HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1996 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
August 12, 1996 - 7:00 p.m.
INDEX
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 mm, [Refer to separate agenda from City Attorney]
CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None
RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING
ROLL CALL
Present: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt and Mayor Hedges
Absent: None
Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member Edwards.
Invocation by Bishop John Peterson, Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints.
Council Member Glover presented a Proclamation to James Selna, representing
the Orange County Museum of Art.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Debay to waive reading of the minutes of the Special
Meeting of July 16, 1996, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes: None
Absent: None
• Abstain: None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Dabs v to waive reading of the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of July 22, 1996, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Debay to waive reading of the Ordinances and
Resolutions under consideration, and directed the City Clerk to read by titles
only. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM):
• Council Member Glover requested that staff draft a resolution for Council to
consider on August 26, 1996 which would establish a Mariner's Mile Planning
• Study Group to develop amendments to the zoning code applicable to that area
in order to assist in the revitalization of the area. She voiced concerns about
new developments which could take place in Mariner's Mile under the current
regulations and the possible adverse impacts from traffic, noise and the
development of other parcels of land. To protect against this possibility, she
requested that staff prepare an interim zoning ordinance preventing these types
of uses during the preparation of the new plan.
Volume 50 - Page 242
0
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
Council Member Cox requested that the Public Works Department provide an
update at the first meeting in September on the status of the capital
improvement projects that have been postponed. He said that specifically he
has noticed that San Joaquin Hills Road is deteriorating and questioned whether
there are projects like this that the Council needs to be given a "heads-up" on as
to their state and the plans to address them.
City Manager Murphy indicated that staff would return with a report on the
status of the current capital improvement projects, as well as on the projects
that were either deferred or eliminated from the FYI 996-97 budget.
Council Member Debay requested that staff provide further information on
backup generators for pump stations, etc., as well as on the City's disaster
preparedness plan.
In reference to disaster preparedness, Mayor Hedges stated that the recent
power outage brings up questions such as what would happen if the outage
would have been prolonged, etc. He said that the disaster preparedness plan
needs to be developed more and should also include the loss of an aircraft on
take -off at John Wayne Airport since that requires a completely different type of
response. He questioned how resources are maintained, as well as the priority
system currently in place for the repair of equipment.
Council Member Cox addressed the issue of traffic during these types of
emergencies and questioned the ability of the City to respond to an emergency
situation. He asked if there is a way for electricity to be re- directed to traffic
signals in priority areas in order to insure that the response areas can at least
function.
City Manager Murphy explained that the City will be using the plane crash
scenario as the disaster drill this fiscal year.
Public Works Director Webb gave credit for the quick response to Pete Antista
and Ed Burt, Utility Superintendents.
Council Member Edwards reported that he has received a number of end -user
request letters from Harbor Ridge and asked that staff bring back some form of
a report on the feasibility of their request.
City Manager Murphy reported that staff is in the process of preparing a
response to the request and will provide copies to Council.
Mayor Hedges requested that staff bring the results of the KPMG study to
Council for consideration.
City Manager Murphy reported that staff is planning to agendize the study on
September 9, 1996.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 96 -29 AMENDING SECTION 7.04.030(A) OF
THE NBMC PERTAINING TO ANIMALS PROHIBITED ON PUBLIC
BEACHES. Introduce ordinance and pass to second reading on 8/26/96.
2. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 96 -30 ADDING CHAPTER 1.06 TO THE
NBMC REGARDING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH FOR ACTIONS NOT COVERED BY THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIMS ACT. Introduce ordinance and pass to second
reading on 8/26/96.
Volume 50 - Page 243
INDEX
Ord. 96 -29
Animals
(62/70)
Ord. 96 -30
General
(36)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996 INDEX
3.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 96-31 AMENDING SECTION 12.40.055(E) OF
Ord. 96 -31
THE NBMC REGARDING PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN
Vehicles
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (Adds Specific Plan Districts). Introduce
(85)
ordinance and pass to second reading on 8/26/96.
4.
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 96-32 AMENDING SECTION 12.68.060 OF
Ord. 96 -32
THE NBMC TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM
Vehicles/Traffic
•
FOR PORTIONS OF NEWPORT HEIGHTS AND CLIFF HAVEN (Extends the
(85)
Limits of the Two Hour Time Limit and Residential Parking Permit
Program 400 Feet Along the North Side of Holly Lane). Introduce ordinance
and pass to second reading on 8/26/96.
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
5.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-60 ENDORSING THE "CALIFORNIA FIRST"
Organizations/
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP SUMMIT AND ENCOURAGING ALL OF
SCAG
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
(61)
MEMBERS TO ATTEND THIS EVENT.
6.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-61 TO CLASSIFY THE BALBOA THEATER
Res. 96 -61
(707 EAST BALBOA BLVD.) AS A LOCAL HISTORIC SITE (CLASS 3) AND
Historical Property
PLACE IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGISTER OF HISTORICAL
(35)
PROPERTY.
7.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-62 THE UPDATING OF CITY RELOCATION
Res. 96 -62
GUIDELINES TO CONFORM TO CURRENT STATE LAW.
Reloc Guidelines
(31)
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
8.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MOU - Boy Scouts of
NEWPORT BEACH AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA REGARDING
America /Harbor
•
HARBOR CLEANUP ACTIVITIES. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
Clean -up Activities
execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Newport Beach
C -3106
and the Boy Scouts of America.
(38)
9.
AMEND AGREEMENT WITH SCHAEFERS AMBULANCE SERVICE INC. AS
Schaefers Ambulance
SECONDARY PROVIDER OF EMERGENCY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTA-
C- 2972(8)
TION SERVICES. Approve an amendment to the existing agreement with
(38)
Schaefers Ambulance as secondary provider of emergency ambulance
transportation services to accommodate our paramedic subscription members'
emergency ambulance transportation benefit. Deny Schaefers Ambulance's
request to increase their ground ambulance rates to the maximum rate
schedule adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on June 4, 1996, but
inconsistent with the schedule approved by the City Council for City emergency
medical transportation.
10.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR THE PREPARATION OF
Phase 11 Groundwater
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITIES YARD - PHASE II
Improvements
GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENTS (C- 3004 -Y & C- 3004,2) AS PART OF
C- 3004 -Y
THE GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Authorize the Mayor and
C- 3004 -Z
City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreements on behalf of the City,
(38)
with DMC Engineering and Paul J. Ruffing, AIA, to prepare detailed plans and
specifications for construction of the remaining site improvements and buildings
at the City's Utilities Yard for fees not to exceed $49,405 and $30,950,
respectfully.
11.
APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT - BIRCH STREET BRIDGE
Birch St Bridge
•
WIDENING OVERCROSSING - STATE ROUTE 73. Approve a Consultant
Widening Overcrossing
Agreement with William R. Hansen & Associates for appraisal services for right-
C -3107
of -way acquisition in an amount of $28,500 plus a 10% contingency of $2,850
(38)
for a total of $31,350; authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the
Consultant Agreement on behalf of the City.
Volume 50 - Page 244
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
12. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF BIKE TRAIL AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS, IRVINE AVENUE AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE ADJACENT
TO UPPER BAY REGIONAL PARK, CONTRACT NO. 2851. Accept the work;
authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and authorize the City
• Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been
recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code.
