications.
Mr. Burnham replied no, that all the City is obligated to do is request the
modifications.
Ms. Skinner - Caustin asked at what point, or if, the City can sue again if the
agreement breaks down (i.e. one of the tenets is not met and the agreement is
therefore null and void).
• Mr. Burnham reiterated the components of the agreement. He said he doesn't
think there is any possibility that the GAP II- Intertie part of it would fail. As far
as the 3.2 mgd discharge, the reduction from 5.0 mgd, if IRWD were to try to
discharge more than that the City would go to court and try to prevent them
from discharging and try to get an order enforcing the agreement rather than
suing on some other grounds. He said the same would hold true with the no
discharge scenario for 1996 -97. As far as the long -term no discharge scenario,
which is an issue that needs to be resolved, it is kind of an agreement to agree
and there is really nothing that the City can do short of getting an order directing
them to discuss these issues. He said that her point that the City may be on the
road to a win - win -win is good and the City feels that is a pretty big step,
however there are other issues that need to be resolved in order to insure that
there are no discharges and also to get some more information that can be
used to improve bay water quality. He said that staff is recommending that the
City pursue this using a cooperative mode and by using this agreement as a
framework for further discussions and focusing on the issue of bay water quality
and precluding discharges in the future, as opposed to a course where the City
would litigate and appeal with the hope of getting some court order delay or
disapproval of the document.
Ms. Skinner - Caustin said she sees some very serious areas where there is
going to be a problem, not the least of which is making a decision as to who
pays for the summer low flow diversion. She said their goal is to have no
discharge ever. She asked that if there is a "dry-run" for two years and after the
first year the criteria has been met, and the second year is a dry run also, does
that preclude the City from getting the long term arrangement or does there
• have to be at least one year of a "wet- run" before this is possible.
Mr. Burnham replied that it would be up to the Regional Board and if the
Regional Board liked the kind of information they got in the first year of "dry-
run ", he wouldn't see any reason why there would be a need to discharge the
second year. He noted that the City's people are reasonably confident that very
good data can be obtained using appropriate models with additional monitoring,
Volume 50 - Page 218
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
INDEX
however he is sure it would be better to have actual discharges, but that would
be inconsistent with the ultimate objective.
Ms. Skinner - Caustin said that she does not want to see two years of "dry-run"
resulting in a long -term permit that doesn't have any realistic chance of being
revoked.
• In response to Mayor Pro Tern Debay's request, Mr. Burnham explained that if
the City doesn't enter into this agreement, there are a number of options
available: 1) to appeal the decision of the Regional Board to the State Board; 2)
when IRWD commits to implement the project or when they adopt a Notice of
Determination, a lawsuit can be filed challenging their Environmental Impact
Report (EIR); 3) to file a lawsuit in an effort to preclude the discharge prior to
October 1, 1996; and 4) to pursue the legislation that has been talked about
(AB3344). He noted that these are the four avenues that are available to the
City and he believes it is fair to say that they have been explored and evaluated
and staff believes that for the long -term and short-term, this agreement
provides the Council and the City with a much better vehicle for actually
precluding discharges than any of the other options, individually or even
cumulatively.
Bob Caustin stated that the bay is overloaded and it is a problem, however it is
symptomatic of a much larger problem. He said he agrees with the alternative
completely and the idea of using reclaimed water is a wonderful idea, however
it is the rest of the agreement that troubles him. He said that Defend the Bay is
trying to establish total maximum daily loads and he trusts the City will work
with them on establishing that in the future. He questioned who will serve on
the panel of experts, meaning how many, who will appoint them, how will they
serve, what power will they have, are they going to be able to effectively have
veto power to the permit, or are they only going to be an advisory committee
and who would they advise, the City Council and IRWD each with one vote, or
• are they are going to be advising the Water Quality Control Board. As to the
how, is it going to be a majority, a super majority of say two- thirds, or is it only
going to be 50-50, Newport Beach and IRWD? He said he understands that the
City and the IRWD are going to put together some experts to establish the
monitoring plant and advise the Water Quality Control Board as to what they
would each like to have put in place, however there is no ground work for how
that is going to be handled.
