Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1999 - Study SessionE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session August 9, 1999 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Ridgeway, Debay, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Council Member Debay asked when the results of the DNA Study of Contaminants to Newport Bay (Item #3) would be provided. Assistant to the City Manager Mff stated that it would depend upon how quickly the State sets the scope of the study and when the contract is received. He added that results could be provided as quickly as three to four months but more likely, it would be next Spring. City Manager Bludau stated that, in Coronado, once the samples were sent to Washington, it took forty days to receive the results. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he would be pulling both Items #3 and #12 (City's Response to Orange County Grand Jury's Report Entitled Coastal Water Quality and Urban Runoff in Orange County) at the evening City Council meeting to allow the opportunity for the public to hear a verbal report on the items. Council Member Debay requested that the City Attorney provide background information on the intent of Item #4 (Ordinance Pertaining to Obstructions on Public Property). City Attorney Burnham stated that the ordinance provides the Police Department with a vehicle to prevent the erection of permanent structures. He described a dispute that the Police Department was recently involved in where they discovered that they had no code available to them to enforce a suspected violation. City Attorney Burnham stated that the language of the ordinance could be clarified, but confirmed for Council Member Debay that the Police Department would use discretion. Assistant City Attorney Clauson added that there are already code provisions that deal with different elements of structures on public property. She noted Section 13.20.010 of the proposed ordinance that allows obstructions 'otherwise authorized or permitted... by the City Council, City Manager, or this Code ". Council Member Debay asked for clarification on what contributions the City will make pertaining to the LIUNA Pension Fund (Item #9). Assistant City Attorney Clauson confirmed that the LIUNA contract adds no additional costs to the City and that although the City will actually make the payments to LIUNA, it is in lieu of a pay raise for those employees. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson asked if there was an opportunity for the City to reassign the position in the Agreement for Professional Services (Item #10). Volume 52 - Page 636 INDEX • • • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 City Attorney Burnham stated that there was and that language could be added to the agreement to make this clear. Mayor O'Neil suggested that the City Attorney be prepared to come back to the evening meeting with a proposed provision that will allow the City to use the position in another capacity if desired, rather than just terminating. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson asked about the disclosure required for the Sale of City -Owned Property at 204 44th Street (Item #15). City Attorney Burnham could not confirm if the City is liable for the capped oil well or if the entity that created the oil well would have the responsibility. He could confirm that it was the City that capped the oil well. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the person on title for the property holds the responsibility, unless there was an indemnity with the previous titleholder. Mayor O'Neil asked if the liability could be transferred to the new owner. City Attorney Burnham could not confirm if the City would retain liability after the statute of limitations may have expired and stated that other statutes may also apply. Mayor O'Neil suggested that the City should document the sale to make sure the buyer assumes the liability and indemnifies the City, if possible. City Attorney Burnham stated that an agreement could be drafted that protects the City to the maximum extent possible. Council Member Debay confirmed with Assistant to the City Manager Kiff that the abandoned oil well is not directly under the house, but adjacent to it. She further confirmed with Assistant City Attorney Clauson that the disclosure of the oil well would be provided to the buyer and that the City could have the buyer sign a release that they have received the information. Council Member Ridgeway confirmed again that the City can reduce its liability for what occurred in the past, but that it cannot eliminate all liability for possible future leaks or occurrences. Regarding Development Agreement No. 6, CIOSA (Item #17), Council Member Glover informed staff that she would be asking for clarification on the fencing and the bluff top trail at the evening meeting. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY PROGRAM. Transportation and Development Services Manager Edmonston stated that the staff report was compiled after staff looked at twenty -three intersections, which were chosen based on specific requests or per staff recommendation. He said that data was collected on each intersection to help make a determination on where traffic signals should be installed. He said that staff narrowed the selection to three intersections that could be built and funded in the current and next fiscal years. Mr. Edmonston stated that three options for completing the work have been provided in the staff report. He summarized that Options One and Two provide for two construction contracts, one in each of the two fiscal years. He said that Option Three would allow for all of the work to be done in the current fiscal year. Mr. Edmonston concluded by mentioning that representatives from the Sea View community were in attendance at the meeting to support the signal at San Miguel & Port SuttonlYacht Coquette. Volume 52 - Page 637 INDEX Traffic Signal Priority Program (85) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 