13. AWARD OF BID - BAYVIEW WAY /JAMBOREE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
(SAN DIEGO CREEK NORTH), CONTRACT NO. 3034 AND APPROVAL OF
BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -005). Accept the bids received and award
Contract No. 3034 to the low bidder, Gillespie Construction Inc. for the contract
price of $459,241 and authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of $13,407
for the Circulation & Transportation Fund and $58,734 for the Contributions
Fund.
14. COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF 1995196 SIDEWALK, CURB AND
GUTTER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, CONTRACT NO. 3071. Accept the
work; authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; and authorize the
City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been
recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code.
15. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
16. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
17. CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 - MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WIDENING -
SEGMENT 1 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO 1000 FEET NORTHERLY OF
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD. Approve Amendment No. 2 to a Consultant
Agreement with LSA Associates increasing the compensation amount for
• archaeological and paleontological services by $62,200 (Contract No. 2825);
and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign Amendment No. 2 on behalf
of the City.
18. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
19. UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III PROJECT - AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING,
INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION. Approve Amendment No.
1 to consultant agreement with Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract.
20. BALBOA BAY CLUB LEASE AMENDMENT. Approve amendments to the
lease agreement requested by the State Lands Commission staff.
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
21. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - AUGUST 6, 1996.
22. APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -003) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$45,000 TO FUND LIBRARY MATERIALS AND TO FUND THE LITERACY
PROGRAM FROM REVENUE RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE DONATIONS
AND CONTRIBUTIONS.
23. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL POLICY A -2 REGARDING
• APPOINTMENTS TO CHARTER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Approve
policy.
24. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
Volume 50 - Page 245
INDEX
Bike Trail & St. Imp
Irvine Ave & Univ Or
C -2851
(38)
Bayview Way /Jamboree
Rd Imp (San Diego Creek
North) C -3034
(38)
BA -005
(40)
1995196 Sidewalk, Curb &
Gutter Replacement
C -3071
(38)
MacArthur Blvd Widen-
ing- Segment 1 PCH
C -2825
(38)
Upper Newport Bay Unit
III Project
C- 2987(F)
(38)
Balboa Bay Club Lease
C -519 (38)
Planning (68)
BA -003
(40)
Council Policy A -2
(69)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
25. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF PARAMEDIC AMBULANCE AND
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -002) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 TO ACCOUNT 6120 -9100. Approve purchase and Budget
Amendment.
® 26. CORONA DEL MAR BEACH CONCESSION OPERATION. Authorize staff to
proceed with the bid process for the Corona del Mar Beach Concession,
pursuant to City Council Policy F -7.
27. REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR.
28. AB939 ANNUAL REPORT (Informational Report). Receive and file.
29. CITY COUNCIL POLICY F -11 - ACQUISITION, CUSTODY AND DISPOSAL
OF CONTROLLED PROPERTY. Approve the revisions to Policy F -11.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Debav to approve the Consent Calendar, except for
those items removed (15, 16, 18, 24 & 27). The motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
(NOTE: ITEMS 15 & 16 WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER)
15. COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE - UPPER
NEWPORT BAY FEASIBILITY STUDY.
•
16. UPPER NEWPORT BAY UNIT III PROJECT - AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION FROM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO
ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS.
Council Member Glover stated that after working so hard to become a part of
the decision - making process with the IRWD issue, she feels it is the wrong time
to turn the management of these projects over to the County.
City Manager Murphy explained that Items 15 and 16 relate to the upcoming
upper bay dredging project. He said he was contacted several weeks ago by
Bob Fisher, Director of Harbors, Beaches and Parks, inquiring as to the City's
comfort level with the County becoming the lead agency in completing the
designs, plans and specs to actually undertake the dredging. He explained that
the request was made with the understanding that the City had lost staff
member John Wolter, the lead staff person on issues related to the Bay, as well
as the fact that this year the City is undertaking the largest capital improvement
program in it's history (approximately $49 million). He said that staff talked to
Mr. Fisher and representatives from the State about actually putting a project
management team in place which would include representatives from the City,
County and State. He said that if the Council wants to remain in the lead
position, staff will need to find a way to devote the resources to make sure it is
possible.
Mayor Hedges stated that the Council needs to identify the strategic assets they
• are willing to take responsibility for. He said he would feel much better about
the whole situation if the City would take on the burden of managing issues
dealing with the bay.
City Manager Murphy said that Item 16 is the one that really deals with the
issue of who takes the lead on these kinds of projects. He said he would
recommend approval of Item 15; and if the Council wishes to change the
Volume 50 - Page 246
INDEX
(40)
Corona del Mar Beach
Concession
C -1920 (38)
Waste Reduction (44)
Council Policy F -11
(69)
Or Co /Upper New. Bay
Feas Stdy C -3108 (38)
Upper Newport Bay Unit
III Project
C- 2987(B)
(38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
direction in terms of lead on Item 16, then it should be pulled so the issue can
be revisited and brought back to Council.
Motion by Council Member Watt to approve the Cost Sharing Agreement with
the County of Orange to perform the Federal Cooperative Upper Newport Bay
Feasibility Study (Item 15); and to review Item 16 along with other issues raised
• tonight. She said that all of the things that are going on in reference to the bay
(how the City relates to it, how the City can best take the lead role, how any
vacuums can be filled to insure proper coordination, etc.) need to be reviewed
in full. She said that there are four things currently going on in relationship to
the bay: 1) the dredging in the silt basin; 2) the Corps of Engineer feasibility
study; 3) the monitoring of the IRWD; and 4) the ongoing regulations and local
things that the City is involved with. She suggested that Item 16 be referred to
the Harbor and Beaches Committee to determine the best way for the City to
position itself and to decide whether the lead agency status can be given up on
this project.
In response to Council Member Edwards' question about whether referring this
item to the Harbor and Beaches Committee would interfere with the timing
element, City Manager Murphy pointed out that Item 16 involves a three -party
cost- sharing arrangement between the County, the City and The Irvine
Company with each agency contributing $46,667. He said it is critical that prior
to the September meeting of the Coastal Conservancy that the three parties
have taken action to begin moving forward in order to begin the dredging early
next year. He said that if conceptual agreement can be reached in reference to
the financial contribution, then staff can go back and rearrange it so that the
City becomes the lead agency for the design, plans and specifications.
Council Member Watt said that the Upper Bay dredging project is one item that
has been going through the process and she doesn't see the result or the goal
changing very much, if at all, by who has the lead agency status. She said that
• if it interferes with the progress or the Coastal Conservancy's action, then she
would withdraw her motion and move to go ahead with it right away.
Council Member Edwards asked if the City would incur additional staffing costs
if the project management status were changed, and if so, how much would it
be.
City Manager Murphy reported that the Department of Harbors, Beaches and
Parks has a staff member that can be devoted to this project, however another
option would be for the County to take the lead in design and the City to take
the lead in construction of the project.
In response to questions raised by Council Member Glover regarding the
Executive Committee, Public Works Director Webb explained that Item 15 (the
Upper Bay Feasibility Study) will be administered by the Corps of Engineers.
The study will look at the entire upper bay and its resources and then
recommendations will be made on all parts of the bay. He said that the
executive committee referred to in Item 15 will review the results of the Corps'
larger study and the committee in Item 16 will look at the actual construction of
improvements to dredge the bay.
Council Member Glover voiced concerns about the need for the City to have
one person to oversee all issues dealing with the bay and stated that someone
within the Public Works Department needs to become as educated as the City
Attorney concerning this matter in order to be the person that Council speaks to
about bay issues.