Council Member Glover pointed out that the Regional Water Board has a
monitoring group that they have already put together.
Mr. Caustin indicated that he is currently on that group, but the agreement is
something separate from that and this is not the same group that is going to be
handling that monitoring. He noted that this agreement does not set forth a
protocol for the people that are going to be advising and sitting over this project
for the next two years saying it is good or bad for the bay.
Council Member Glover said she would think that the power given them would
be included in another document, not in the agreement.
Mr. Caustin stated that the IRWD has filed a Notice of Determination on the EIR
and the final date to challenge that under CEQA is July 27, 1996 and the final
deadline to appeal the Water Quality Control Regional Board's decision to the
State level in Sacramento is July 31, 1996. This agreement calls for all these
things to be agreed upon in the future with some dates as far out as September
1, 1996 and the City's rights to challenge under CEQA and the rights to appeal
• to the State board are going to expire by the end of July. He said he would
hope that the City could get IRWD to agree to extend those timelines to allow
the City to make sure they negotiate in good faith. He said that once the City's
rights are gone, IRWD might not quite negotiate with the same level of interest
as they are now. He emphasized his concern with the agreement and the many
°ifs° that will be out there beyond the City's rights once these deadlines expire.
Volume 60 - Page 219
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
INDEX
City Attorney Burnham explained that there are a lot of "ifs" in certain respects,
however there are a lot of "ifs" no matter which set of alternatives is selected in
terms of trying to prevent reclaimed water discharges. He said that staff has
looked at the "ifs" and concluded that there are fewer "ifs" and a much greater
certainty of achieving the ultimate goal by pursuing this course than the other
alternatives. He noted that this agreement doesn't suffer from the same
• problems that the prior one did because it leaves the alternatives available to
any citizen group that wants to pursue them. He said the City is trying to
establish a framework within which they can cooperate with IRWD and resolve
these issues. He said that staff is assuming that IRWD will deal with the City in
good faith, as he believes they have to date. In terms of who is going to watch
over the monitoring program for the next two years, it is going to be Jerry
Thibeault and Joanne Schneider. He said the idea is to get the City's scientists'
foot in the door, more than just participating on a technical advisory committee,
but going hand in hand with IRWD to Jerry Thibeault and the Regional Board
Staff to try to convince them that this monitoring program gives the City the
best possible data to accurately predict what would happen if reclaimed water
were discharged.
Council Member O'Neil stated that there is a certain amount of good faith that
the City has to understand with regards to these very complicated negotiations
and even if the City were able to negotiate stand still arrangements to prevent
the statute of limitations from running, that doesn't pre -empt the ability of any
other citizen or interested party from filing an action to challenge the
environmental document or to file an appeal on the Regional Quality Control
Board's permit.
Council Member Glover pointed out that two months ago the Council
considered an agreement and at that time the Council decided that they needed
to resolve the reclaimed water issue, but also needed to set and establish
standards. She said that there are many times, like the Silverado issue, where
• things are going to be coming down the bay, so the Council talked about this
and decided that standards need to be established. She said they talked about
the need to address the total picture, so out of that meeting, she and Council
Member Watt have started attending the Newport Bay Coordinating
Committee, which includes representatives from the Regional Water Board, the
County, Marian Bergeson's office, as well as Dr. Skinner and his wife. The
intent of their attendance is to start garnering information to see how standards
can be established and to work with the Regional Water Board in establishing
those. She explained that the City does not control the bay, it is controlled by
the Regional Water Board and they make the decisions about it. She said they
have spoken to all of the scientists about this and think that it will probably take
two years to find out all the facets that need to be included in order to get the
Regional Water Board to accept that, but the City Council is committed to
resolving both of these issues, the reclaimed water issue and future issues.
She said she feels the Council has a long- standing commitment to that.
Mr. Caustin concurred and noted that he personally met with the EPA in
settlement negotiations on the Defend the Bay citizen suit in San Francisco, as
well as in Washington, D.C., and in meeting with the staff at the EPA they are
very helpful and hopeful to help them in the process of establishing these
maximum daily loads on a local level. He said he also attends the meetings
Council Member Glover spoke about and he is very hopeful that something will
be settled there. He reiterated the importance of extending the deadlines. In
response to Council Member O'Neil's question about whether he supports the
agreement, Mr. Caustin said that as the agreement currently stands, he does
not support it because there are too many things that are still unsettled. He said
• he would like to get IRWD on paper since the City will be giving up their rights
as of August 1, 1996.