1101] s1:1 • Council Member Glover confirmed with Mr. Edmonston that the three signals being recommended did meet at least one of the nationally recognized signal warrants. Mr. Edmonston added that they also met certain point criteria in the technical rankings. He added that six of the twenty -three intersections studied did not meet the warrant criteria. In response to Council Member Glover's question about how the signals that were studied were selected, Mr. Edmonston stated that an accident will often cause a citizen to request that an intersection be studied or staff will study one based on previous reports. Council Member Debay thanked the people in attendance from Sea View for working with the City on the issue and for their willingness to help fund the new signal. Council Member Ridgeway asked for information about the criteria used for the warrants. Mr. Edmonston referred to the last page of the staff report, Traffic Signal Priority Ranking System, and stated that the warrants primarily deal with the volume of traffic on the main street and side street. He said that there are a total of eleven warrants, and although an intersection might not meet the criteria of one warrant, it could meet it for others. Mr. Edmonston confirmed for Council Member Ridgeway that only one warrant needs to be met for it to be determined that an intersection should • be looked at more closely and in some cases, it may be recommended that a four -way stop would work better. He explained an example of how the point system would work for an intersection that satisfied Warrant 6, Accident Experience. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson confirmed with Mr. Edmonston that Option Three is more efficient than Option One because only one construction contract would be needed. With this made possible due to a borrowing of the gas tax funds during the current year, Mayor Pro Tem Thomson asked when staff would know the actual cost of completing all three signals. Public Works Director Webb stated that in February, staff usually has a good idea of what projects will be completed during the current fiscal year and whether they will come in as budgeted. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Thomson to direct staff to proceed with Option Three for the installation of three signals and the upgrade of two signal locations with the funding shortfall to be completed by the processing of a $90,000 budget amendment. Bill Wenke, 2025 Yacht Defender, President of the Sea View Homeowners Association, stated that the Sea View community has been concerned about the San Miguel @ Port Sutton/Yacht Coquette intersection for many years and finally took official action last year. He thanked the City Council and staff for their support. • Council Member Ridgeway asked why the design and construction of a traffic signal is expected to take eighteen to twenty months. Public Works Director Webb explained that it will take three to five months to complete the design. Then the bidding process will begin and the contract can be Volume 52 - Page 638 • City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 awarded. He stated that delivery of the poles takes six months, and that the actual installation work will take only two to three months. Council Member Debay asked how it is determined if the signals are set on a cycle or triggered by mechanisms under the street. Public Works Director Webb stated that all the signals that the City :installs are vehicle- actuated signals. He added that the decision that the City has to make is if the signals should be inter -tied with other signals. Darrell Chappell, 2007 Yacht Vindex, thanked the City Council and staff for their hard work. Paula Bogenrief, 1908 Yacht Maria, stated that the elementary school that the students from the Sea View community attend is on the other side of San Miguel. She stated that the children population in the development has increased. She stated that some of the parents have decided to send their children to Lincoln instead, and it divides the neighborhood. She encouraged the City Council to vote in favor of the proposed traffic signals. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. 3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIORITIES. City Manager Bludau stated that due to the number of projects and the • heavy workload in the Planning Department, he wanted to confirm that the department was prioritizing their efforts as desired by the City Council. He stated that this will provide the City Council with an opportunity to ask questions about the time spent on various projects and give staff clear direction on the City Council's priority planning issues. Council Member Ridgeway stated that the focused general plan amendment on land use and circulation elements in the airport and Fashion Island areas should be looked at specifically and prioritized by the City Council, as related to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the recent initiative that was filed. Planning Director Temple stated that preparing the report provided her with a new understanding of the reasons for the heavy workload in her department. Referring to the budget amendment earlier in the year to pay overtime for zoning level plan check reviews, she stated that they thought the need would be for a temporary period only but that they have since discovered that the City is in a period of sustained residential development activity. Planning Director Temple stated that approximately 95% of the department's staff time is spent on sustaining mandatory activities, which does not leave many hours for discretionary issues or projects. She stated that the need to use overtime hours is ongoing because of the deficit of available hours needed for the current workload activity list. She stated that • the overtime hours, in most cases, are paid at 1 1/2 times the employee's salary. She asked that the City Council look at the planning program priorities and provide staff with direction. Volume 