• The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
Volume 50 - Page 247
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
18. RESUBDIVISION NO. 1020 - A PORTION OF LOT 288 OF NEWPORT
HEIGHTS LOCATED AT 1921 IRVINE AVENUE (Owner - Ken Hutchins).
Public Works Director Webb explained that Irvine Avenue is a primary arterial
• within the system and in the area between Windward Lane and Irvine Avenue
there is a section that is narrower than the standard width by about 10 feet.
This dedication was requested to try to accomplish the full master plan width
and would be a spot- widening which would extend across three lots. He further
explained that the City does not have the dedications on the other lots,
therefore the property would have to be purchased. He stated that this is not in
the City's seven -year plan, so he would not feel uncomfortable with an
irrevocable offer of dedication with a 15 -year term that would not be exercised
unless the project is actually put together. Mr. Webb explained that an offer of
dedication is defined by the Subdivision Map Act and would require the property
owner to provide a dedication at such time as the City accepts it (no money is
exchanged). Mr. Webb explained that this dedication was made a condition of
the parcel map and the ten feet that was dedicated in front of the existing
structure did not impact the current planned uses for the property, therefore the
owner did not feel that it was a problem. He further explained that the
dedication was required through Modifications Committee.
Council Member Glover stated that she does not believe in this sort of thing and
feels it is very harmful to Mariner's Mile, therefore she made a motion not to
accept this offer of dedication.
Mayor Hedges noted that the offer of dedication is for the widening of a street
that is not on the City's planning horizon and questioned what the Council's
policy is with respect to issues such as this. He said that if the land is needed
for public use it should be taken under the eminent domain powers that the City
has, wherein the public benefit is weighed against the price of the land.
• Mayor Pro Tern Debay asked if the applicant was present and if there would be
some kind of future benefit for the properties involved.
Mr. Webb explained that in this particular location the additional ten feet would
allow for a standard emergency parking lane to be constructed, which would be
an advantage because cars would be able to get out of the through lane of
traffic when entering and exiting the driveway.
Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tern Debav to direct staff to meet with the
applicant and Council Member Glover to discuss the issues raised and bring
this item back to Council for further consideration.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
24. STATE REGULATION AND PREEMPTION OF LOCAL ZONING
REGULATIONS RELATED TO VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL CARE AND
TREATMENT FACILITIES (Request of Council Member Edwards).
Council Member Edwards explained that this report is in reference to the state
• preemption which has impacted certain areas of town and most recently,
Eastbluff. He said the only reason he pulled the item was because he was
asked by the Homeowners Association to present a tape and some
correspondence on this issue to the City Attorney. He asked that when the
attorney's office is ready to prepare a response that he be given an opportunity
to review the response before it is mailed.
Volume 50 - Page 248
INDEX
Resub No 1020
(84)
Local Zoning Reg.
(68)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
Mayor Hedges explained that the uptake of this is that it is possible for
residential care facilities to be located in the middle of residential areas. He
stated that this has been an ongoing problem in the City for a long time,
especially in the beach areas, however the City has absolutely no ability to
regulate these facilities beyond the basic law enforcement type of regulations.
• Council Member Edwards suggested addressing this issue in Legislative
Committee to see if anything can be done at the state level.
Council Member Glover pointed out that there is legislation that is currently
pending now and the City may want to add their support to that legislation.
Questions were raised about the facilities being run for profit, and City Attorney
Burnham explained that the City can't get around these restrictions based on
whether the agencies are operated as for - profit businesses. He indicated that
most of the facilities are run by non -profit corporations, however they are
allowed to make a profit.
Mr. Burnham reported that for the last two years the League of California Cities
has supported legislation that would give local agencies more control over the
regulation of these types of facilities, however the legislation has been
unsuccessful.
City Manager Murphy explained that the current legislation deals with the
separation between the facilities and residences. He said the state won't allow
cities to regulate this area because they believe that cities would prohibit the
uses entirely, therefore the proposal is to allow City's to require certain
distances (500 foot) between facilities and residences.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay requested that the list of the approved residential care
and treatment facilities be provided to Council when it is received.
• Motion by Council Member Edwards to receive and file the report, to direct staff
to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature in support of the proposed
legislation, and to refer this issue to the Legislative Committee for review.
Tom Hyans reported that he has two such facilities near his home that compete
with Hoag Hospital for patients. He stated that one of the units charges $13,000
for a four week detoxification patient care program.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
27. DOG NUISANCES (Request of Mayor Pro Tem Debay).
Mayor Pro Tem Debay reported that she requested this report based on the
number of complaints she received about the park at 38th and Balboa that is
being as a doggy park. She said that initially she inquired about installing
disposable bag dispensers similar to the ones currently in place on Balboa and
Newport Island. She noted that there are 42 locations within the City that might
need something like this, therefore it would obviously be too expensive for the
City to provide. She explained that the dispensers currently installed were a
cooperative effort between homeowner associations and the City with the
• parties splitting the cost. She reported that the installation plus cost of one unit
for the first year is $741. She suggested that if there are parks where there are
problems, the homeowner associations should contact the City Manager since
the City will be working on some kind of a cooperative effort to get the
dispensers in place to encourage people to clean up after their pets.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Debav to receive this report. She said she will be
Volume 50 - Page 249
INDEX
Dog Nuisances
(62)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
working with the people at the 38th Street park location and would encourage
others to join in this effort.
Chris Crosson, P.O. Box 228, Balboa Island, President of Doggy Walk Bags,
reported that in 1993 the first dispensers were installed on Balboa Island. He
said they have sold over 400 dispensers and Newport Beach is used as a
• demonstration site. Mr. Crosson reported that his company is working on a
design to dispense the bags through a capsule from a gumball -type machine.
Julie Mattson, 315 Island Ave., Balboa Island, volunteered to work on a
committee to help with this issue. She said that the beach is immaculate and
the problem out there now is with baby diapers.
Mayor Hedges noted that this is a receive and file item and no action is
required.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
30. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 96 -33 TO PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS ON BALBOA ISLAND.
City Clerk Harkless read the title of the proposed ordinance pursuant to Council
direction provided at the beginning of the meeting.
Motion by Council Member Watt to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 96 -33
prohibiting the approval of residential condominium conversions in the R1.5
zoning district (Balboa Island) for forty -five days.
Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing.
Leonard Morgan, 600 Narcissus, distributed sketches to the Council and
• addressed concerns with three units in his neighborhood. Mayor Hedges
requested that he leave his name and phone number with staff so they can
contact him regarding his concerns.
Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.
CONTINUED BUSINESS
31. GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT STATUS REPORT
Utilizing slides, Public Works Director Webb gave a status report on the
Groundwater Development Project. During the presentation, Mr. Webb updated
the Council on the objectives, the components, the costs, the completion status
and the final steps of the project. He noted that the last time this type of
presentation was made to the Council was in December of 1994.
• Mr. Webb reviewed all of the project components and explained some of the
hurdles that have been crossed. He said that the project is now two- thirds
complete and running at full speed in order to begin using well water by this
time next year. He said the first objective of the project was to provide a
reliable water supply; the second objective was to provide an alternate source
of water for up to 75% of the city's needs; the third objective was to utilize the
Orange County groundwater basin, a local resource, rather than having to rely
Volume 50 - Page 250
INDEX
Residential Condo
Conversions/Balboa
Island
(68)
Groundwater Develop.