Council Member O'Neil asked Mr. Caustin whether he thought IRWD, during the
course of these negotiations, is basing their willingness to enter into these types
of agreements, on the City's representations that it will not appeal, will not
litigate, and will request that the Brewer bill be modified. He questioned
Volume 50 - Page 220
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
INDEX
whether IRWD would hang in there and continue to negotiate for the next
couple of months if the City did not agree to the above. He pointed out that
IRWD has been involved in this effort for the last three or four months and he
thinks the City has a good deal and should go for it.
City Attorney Burnham pointed out that the Orange County Water District Board
• meets tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. and doesn't meet in August, so their next meeting
would be in September, a point in time when it would be too late to reach
agreement in a way that gives the City any reasonable possibility of precluding
discharge this year. He said the reason this agreement was presented to the
Council at this time, rather than next Monday or some other time, is that the
City has been asked to take action first, IRWD will meet tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.,
and OCWD will meet tomorrow at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tern Debay reiterated that the legal and legislative options are
unsure at this point and the time clock is ticking.
Motion by Council Member Glover to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement
which will be entered into by and between the Orange County Water District,
the Irvine Ranch Water District and the City of Newport Beach.
Mayor Pro Tern Debay explained that Council Member Watt and Mayor Hedges
have been informed of the developments almost hourly. She said that the City
received an email from the Mayor with his concerns and they have been
addressed.
Council Member Edwards said that the City is kind of damned if we do and
damned if we don't on the flow into the bay. He said he has questions on the
City's ability to calculate and monitor when there actually isn't flow into the bay.
He said that unfortunately the outcry is over the discharge into the bay,
therefore he will support the motion because the legal options and chances of
prevailing and getting something meaningful are less likely than if the City goes
forward this particular agreement and this gives the City reasonable ability to
avoid immediate discharge. With regard to the political options he saluted
Assemblywoman Brewer and all her efforts, however unfortunately he believes
the City is about ready to reach the end of that political rope.
City Attorney Burnham noted that the City has been involved in this since
August of 1995 and this whole issue has raised the consciousness of the
Council and the community to the importance of bay water quality and a lot has
been learned about what needs to be done, largely through the efforts of Jack
Skinner, Bob Caustin, Susan Skinner- Caustin and others. He said he too
wished some of the "ifs" weren't in the agreement, but he is convinced that the
way it stands right now, it serves the City's best interest to approve the
agreement.
Council Member Glover reiterated that the City has been working on this a long
time and she feels comfortable with what they are doing and noted that there
are four criteria that have to be met in order not to have the discharge this year.
She said she thinks the City will be able to meet that criteria. The emphasis of
the Regional Water Board is to get information about the bay and she thinks
they feel comfortable with getting that information without the discharge. She
said that the Regional Water Board this year is committed to Newport Bay and
that is where they will commit most of their efforts, therefore the City has a
wonderful opportunity to work with them and take advantage of their resources
this year. She said she thinks this has made everyone more cognizant of
something that has been taken for granted, however she thinks some very good
• things will come out of this. She said she believes the City Council is
committed to both setting some standards as a long -term solution and working
with this agreement to resolve another issue. She commended Mr. Burnham
and Mr. Murphy for the time they have devoted to this and said they have gone
a long way to resolve this problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay added that Council Members Watt and Glover have
Volume 50 - Page 221
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
July 16, 1996
on this issue as
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover
Noes: None
Absent: Watt and Mayor Hedges
Abstain: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT - 9:30 P.M.
RR # # # # # ## # # #R#RR
The agenda for this meeting was posted on July 15, 1996 at 4:50 p.m. on the City
Hall Bulletin Board outside of the City of Newport Beach Administrative Building.
Attest:
City Clerk
0
,Vtzj
Mayor
Volume 50 - Page 222
INDEX