52 - Page 639 INDEX Planning Department Priorities (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 • Council Member Ridgeway asked where the department could most use an additional staff member or if it was needed. Planning Director Temple explained that the report was not prepared with that intention, but that it would probably be in the assistant or associate planner level. Planning Director Temple added that the overtime hours utilized per year equal approximately one -half of a full -time position's hours. Council Member Ridgeway referred to the prioritization of the Harbor Element item as "medium" in the staff report. He requested that this item be changed to a "high" priority item. He stated that a harbor element for Newport Bay is critical to managing and understanding the asset. Council Member Debay referred to the Affordable Housing Project in the Projects Not Yet Allocated list and asked if the City isn't required to move ahead more quickly with this effort. Assistant City Manager Wood explained that staff has included the Housing Element as a mandatory activity and could later change the Affordable Housing Project to a higher priority if a developer comes to the City with a project. Council Member Glover thanked City Manager Bludau for beginning the discussion with a clarification as to why the report was before the City Council. She said that she had been confused by statements at previous meetings about the Planning Department being adequately staffed and even able to handle planning issues associated with the El Toro airport if needed. • Council Member Glover stated that the Planning Department probably reached its height in the 1970's and that the tone of the department, as it remains today, was set by Jim Hewicker. She stated her concern about all the new projects and recommendations, and that the City should remember the leaner times and that they could return. Council Member Glover referred to the outline prepared by the Planning Commission General Plan Update Committee in the staff report. She asked why the City would be looking at Newport Tomorrow, a process put together in the 1960's. Planning Director Temple stated that Newport Tomorrow is a detailed assessment of the vision for Newport Beach. She added that she refers to it every year or so, and tries to use it to the greatest extent possible. Council Member Glover stated that she feels that policy issues should be addressed by the City Council at the time the General Plan Amendment is done, which she understands to be a couple years away. Planning Director Temple confirmed that the City Council did decide not to pursue a Comprehensive General Plan Update for two years, but the Planning Commission is recommending that certain issues be focused on prior to that update. Council Member Glover stated her concern that not everything can be done now, and she feels that Newport Tomorrow would be better done in conjunction with the General Plan Update. Council Member Glover also asked when it was decided to do the Economic Development element, as listed in the outline. Planning Director Temple • stated that it has only been suggested as a consideration, and the final decision would be made by the City Council. Council Member Glover asked for staffs position on the Local Coastal Plan Volume 52 - Page 640 INDEX 0 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 INDEX (LCP), listed in the outline under Land Use and Circulation Elements. Planning Director Temple stated that staff would not want to bring the certification process to the City Council, unless circumstances changed with the Coastal Commission. Assistant City Manager Wood added that another issue, in addition to the certification of the LCP, is the review of the planning for the coastal zone and that staff would recommend that this be done. She stated that this would be a review and update of the land use plan portion of the LCP. Council Member Glover asked what staff would recommend as the priorities. Planning Director Temple stated that the report was put together with the desire to receive input from the City Council, and that staff may not be able to accomplish all of the priorities in the current fiscal year. Council Member Glover stated that her priorities would be the airport and annexation, while taking care of the daily business. She asked what the involvement of the Planning Department would be if annexations were accomplished. Planning Director Temple confirmed that planning consultants would possibly be used, depending upon the timeframe of the requests. She added that an annexation would also increase the daily routine work in the Planning Department. Council Member Glover asked how the processing of the development documents would occur. Planning Director Temple stated that, in the case of Newport Coast, the planning documents used by the County are similar to • the City of Newport Beach's and shouldn't cause a great burden to City staff. She added that the Banning Ranch and Santa Ana Heights areas may require additional work for document checking. Council Member Noyes agreed with Council Member Glover that the City Council should be realistic, and that he'd like to be more specific with the number of hours spent on each of the activities. He referred to the 500 hours allocated to BID Administration and 100 hours to Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations. He stated that he thought the BID Administration was going to be outsourced but regardless, the priorities should be for those programs that benefit the citizens. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that only 100 hours is allocated to the review of the sign regulations because a consultant is actually drafting the document. She added that the BID Administration estimate takes into consideration the use of a consultant, but that the hours of the consultant also benefit the Administrative Services Department. Council Member Noyes stated that he still sees hours that seem unrealistic, referring to CDBG Administration, Economic Development Strategic Plan and Image Enhancement as being too high, and Code Enforcement as being too low. He suggested that the Economic Development Committee could possibly work on the Strategic Plan and the Planning Department could concentrate on code enforcement more. Council Member Noyes added that he'd like to look at the sign ordinance for the entire City, rather than just the Peninsula. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the study of the Peninsula is already pretty far along, and that adding the entire City would slow things down by several months. Council Member Noyes stated that, even with the delay, looking at the entire City at once might still be the way to go. Planning Director Temple added Volume 52 - Page 641 is City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 INDEX that comprehensive sign code updates can be very controversial and her goz by handling the Peninsula first is to make it a model for the rest of the City. Council Member Ridgeway stated that maybe the older parts of the City, such as Corona del Mar and Balboa Island, could be incorporated into the Peninsula study. He stated that the newer planned communities often have their own sign regulations. Council Member Glover stated that if different parts of the town are truly unique, maybe a different sign program for each would be more appropriate. Council Member Noyes clarified that he was not suggesting that the entire City have the same sign ordinance, but that it might be beneficial to look at the entire City at the same time and possibly develop some general regulations that would apply City -wide. Council Member Debay asked if the number of code enforcement officers is sufficient. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that currently there are three code enforcement officers, two in Planning and one in Building, and that other employees also perform code enforcement duties. Planning Director Temple stated that staff is preparing a report on the assessment of the administrative citations ordinance and long -term revenue stream predictions. She stated that the report may point to available funding for a part -time code enforcement officer. City Manager Bludau stated that the • City is currently only responsive to complaints and issues, and it would be a policy decision to become more pro- active. Assistant City Manager Wood clarified for Council Member Debay that the report of Residential Building Records (RBR) is still mandatory, but the seller can decline the inspection by informing the prospective buyer of this and providing proof to the City that he has done so. She added that although there may have been an isolated complaint from an individual, the Board of Realtors is very happy with the City's program. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson confirmed with Assistant City Manager Wood that the seller can decline the primary inspection as well as any secondary inspection, with the buyer's consent. Mayor Pro Tem. Thomson stated that he feels that the code enforcement efforts should be increased, and he cited not parking cars in garages and illegal real estate signs as examples. Council Member Glover stated that the philosophy of the City has been that codes are not enforced unless a complaint is submitted. She stated that if the City Council wants to change this, they need to let the City Manager know. She requested that the City Manager prepare a set of priorities from the information received from the City Council at the current meeting, and present it at the goal setting session in September. Motion by Council Member Glover to agendize the item for further direction at the City Council's September 18, 1999, goal setting conference. In response to Council Member Noyes' concern about delaying direction to Volume 52 - Page 642 LJ City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 IW11]�:1 staff, City Manager Bludau stated that the Planning Department can proceed as they have been until that time. He added that the hours spent on each activity and project, as presented in the report, are the best guesses of the department. He stated that the department is looking to the City Council for direction on whether the hours spent on each activity are consistent with the priorities of the City Council. Council Member Noyes stated that the code enforcement that is being done is being done well, but sometimes the code enforcement officers are difficult to reach. Mayor O'Neil summarized some of the previous comments, and agreed that there are a lot of activities and projects that are worthy of consideration but the City Council needs to decide which can be done and how much time should be spent on each. Council Member Noyes suggested that less time should be spent on BID and CDBG Administration and more time on Code Enforcement, and less time on the Economic Development Strategic Plan and Image Enhancement and more time on Sign Regulations. Mayor O'Neil agreed that the issue of prioritizing the Planning Department's activities is a large one and may not be possible at just the current meeting. He said he supported the motion made by Council Member Glover. • Council Member Debay suggested that if the issue will be discussed at the goal setting conference, that the Planning Commissioners should be invited to attend that meeting. Planning Commission Chairman Ed Selich stated that the goal of the Planning Commission subcommittee in preparing the outline on the General Plan Update was to provide the City Council with a roadmap of how to accomplish a general plan update and what elements should be included. He stated that Newport Center was the subcommittee's top priority, followed by the airport area. He stated that they wanted to have the results of a total comprehensive general plan without doing a complete overhaul and amendment to the entire general plan. He said that the subcommittee felt that most areas in the City do not need a change in their general plan elements. Mayor