C -3004 (38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
Mr. Webb reported that the construction contracts are now estimated to be 67%
complete. He explained that the City has completed agreements with Fountain
Valley for the lease and drilling rights and all of the right -of -way agreements,
Reach 1 and 2 pipelines are complete, Reach 3 is 90% complete, the reservoir
is 60% complete, the pump station is 25% complete and Phase I of the utility
improvements is complete. He said the City is now at the 90% completion
point with the final engineering design and the final cost estimate is $23.7
million. $14.5 in construction contracts have been completed or are nearing
completion and change orders have amounted to 6.6 %. Engineering and
management construction costs will end up being 17% of the construction costs.
He explained that the bond estimates were prepared from pre - design cost
estimates that did not have the benefit of detailed plans and environmental
permitting restrictions. In December of 1994 with 30% of the design complete,
estimates were increasing as better information became available. By
September of 1995, 75% of the design was complete, a number of construction
contracts had been awarded, and the project costs were estimated to be $21.5
million. With all of the major elements designed and bid except for the well
housing, the utility yard and the Reach 3A and 3B pipelines, the cost is now
estimated at $23.7 million. He explained in detail some of the factors that
caused the costs to escalate and further noted that the bond estimates were
• too low and the project could not have been constructed for that price. If the
bond estimates had been prepared with final designs and plans it would have
been in the $19-20 million range and the City would have spent $2 -3 million on
engineering for the plans and estimates. He also explained that the design
probably would not have been completed until the end of 1994 or early 1995
and the project would have just been getting underway with a two to three year
completion delay and a loss of perhaps $5 million per year in savings. In
Volume 50 - Page 261
on Colorado River water and Feather River water; the fourth objective was to
improve water quality; and the last objective was to supply water to the
customers economically. With the rising costs of MWD water, the groundwater
development project will allow water rates to stabilize by the year 2000 and go
down in the year 2010. If the City were to remain on the MWD system, it is
projected that the rates will rise by 5% per year. Using an aerial photo he
pointed out the project components. He explained that there are four wells in
•
Fountain Valley: two wells at the Tamura School site and two at the Dolphin
site. He reported that Wells 1 & 2 at the Tamura site are complete except for
the pump houses and the motors. He reported that the drilling of Well 3 at the
Dolphin site is complete and the drilling of Well 4 at that site will begin next
week. He noted that the drilling operations were delayed for over a year while
the City negotiated with the City of Fountain Valley. He said that the well
drilling operation will be complete by mid - September and the next step will be
the construction of pump houses, fitting the wells with pumps and motors, and
installing the control equipment. He explained that Reach Nos. 3A & 3B are
designed and are expected to go out to bid in September. He pointed out that
the use of the current seawater line of about 2.3 miles saved the project
approximately $3 -4 million and that project is now complete. He said the 3
million gallon reservoir is under construction on a four acre site which was
acquired from the West Newport Oil Company. After the design of the
reservoir, and during the initial excavation and grading, an earthquake fault was
discovered running through the location where the reservoir was to be
constructed, therefore it required an extensive re- evaluation of the design and
the location of the structure. It was determined that by moving the location of
the reservoir out of the fault trace and by designing the structure for a 7.2
Richter scale event, the risk of a failure was minimal. He further explained that
the originally designed disinfection system contemplated the use of gaseous
chlorine and ammonia, however because of the potential of a hazardous gas
leak if a system failure occurred, the City was required to do a Risk
Management Prevention Program (RMPP). The RMPP provided sufficient
•
safety measures to operate a gaseous system, however at the conclusion of the
study, the Fire Department recommended that a liquid chlorine and ammonia
system be considered and it was found that the long term benefits in operational
safety and costs for improved safety to the adjoining school were worth the
added redesign and construction cost.
Mr. Webb reported that the construction contracts are now estimated to be 67%
complete. He explained that the City has completed agreements with Fountain
Valley for the lease and drilling rights and all of the right -of -way agreements,
Reach 1 and 2 pipelines are complete, Reach 3 is 90% complete, the reservoir
is 60% complete, the pump station is 25% complete and Phase I of the utility
improvements is complete. He said the City is now at the 90% completion
point with the final engineering design and the final cost estimate is $23.7
million. $14.5 in construction contracts have been completed or are nearing
completion and change orders have amounted to 6.6 %. Engineering and
management construction costs will end up being 17% of the construction costs.
He explained that the bond estimates were prepared from pre - design cost
estimates that did not have the benefit of detailed plans and environmental
permitting restrictions. In December of 1994 with 30% of the design complete,
estimates were increasing as better information became available. By
September of 1995, 75% of the design was complete, a number of construction
contracts had been awarded, and the project costs were estimated to be $21.5
million. With all of the major elements designed and bid except for the well
housing, the utility yard and the Reach 3A and 3B pipelines, the cost is now
estimated at $23.7 million. He explained in detail some of the factors that
caused the costs to escalate and further noted that the bond estimates were
• too low and the project could not have been constructed for that price. If the
bond estimates had been prepared with final designs and plans it would have
been in the $19-20 million range and the City would have spent $2 -3 million on
engineering for the plans and estimates. He also explained that the design
probably would not have been completed until the end of 1994 or early 1995
and the project would have just been getting underway with a two to three year
completion delay and a loss of perhaps $5 million per year in savings. In
Volume 50 - Page 261
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
project is being constructed to provide an alternate source of water for the City
(well water) which can be produced for about half the cost of purchasing MWD
water. He explained that by the time the bonds are repaid in 2010, the annual
savings are estimated to be $10.7 million with a cumulative savings of $58.8
million.
• Deputy Administrative Services Director Kurth explained that he was asked to
do a cash flow analysis to indicate whether in retrospect the project would still
make sense or would have made sense back at the inception with the revised
costs. He said that the bottom line is, with all the additional information, it still
appears that the project makes sense. He explained the graph provided to the
Council and noted that by using the new information, the costs are recovered
well before the bonds are repaid.
Council Member Glover reported that recently there was an article in the paper
about the City of San Diego getting water from sources and asked what
percentage of water the City would get from MWD and from the underground
wells.
Mr. Webb explained that the groundwater basin that is managed by the OCWD,
which is where the City obtains their water, allows the City to take 75% of its
total needs from that basin. Beginning in August of 1997 the City will be able to
obtain 25% of the water from the MWD and 75% from the well. Mr. Webb
explained that if 100% of the water is taken from the groundwater basin, the
City would be penalized and would pay the same price as if MWD were
supplying the water. Mr. Webb explained that the City is at 75% rather than
something less because historically the City relied upon the groundwater basin
for its water up until 1957.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay noted the importance of having two different sources of
• water especially if there is a break in one of the sources. She also pointed out
that recently the City voted for a water rate increase because MWD raised the
cost to the City, as well as to replace infrastructure in some of the older sections
of town.
In response to questions raised by Tom Hyans, Mr. Webb explained that staff
has provided $4 million for capital improvements to cover both replacement of
deteriorated facilities and new facilities in each of the 15 years. Mr. Hyans said
that project as a whole is 46% over the original projection at the time the bonds
were issued and he doubts that the project would have been constructed if the
estimates would have been this high.
Mayor Hedges noted that part of the problem is that the analysis was built on
some assumptions that the City had no control over. He said the project was
built on an assumption that MWD would continue to increase their rates 5% per
year, however if the costs go level or increase at a lesser amount, the $10
million in real savings will be eaten into fairly rapidly and it could be a wash or a
net loss. He said the project is now two - thirds complete and at this point there
is nothing that can be done other than complete the project. He noted however
that there are some benefits with respect to improved water quality and a
second source of water.
Jan Vandersloot, 2221 E. 16th Street, distributed a handout dated June 1996
from the Orange County Water District. He said he doesn't believe the City has
adequately explored the issue that the water that is being obtained is primarily
reclaimed wastewater. He said that in the summertime the source of recharge
• to the groundwater basin is the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River at
that time is 95% reclaimed wastewater from San Bernardino and Riverside
counties. He said that the plan is to take the wastewater, toilet water, reclaim it,
put it into the groundwater, and pull it up and distribute it as drinking water. He
asked if there are problems with having reclaimed wastewater in the
groundwater basin. He noted that the groundwater basin aquifer is replenished
every three years with reclaimed waste water and questioned whether the City
Volume 50 - Page 252
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
has analyzed the project as to the quality of the water.
Mayor Hedges responded that it has been analyzed and noted that anyone that
is drinking tap water in Newport Beach today is also drinking recycled water
from the aqua ducts which supply the water to the City. He explained that the
• water goes through treatment facilities where it is treated to make it potable. He
said that percolated highly treated reclaimed water in the basin is more pure
than what the City now has.
Mr. Murphy stated that these questions came up some time ago and he finds
the discussion tonight alarmist, disturbing and misleading. Referring to Mr.
Vandersloot's handout he described the process by which the water is
disinfected and the series of advanced wastewater treatment processes (lime
recalcination, multimedia filtration, carbon absorption, disinfection, and reverse
osmosis) used by the Water Factory. He asked the Council to disregard Mr.
Vandersloot's testimony and read the full article that was distributed. He said
that if the Council wants to go into more detail, staff would be happy to bring in
OCWD staff to provide the facts.
Council Member Watt agreed with Mr. Murphy, but said she doesn't want the
City to take a defensive posture. She said she appreciates Dr. Vandersloot's
work and said that this is an issue that is constantly being reviewed by all the
scientific health people and re -used water people. She said the City
understands that the water will be subject to a far higher level of treatment than
what was considered for the IRWD water and that all of the water that is re-
entered into the ground table has some level of treatment above the tertiary
treatment level. She said she thinks the City should continue to look at this and
bring it back to the Council if necessary.
Mr. Webb explained that the basin serves roughly two - thirds of the County from
the LaHabra area down to Newport Beach (26 -27 cities).
• Council Member Glover said she feels confident about bringing this water to
Newport if it has worked in other cities. She also said she isn't sure the City will
save money on this project, but thinks it shows good vision on the part of past
Councils to provide an altemate source of water for the City.
Mayor Pro Tern Debay suggested that Mr. Vandersloot call OCWD and arrange
an educational tour in order to understand the reverse osmosis process. She
pointed out that the handout he distributed states that reverse osmosis is a
duplication of nature's way of cleaning water, except it is faster.
Dolores Otting noted that in the beginning a number of residents spent a lot of
time on this project. She explained that initially the residents stated that the 30
inch pipeline wouldn't work and the disinfection system wouldn't work because it
was hazardous. She said they also voiced concerns about constructing a
building that would cost $1.2 million. She said that one of the other concerns
made by the public was the testing of the seawater line to the correct PSI in
order to get the amount of water that is necessary through the system. She
reiterated that the residents of the City put a lot of time into coming to the
meetings and discussing these things but because they're not paid as
consultants, the things they say don't amount to anything to anyone on staff.
Council Member Edwards said that Ms. Otting's comment about people not
listening is incorrect. He further explained that if the City had not proceeded
with this project, the City would not have an alternative source of water in the
case of a catastrophe and would be faced with increased water rates.
• Council Member Watt concurred with his statements and explained that the
original assumption was made that MWD was going to be an expensive and
ongoing cost. She said that when Council made the assumption about what the
bonding should be they also looked at the fact that bonding might not be
needed.
Volume 50 - Page 253
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996 INDEX
Mayor Hedges explained that no action is required on this update, however said
he feels it would be prudent to have another update on the progress of the
project in a few months.
32. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 96 -27 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50 OF THE NBMC
PERTAINING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND ORDINANCE NO. 96-
• 28 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.60 OF THE NBMC PERTAINING TO HOLISTIC
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS.
City Clerk Harkless read the titles of Ordinance Nos. 96 -27 and 96 -28 pursuant
to the direction provided by Council at the beginning of the meeting.
City Attorney Burnham briefly summarized the changes made in the ordinance.
In terms of substantive changes, he explained that the minimum number of
education hours was changed from 300 to 500. There was also a change in the
ordinance to allow existing permittees twelve months to comply with the 500
hour requirement or, in the alternative, to pass the test that would be
administered in light of the 500 hour requirement. He noted that this issue was
discussed at the Legislative Committee meeting. The proposed changes would
apply the educational requirements to managers, would require operators to
assume liability for violations in the premises, require that re -tests occur every
three years, restrict the hours of operation, and also carves out a separate
ordinance dealing with holistic health care practitioners. In discussions with one
massage expert, he explained that the use of the term "buttocks" in the
ordinances should be replaced with the term "gluteal fold" as a result of a recent
court ruling. He noted Mr. Ohl's August 5th report states that a million dollars of
insurance coverage can be obtained for $40 annually, however membership in
the AIMT is required to obtain that rate. He explained that based on public
input, the Council eliminated the communication requirement, the requirement
for a surety bond, and modified the hours of operation.
• George Grove, Jr., 7095 Hollywood Blvd. #773, Hollywood, stated that in the
meetings before Council on July 8 and 22 and the Legislative Committee
meeting on July 29, he filed and made oral and written objections. He also
noted that other people provided testimony, so rather than repeat those again,
he asked that those objections be incorporated by reference. He said that it
was suggested on the 22nd and the 8th that since there is litigation pending
under 764321 involving Ordinance No. 94 -54, this proposal should be tabled. In
order to protect the parties he represents, he said he included an allegation in
that pending action to cover the new ordinance in case it is adopted. He said
that on July 8th representations were made to the Council that 40 to 50
massage operators exist in Newport Beach and 40-50% of the people that took
the technician examination passed it. He said he asked the Council for
information to support that representation, however he has not received
anything. He reported that last week he filed a second case against the City
involving civil rights violations.
A technician from Huntington Beach (name unknown) asked that all the
testimony presented by George Grove and others on July 8, 22 and 29, 1996 be
incorporated as her objections too.
Dr. M.K. Hungerford, 2156 Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa, CEO of the American
Institute of Massage Therapy and Sports Massage Training Institute, said that
from the many public remarks, many individuals apparently feel that AIMT has
supported the proposed ordinance for self - benefit. For the record, she said the
base program at AIMT is over 1000 hours, one -third of the required 3400 hours
in many provinces of Canada. For the record, the proposed 500 hours is not
• sufficient for graduation or even acceptance at AIMT. She said the entire
intention of supporting the proposed ordinance is simply to protect the public by
and through an assurance of quality performance.
John Black, 4007 Birch Street, Suite D, stated that there was a discrepancy
between the paperwork that was available at City Hall and what was available at
the meeting tonight. He stated that the HHP (holistic health practitioner)
Volume 50 - Page 264
Ord 96 -27 - Massage
Ord 96 -28 - Holistic
Health Practitioners
(27)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996 INDEX
ordinance was not included in the paperwork that was available at the City
Clerk's office on Friday, therefore he didn't know what was going on and calls
were not returned from the Assistant City Attorney's office.