O'Neil agreed and stated that the City Council had already provided this direction to the Planning Commission. He added that setting the priorities of the Planning Department's activities is a huge task and not one that is easy to accomplish. Council Member Debay stated that she did not realize, and does not know that she agrees, with doing a telephone survey to find out what the community wants done with Newport Center. Chairman Selich stated that it was decided that a telephone survey would be an efficient way to receive scientific, helpful input and initial reactions from the public about the future of Newport Center. Council Member Debay disagreed that a poll of public opinion is scientifically accurate. Chairman Selich stated that the general direction is to get people's feelings about Newport Center and how they see it Volume 52 - Page 643 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 • functioning. Council Member Debay suggested that the City Council meet with the Planning Commission or the subcommittee, and stated her concern that public input of that nature could be detrimental to the process and possibly to the existing property owners. City Manager Bludau stated that his intent in presenting the report on the Planning Department priorities was to provide a snapshot of where the department is spending its time currently and receive input on how it should utilize its resources to accomplish the priorities of the City Council. Mayor O'Neil understood that the exercise of looking at the broad picture of the projects and priorities is useful, but he would prefer a recommendation from staff on how to run the department. Council Member Glover stated her agreement with Council Member Debay's comment that the City Council needs to work more closely with the Planning Commission, with the telephone survey providing an example of something the City Council was not aware of and may not agree with. Mayor O'Neil stated the City Council's appreciation of the Planning Commission's efforts. Council Member Noyes stated his support of the Commission also. The mot • Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: ion carried by the following roll call vote: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil None None None 4. MOORING RATES WITHIN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. Deputy Fire & Marine Chief Melum stated that representatives of the Newport Mooring Association were present at the meeting. Deputy Chief Melum stated that the staff report deals with the 750 offshore moorings in the harbor, which float over the State tidelands for which the City is the trustee. This requires the City to establish leases and permit rates which are reasonably consistent with those charged for similar locations, values and uses. Deputy Chief Melum stated that in 1974, through an audit conducted by the State, it was advised that the City adjust its rates from $1.20 per foot per year to $6.00 per foot per year. In 1976, the City made the recommended adjustment and over the years, has adjusted the rate based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). He stated that today, the rate is $20.00 per foot per year, with the last adjustment made in 1994. He stated that since the last adjustment, the CPI has increased 9.3 %. • Deputy Chief Melum stated that another consideration that needs to be made is whether the City is charging an appropriate amount based on what other harbors in the state are charging for offshore moorings. He referred to Exhibit A in the staff report, Annual Mooring and Slip Rate Comparisons by Volume 52 - Page 644 INDEX Mooring Rates (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 • Region, and stated that the rates of moorings and slips as well as the ratio between the two should be looked at. The graph pointed out that the City of Newport Beach is among the highest in the State for both. Deputy Chief Melum stated that another issue to consider when deciding whether to adjust rates is to look at the type of amenities that are provided. He referred to Exhibit B which listed the same harbors and showed that the City of Newport Beach offers very few amenities, in comparison to the others. Deputy Chief Melum referred to Exhibit C, Tideland User Fee Comparison, and stated that it illustrates that there is a major difference in what the tideland users pay but that there is also a major difference in the capital outlay and costs. In conclusion, Deputy Chief Melum stated that the City has typically adjusted the mooring rate based on the CPI, but that Newport is higher than adjacent harbors. He stated that amenities provided should be addressed and is already being looked at by the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee. Lastly, he stated that the slip fees were recently adjusted and are at market, but that the mooring rates are below market. He added that staff is preparing a report on the commercial fees, and will also ask that the City Council look at the residential fees in the future. • Council Member Noyes asked about the other maintenance costs associated with the moorings. Deputy Chief Melum stated that moorings are required to be inspected and repaired every two years, which usually costs $300 to $400 and is paid for by the mooring permittee. Council Member Noyes stated that Exhibit B clearly illustrates that the City of Newport Beach provides little in the way of amenities. He asked for further information on what the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee has considered. Deputy Chief Melum stated that dinghy storage would be a great benefit to the mooring owners, and that there might be a possible opportunity with the Marina Village or American Legion sites, as well as appropriate public beach locations. He added that public parking has been another consideration of the Committee and might be made more efficient for the mooring owners through some type of parking pass. In response to Council Member Noyes' suggestion, Deputy Chief Melum stated that