In response to the allegations, Mr. Burnham explained that the telephone calls
were not returned because Mr. Ohl went on vacation on Friday. City Clerk
• Harkless explained that the HHP part was a part of the agenda packet from July
22nd (Agenda Item No. 1) and it was available on the counter last week. Mr.
Black reported that on July 29 he submitted paperwork that was presented to
the Legislative Committee. He said they want to maintain the hourly
requirement of 300 and 500 hours and feel that the idea of grandfathering by
allowing the technicians to take the City's test is appropriate, however there are
better tests available and organizations that provide the tests (practical tests
including a hands -on test).
Council Member Edwards reported that a Legislative Committee meeting was
held on July 29th and the following three issues were discussed at the direction
of the Council: 1) the grandfathering; 2) the insurance; and 3) whether or not
there should be some type of a differentiation between freestanding and sports
clubs. Referencing the insurance issue he said there is a nexus between
obtaining the insurance and the number of hours of education.
Shirley Henderson, 3847 Birch, reported that she has been doing business in
Newport for about nine or ten years and has to keep jumping through more
hoops. She reported that she just became a holistic practitioner and now rather
than have the three -year permit that she earned, she will have in reality an 18-
month permit in the guise of a three -year permit because she still has to come
up with another 500 hours and take the test administered by the City. She said
since she has taken a National Test, she shouldn't have to retake the City test.
Carolyn Stevens questioned who the people are from the massage organization
• called the AIMT and said it is common knowledge in the industry that a great
number of these people work underground without licenses. She said that Dr.
Hungerford claims there was a death due to massage, however she has never
provided any proof. She asked the City Council to direct the AIMT to provide
information on how many of their members are licensed in the City they are
working in. She quoted testimony given by Dr. Hungerford relative to the
number of hours required in Canada, and asked how she can protect the health,
welfare and safety of her clients if she can't have private meetings. She quoted
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and
urged the Council not to adopt the ordinance.
Barry Ruben, Massage Technician at the Newport-Costa Mesa YMCA, thanked
Council and staff for their continuing attempt to work out a fair and reasonable
ordinance. He said that one of the requirements he agrees with is the continuing
education, establishment of 500 hours, and allowing those that have been
working to challenge the test. He said he would agree with a 1000 hour
requirement if there was standardization across the board that would insure a
safety factor for the public.
Mr. Burnham explained that the option that was discussed that gives the
permittee the right to challenge the 500 hour test was incorporated in the
ordinance. He said the insurance requirement is still in the ordinance and as
Council Member Edwards explained, staff was unable to draft regulations to
distinguish between free - standing massage establishments and sports clubs or
similar facilities.
• In response to Council Member Edwards comment, the typographical error on
the hours of operation was corrected to show termination at 10:00 p.m. He also
spoke in support of changing the insurance requirement from $500,000 to
$100,000.
Motion by Council Member Glover to adopt Ordinance No. 96 -27 amending
Chapter 5.50 of the NBMC pertaining to massage establishments and
Volume 50 - Page 255
•
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
Ordinance No. 96 -28 amending Chapter 5.60 of the NBMC pertaining to holistic
health practitioners with the changes made as pointed out by the City Attorney
With input from the Council.
City Attorney Burnham explained that if the change in the insurance
requirement is made, the ordinance would need to be re- introduced. After
discussion about the change and Council Member Cox's comments about the
cost for the $1 million in coverage being $40 per year by unanimous consent,
the insurance requirement was left at $500,000.
Mayor Hedges questioned whether the issue of grandfathering was discussed
by the Legislative Committee. Mr. Burnham explained that the ordinance deals
with grandfathering in terms of allowing technicians the opportunity to take the
test.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
33. CITY COUNCIL AIDES SURVEY. (Request of Mayor Hedges)
Assistant to the City Manager Ducey reported that she first surveyed the cities
in Orange County and found that only one city (Irvine) has paid Council aides to
provide support for their council members. She said that other surrounding
counties were spot- checked, the League of California Cities provided a survey
conducted by the City of Chula Vista and the International City Management
Association also provided a report on this issue. She said that most cities that
were surveyed use City Manager staff to provide support services for Council
Members. Of those cities that actually have paid staff to support Council
Members, there are basically two staffing patterns: 1) part-time or contract
employees with Council Members given a certain budgeted amount annually to
use as they see fit; and 2) regular full -time employees. The other way that cities
provide support to Council Members is by using volunteers or interns, either
paid or volunteer. She said the challenge with using volunteers or interns is
being able to retain them long enough so they learn the city system and the
staff people that they need to work with on certain issues so they can really
provide support to the Council Members. Overall most cities do not have
individual staff members to provide support to Council Members and most
utilize staff either through the city managers office or through other city
departments. She explained the different options presented to Council in the
staff report.
Mayor Hedges said he thinks the information will help the Council in their
policy- making role, however he isn't prepared to adopt or approve anything
tonight. Motion by Mayor Hedges to refer this matter to the Legislative
Committee for further discussion.
Council Member Edwards questioned the current need and said he feels it is
adding a "mini- bureaucracy." Substitute motion by Council Member Edwards to
continue the current support practices for City Council.
Mayor Hedges said he believes that if a need is established, this would be a
valid role and would allow residents an opportunity to participate in the process
by way of a formal council appointment. He said that college interns and
• people involved with government classes often volunteer their services and it
would be nice to have a position memorialized for them. He reiterated that it
does not have to be a paid position and he doesn't envision it as such.
Council Member Watt said it could be a negative to have Council aides. She
said it is important that the Council person be the one to talk to the people since
the Council Members are the ones that have to decide what discretion to use.
Volume 50 - Page 256
INDEX
City Council Aides (33)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996 INDEX
She said the only benefit she can see is additional secretarial support.
Council Member Cox spoke in support of the substitute motion and said the
Council would be shirking their duties if they tried to pass their responsibilities
on to aides. He said the workload is not that heavy and he would rather talk
one -on -one with the constituent or to a staff member in a given department who
has the answers to the issues. He said he feels the system works effectively
without aides.
•
Mayor Hedges said he believes that the level at which an aide is used, how the
aide is used, and what role they would play, would be a decision for each
individual council member to make and it would not be mandated. He said he
views this as a way to involve other people in the process of government.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay asked if there is anything that would preclude individual
council members from asking someone to help as a volunteer.
Mayor Hedges explained that the option is available, however he is talking
about establishing an official position that is memorialized.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt
Noes: Mayor Hedges
Absent: None
Abstain: None
34. APPOINTMENT OF CITY COUNCIL AND AT -LARGE MEMBERS TO THE
BPPAC
BALBOA PENINSULA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE ( BPPAC) AND
(24)
EXTENDING ITS TERM.
City Manager Murphy reported that recently BPPAC met and discussed the fact
that they will soon be coming to a consensus with the work groups on their plan.
•
In the course of that discussion, the BPPAC members voiced an interest in
making sure that the City Council follows through and implements their
recommendations. When BPPAC was originally formed it had a short life and it
was extended, and staff is asking that it be extended again. He said that the
recommendation is to amend the resolution to extend the term and add three
council members to be part of the BPPAC process there is continuity, as well as
a liaison between the advisory committee and the city council members.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay clarified that the term would be extended to June 30,
1997.
Mr. Murphy also explained that staff is asking that the Council appoint Michael
Kranzley to the at -large position as recommended by the BPPAC group.
Motion by Mayor Hedges to adopt Resolution No. 96-63 adding three City
Council members to BPPAC and extending the term to June 30, 1997; and to,
appoint himself, Mayor Pro Tem Debay and Council Member O'Neil as the
three council members to serve on the committee, and Michael Kranzley to
serve in the at -large position. The motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes: None
Absent: None
• Abstain: None
35. ALTERNATE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO GROWTH
Jt. Govt. Committees
MANAGEMENT AREA 8.
(24)
Motion by Mayor Hedges to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Debay as the alternate City
Volume 50 - Page 257
•
•
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
Council representative to
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
36. AQMD GRANT FOR NATURAL GAS VEHICLES.
Motion by Council Member Edwards to continue this item to September 9,
1996. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
RECESS AND RECONVENE
The Council took a brief recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m. with all
members present.
37. RECYCLING SURCHARGE REFUND. (Request of Mayor Hedges)
General Services Director Niederhaus gave a history of the recycling surcharge
and the formula that has been used since its inception in 1990. He said he
tried to integrate into the report some comments about the affects that the
landfill tipping fee had on the recycling surcharge, as well as the two efforts in
the past year to look at the way that the formula is calculated. He said that
during the KPMG study they looked not just at the original formula, but the SCS
formula, and came up with recommendations for the best way to pass on the
cost of recycling to the customers (26,000 residences). Basically, he said that
staff came to the conclusion, backed by the KPMG study, to stay with the
original formula as explained in the report, to arrive at the monthly surcharge.
He said that when the City's surcharge is compared with the 30 others in
Orange County, it is in the lower 10% and the charge varies from 65 cents in
Garden Grove all the way up to $4.00 -$5.00 in other cities. He said the City's
total cost for recycling is approximately $600,000 per year (the incremental cost
between what it costs to collect, transfer and dispose of the waste versus the
overall sum to do all those functions plus recycle). He pointed out that the City
is recycling either 34% or 42% depending on whether the City's formula or the
State formula is used.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that at the present time the City is not using the
Orange County landfills and on an interim basis the waste is going to the
Commerce plant. He explained that there is a possibility that the County will
separate out $2.00 per month as a "household hazardous waste" charge. He
said this will lower the landfill recycling fee from $27.00 to $25.00 and the $2.00
per ton fee will be directed back to the City in order to pay for the four or five
County - sponsored household hazardous waste centers. If the County
implements this proposal staffs recommendation would be to pass the fee on to
the homeowner. He explained that the City currently charges for recycling, but
doesn't charge for household hazardous waste since it is included with the
disposal charges.
. Council Member Cox questioned whether this proposed fee for hazardous waste
is really an environmental fee rather than a recycling fee. Mr. Niederhaus
explained that items such as used oil and paints would be recycled and used
again through this program and the extra fee that the County is proposing to
pass on would pay for the operation and the insurance for the household
hazardous waste program.
Volume 50 - Page 258
INDEX
AQMD (74)
Recycling
(44)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
Mayor Pro Tem Debay stated that as of July 1, 1996 each household pays
$2.03 per month for recycling, so if the $2.00 hazardous waste fee is approved,
an additional $2.00 would be passed on to the residents.
Mr. Murphy explained that the issue before Council tonight is the cost savings
• which staff negotiated with CRT and whether the savings that was generated in
FY 1995 -96 should be rebated ($161,342). Mr. Murphy explained the chart
included in the staff report and noted that for FY 1996 -97 the landfill fees are
$27.00 (if the Orange County facilities are used) and the recycling fee is $40.17.
He said that SCS and KMPG were both asked to determine the appropriate
method to use to calculate the charge to the homeowners and to try to pull out
the recycling amount. He said that when the contract was re- negotiated, staff
took the savings from the last fiscal year and put that into reserves. He said he
believes the Mayors request is that the Council consider rebating those dollars.
He said that recently the Council re-set the rate from $1.98 to $2.03 based on
the recommendations made by the two consultants, therefore if a rebate is
considered it would be based on the new rate.
Mr. Niederhaus explained that it is very unusual to see the landfill fees going up
and down and the reason for the fluctuation over the past year has been
because of the regional competition. He said that normally landfill costs go up
only every year or every two years. He said that if the City refunds the 51
cents, the monthly fee would be readjusted to $1.51 for the rest of the year.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Debay's counter proposal to readjust the rate
every month, Mr. Niederhaus said that every six months would be more
appropriate, however he said he isn't aware of any other city that adjusts their
recycling surcharge any oftener than annually. He clarified that the $2.03 is the
recycling surcharge paid by each of the 27,000 homes monthly and the
proposed $2.00 fee for household hazardous waste would be an annual fee. He
• explained the two proposals: 1) cities that have left the system or are going to
leave the system would be charged a certain fee (in the City's case,
$76,000 /year based on the current usage); and 2) a new proposal that would
lower the landfill tipping fee for everyone that uses the system from $27.00 to
$25.00 with the $2.00 per ton used to pay for the system with each city charged
according to their usage (approximately $76,000 /annually for 38,000 tons a
year). Council Member Glover said her understanding was that if the City
continues to take the waste outside of the County that at some point the County
will charge the City somewhere between $76,000- $83,000.
Dolores Otting stated that the household hazardous waste program is really not
a recycling program, but in essence is a disposal program. When the items go
to Irvine, Anaheim or Fountain Valley, the paint may be mixed up and given to
the schools to be reused, but the bulk of the material gets transported to other
states.
Mayor Hedges said it should be easy to rebate this money because pursuant to
the initiative ordinance the City pays for the collection of refuse from ad
valorem tax revenues. Since the advent of recycling the Council has said that
recycling is not included in the collecting, disposing or hauling away, therefore
a separate charge for recycling has been levied. He said that during the re-
negotiation of the last recycling contract a $161,342 savings was negotiated for
fees that were paid dating back to July 1, 1995 and the money then went into
the general fund. He said that when contracts of any sort are negotiated it is
done ostensibly for the benefit of the people in the City and certainly a refund
negotiated to the benefit of the people should accrue directly to their benefit. He
• said the rebate can be made as a credit on the municipal services statement,
therefore no additional administrative costs to cut separate checks would be
incurred. Motion by Mayor Hedges to refund the cost savings to the residents.
Mr. Murphy explained the change in the contract with CRT and noted that
rebating the entire $161,342 would be assuming that all of the savings was from
the recycling portion of the program that CRT provides. He stated that it isn't a
Volume 50 - Page 259
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
INDEX
simple cut and dried sort of issue and it is difficult to determine how to calculate
and extract the portion of the program that is recycling. He recommended that
the rate be held where it is until the best formula can be determined.
Council Member Cox explained that the City adjusted the fees because of the
change in cost for the subsequent year and asked if the situation were reversed
• and the rates were raised would the City go back and charge the residents for
overages on contracts.
Mr. Murphy stated that the $206,000 additional cost was offset by the $161,342
savings and the franchise fees, so the City was whole last year.
Council Member Cox pointed out then that by rebating the $161,342 the City
would no longer be whole, but would actually go in the hole. He said he cannot
support the rebate since it would be extremely complicated to try to calculate it.
He also said it would be a poor way may to manage a budget.