the parking lot at the Yacht Basin is now full most every weekend. Council Member Noyes suggested that those parking spots might be better utilized for dinghy storage, and confirmed with Deputy Chief Melum that no fee is currently charged for parking in the lot and that mainly tenants of the Yacht Basin use it. Deputy Chief Melum clarified for Council Member Ridgeway that of the 1200 moorings in the harbor, approximately 450 are onshore moorings and the remaining 750 are offshore moorings. He added that each offshore mooring is designated with a specific maximum length and that length is what the rate is based on. The length is determined by the size of the mooring area • and the weight that is used. He stated that the City used to bill by boat length. He added that under the current billing method, the approximate average length billed is 35 to 45 feet. Volume 52 - Page 645 INDEX City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 is Mayor Pro Tern Thomson asked about the vacancy factor. Deputy Chief Melum stated that all of the 750 offshore moorings are full, with a waiting list of 20 to 30 years. He stated that the Harbor Patrol fills temporarily vacant moorings with transient boats at a per night charge. Council Member Adams stated his awareness of the waiting list and suggested that the City might want to charge full market rate for those owners that come off of the waiting list. Deputy Chief Melum stated that only one or two owners come off of the waiting list per year due to the fact that the moorings can be transferred with the sale of a boat. He added that some regions have a transfer fee, and that the City of Newport Beach has considered this. For Council Member Noyes, Deputy Chief Melum stated that the total revenue is almost $700,000 per year, with offshore moorings accounting for approximately $540,000 of that total. Clive Towndrow, 1463 Villa Cardiff Drive, Cardiff, President of the Newport Mooring Association, stated that the Newport :Mooring Association (NMA) was formed when the City changed its accounting method for billing mooring permittees from boat length to mooring length. He stated that the NMA Board studied the issue of tidelands administration, prepared a full report and found that the City of Newport Beach is charging more than other moorings in the harbor as well as up and down the coast. Further, he stated is that they were paying more than what the CPI increases would have totaled had the method not changed. He added that the staff report is trying to compare Newport's rates to others when Newport charges per mooring foot not boat foot and when Newport doesn't offer the amenities of the other regions. Mr. Towndrow stated that in addition to studying mooring rates, the NMA has also been active in working with the City on such things as the derelict boat ordinance, participating on the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee and providing input on water quality issues. In conclusion, he requested that the mooring fees be reduced. Council Member Ridgeway informed Mr. Towndrow that the City Council is probably not in possession of the report prepared by the NMA and that it was not included in the staff report. Council Member Adams stated that it would be difficult to decrease the mooring rates when they are 100% occupied. He did agree that the amenities offered by the City should be enhanced, particularly in the area of dinghy storage, and he was anxious to hear what the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee would be suggesting. Lastly, Council Member Adams stated that he'd like the City to change the way it transfers moorings to those on the waiting list. Council Member Noyes suggested that the City Council might want to consider leaving the rates as they are, but setting aside a portion of the current fee to apply to amenity enhancement in the future. • Council Member Ridgeway stated that the City is currently at about a 50% deficit on all tidelands administration and probably shouldn't be setting aside money for amenity enhancements. He stated that dinghy storage is Volume 52 - Page 646 INDEX u City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes August 9, 1999 not own any upland parcels. Council Member Debay confirmed with Deputy Chief Melum that the County charges differently than the City. She further confirmed that a comprehensive study of the tidelands is only in its beginning phases, and expressed her opinion that it might be better to make any adjustments to the fees once the study is completed. Council Member Debay stated that in Tahoe a service is provided to drive people to their boats. Deputy Chief Melum stated that this idea could be looked at by the Ad Hoc Harbor Committee in conjunction with the water taxi concept that is already being discussed. Council Member Glover asked why transfers of moorings are even allowed, and she asked the City Attorney if this was improper use of tidelands. City Attorney Burnham stated that amendments were considered by the City at one point to prohibit transfers, but the issue was protested by a great number of mooring owners and not pursued further. City Attorney Burnham stated that rules have been adopted related to seaworthiness of vessels assigned to moorings. Mayor O'Neil summed up the City Council's direction to staff by stating that the rates should not be adjusted at this time, but that amenities should be looked at and included in the comprehensive report that is being prepared. • PUBLIC COMMENTS Council Member Noyes read an excerpt from a letter from Supervisor Tom Wilson to the Chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. He stated that with some minor editing, someone could have some fun with the letter. He gave the letter to the City Attorney. ADJOURNMENT — 6:00 p.m. rrrr +rr+. «arrr +�,rr�x *tr +rr�trr• +,r The agenda for the Study Session was posted on August 4, 1999, at 4:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. • D°Pw� City Clerk Recording Secret r Volume 52 - Page 647 INDEX