Council Member Watt said that if Council were inclined to support the proposed
rebate, the entire $161,342 should not be returned because only a portion of it
was for recycling. She asked if the fees would be adjusted as well.
Mayor Hedges indicated that changing the fee schedule is not part of this and
reiterated that the motion is to rebate $161,342 to the residents and commercial
businesses serviced by the City, which equates to $6.13 each. He said that it is
important not to confuse the cost of the refuse operation attributable to the
increases in the tipping fees since those are charges that the City is obligated to
pay under the provisions of the initiative ordinance. He pointed out that the City
negotiated a rebate and it may have been used to cover the refuse deficit, but
the fact is that it was collected as a fee for recycling, not to pay for costs of
refuse collection. He said the cost for refuse collection should be paid from the
general fund and not come from excess recycling fees.
is Council Member O'Neil said that if it is true that these funds were allocated to
reserves, then the public will benefit as long as the money is in the reserves.
Council Member Cox questioned whether a reserve fund could be established
for recycling, as is done with other utilities. He said the $161,342 could be
placed in a reserve fund and specifically identified as recycling, and taken into
consideration when the rates are adjusted.
Mayor Pro Tem Debay said she agrees with the Mayor's thoughts about a
rebate, but disagrees with the amount because the re- negotiated amount
includes savings on the plain trash hauling, therefore she will abstain from
voting on this issue.
Council Member Edwards explained that the $161,342 really isn't a rebate, but
is given back to the residents in the form of a rate reduction.
City Manager Murphy explained that staff took the savings negotiated from this
contract and put it in the reserves, therefore if the Council approves the rebate
the money would have to be appropriated and the reserves would be reduced.
Substitute motion by Council Member Edwards to factor that amount ($161,342)
into the budget next year (FY 1997 -98).
Mayor Hedges explained that to budget this just creates a line item which
doesn't exist at the present time. He further explained that a line item can be
created merely by Council action in an ensuing budget amendment. He pointed
out that the money is in the bank now and ready to be disbursed upon Council
action.
Council Member Edwards explained that the intent of his motion is to adjust the
rate next year so in effect the residents will receive a rebate.
Volume 50 - Page 260
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
Mr. Murphy explained the budget process and said staff would plan this into the
budget assumptions and make corresponding reductions in operations to
accommodate the difference. He said if Council takes this course of action, he
would try to keep the reserve levels growing and absorb this loss.
Mayor Hedges said he can't support the motion because he doesn't believe
• there will actually be a rate reduction next year. He said if the money is there
next year, it is there this year, since it is the same money and it will just sit in
the bank another year.
•
The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Edwards, Cox, Glover, Watt
Noes: O'Neil, Mayor Hedges
Absent: None
Abstain: Debay
38. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT. (Request of Mayor Hedges)
City Manager Murphy explained that Mayor Hedges requested that staff look at
further reorganization of the public safety departments.
Assistant to the City Manager Ducey reported that there are a wide variety of
organizational configurations utilized in safety department mergers. She said
there are two basic configurations used: 1) administrative services for police
and fire are merged, but police and fire operations are kept as separate
divisions within the Public Safety Department; and 2) police and fire are cross
trained and, in some cases, the dual-trained personnel still specialize in one
area but respond to specific kinds of emergency situations and use their other
training. She said some cities actually cross over from police and fire
operations on a fairly regular basis. She pointed out that the two examples
used in the staff report are the City of Fairfield, where support and
administrative services have been merged; and the City of Sunnyvale, who
have cross- trained their police and fire and have them cross over on a regular
basis. She said that if a merger of police and fire operations is pursued a very
extensive study, a detailed cost benefit analysis to look at what the costs and
benefits are of merging those operations, as well as an evaluation of the
political, cultural and environmental issues that would impact the successful
implementation of a consolidation, would have to be undertaken.
Mayor Hedges stated that this has worked well in a lot of other communities, but
whether or not it would work well for Newport Beach is the subject of many
more questions, which should be taken up. Motion by Mayor Hedges to direct
staff to undertake further review of public safety consolidations and forward the
results of the review to the Public Safety Committee.
Council Member Watt spoke against the motion stating that the City has just
barely gotten their feet on the ground after consolidating the Fire and Marine
departments.
The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Edwards, Glover, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
O'Neil, Debay, Cox, Watt
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS (Supplemental Agenda)
39. Cable Franchise Transfer (contd. From 7/8/96)
City Manager Murphy explained that at an earlier meeting the Council
considered a change to the current franchise related to Cox and Dimension and
Volume 50 - Page 261
INDEX
Fire (41) & Police (70)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
at that time questions were raised by the public as to an audit that had been
done earlier.
Assistant to the City Manager Ducey explained that at the July 8, 1996 Council
meeting a question was raised as to the status of the audit that was conducted
in 1995. In reviewing the six audit findings that MRC found when the audit was
• performed, she said one item was still outstanding that dealt with advertising
revenues that Cox Cable received from a separate but affiliated company. She
said the cable franchise ordinance doesn't specifically address separate, but
affiliated organizations and revenues from them, however if does address
advertising fees. The City's position has been that Cox owed the City
franchise fees on those revenues and Cox said they did not, so basically an
impasse was reached. In further negotiating this with Cox, staff surveyed the
County of Orange, as well as other cities in the County, and found that most of
those cities have agreed to split the cost of advertising revenues 50 %. Given
the vagueness of the current franchise ordinance, staff is recommending that
revenues from affiliated, but separate organizations be shared between Cox
Cable and the City at 50% and any advertising revenues that come directly to
Cox, such as leased advertising, would be subject to the 100% franchise fee.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to adopt Resolution No. 96 -64 approving the
transfer of control from Dimension Cable to Cox Communication and to use
50% to calculate the revenue from a separate, but affiliated cable company to
determine gross revenues.
Dolores Otting stated that the reason the audit was conducted two years ago
was because Comcast charges a 5.5% franchise fee to the residents and the
federal governments says only 5% can be charged. On the Dimension side,
she noted that some customers pay 10 cents in franchise fees, others pay $3.00
and still others pay 3 cents. She said that this was one of those issues that was
going to get resolved with the transfer of Dimension to Cox. She asked that the
Council address what happened to this audit that was done by Mr. Matsumoto
and how much was paid to Mr. Matsumoto since he received 35% of all the
monies that he found that the City was overcharged or undercharged.
Mr. Murphy stated that all of the audit recommendations except the affiliate
advertising were implemented. He explained that the City audits various
agreements on a regular basis and MRC was hired some time ago to perform
audits on a variety of revenues that the City receives. Mr. Matsumoto was hired
to audit the cable franchise fees to make sure the City was getting the
appropriate amount. He said the other recommendations were implemented
and the companies are in compliance.
Ms. Ducey stated that the Comcast issue raised by Ms. Offing is still pending.
She said that a meeting has been set up with Comcast's general manager next
week to deal with this issue, as well as some programming issues, so once this
issue is resolved she can report back to Council and Ms. Otting.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
O'Neil, Edwards, Debay, Cox, Glover, Watt, Mayor Hedges
Noes:
None
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None.
ADJOURNMENT
Volume 50 - Page 262
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
August 12, 1996
RR
The agenda for this meeting was posted on August 7,1996 at 3:55 p.m. and the
supplemental agenda was posted on August 9, 1996 at 1:46 p.m., on the City
Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration
• Building.
City Clerk
C
0
`�
Mayor
Volume 50 - Page 263
INDEX