Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/2003 - Study SessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session February 25, 2003 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams (arrived at 4:07 p.m.), Webb, Nichols (arrived at 4:17 p.m.), Mayor Bromberg Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question regarding Item 4 (Non- exclusive Solid Waste Franchise Agreement), City Attorney Burnham agreed that the issue in the staff report should read, "Should the City agree to the assignment..." Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway indicated that this could be amended during the regular meeting. 2. APPEALS AND CALLS FOR REVIEW. City Manager Bludau indicated that Council Member Heffernan requested this item about six weeks ago. Council Member Heffernan clarified that his request was to find out who determines what queue /entity a person goes before for review of their project (Modifications Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council), what are the rules for each, and what are the appeal rights. Planning Director Temple stated that the queue is established by the municipal code which specifies what types of projects are considered routine, identifies the types of requests that require review, and determines whether those are reviewed by staff, the Planning Director, Modifications Committee, Planning Commission, or Council. She indicated that staff advises an applicant on the type of application required and what body reviews the request. She stated that she could generate a spreadsheet for Council at a later time that would list the requests, types of applications, and the process. Council Member Heffernan believed that this would be helpful because there is a feeling that this is a much more discretionary process than what is being described. Ms. Temple referenced development standards as an example and reported that the municipal code places it in a level of review that is considered discretionary, but the code usually sets specific findings that need to be made in order to support a decision. She stated that staff would need to review the item to determine whether the facts support a review by one of the queues. She emphasized that the decisions are not set in concrete so this is why those determinations or actions can be appealed or called up to a higher level for final determination. Council Member Heffernan stated that some of the findings he sees are not detrimental, are often granted, and appeals are rare. However, if the Planning Commission was given all the modifications, it would water down what the Commission does and they would not get to the larger issues. He believed there is a good reason to have them handled this way. Ms. Temple stated that, if there is a desire by Council to keep certain types of "smaller requests" at a lower level of review, like staff, Volume 55 - Page 640 Appeals and Calls for Review (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 INDEX but there is still discomfort about the standards those are evaluated against, they could look at the standards and tighten them up. Ms. Temple noted that the staff report did not mention that, several years ago, staff began changing the code to address permit streamlining and reduced the appeal period from 21 tb 14 days. She indicated that this would normally not be problematic, except for the four times a year when there are three weeks between Planning and Council meetings. She reported that a change to the code was made after this was realized to allow any Commissioner or Council Member to call up any staff decision or for Council to call up a Commission decision. She reminded Council that they have this right and there is no requirement that this be done at a meeting, adding that a Council Member can send an email, fax, or call. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he was involved in some of the Commission decisions regarding appeals, and they saw in real life practice why timing was important. He added that Newport Beach is a unique City and he would not support more stringent standards. He noted that most of the processes for modifications, appeals, variances, and conditional use permits are based on the health, safety, and welfare clauses in the Constitution which allows for a balance. He believed that, if the standards are too stringent, then there will be automatic appeals to a higher level and Council would ultimately get every item. He stated that the City has run on exception and complaints for years and has functioned very well. He noted that the Commission is careful not to create new precedence, and that most of the items that Council sees exist throughout the City. He believed that the system is not broken and worries when staff suggests creating higher standards, reiterating that Council will end up reviewing every minor item in the City. Ms. Temple noted that the City has a lot of nonconforming buildings that, when built, were conforming. She agreed that, once a minor variation like a setback encroachment is approved, the next person automatically assumes they will also be approved. She reported that they have been receiving a lot of requests lately for fairly elaborate entry gate arrangements for single - family homes. She stated that the deciding body looks to see how the neighbors react to it and decides what is reasonable to approve. She believed that, once a number of requests come in, it becomes time to look at code changes. Ms. Temple stated that staff usually sees the trends and would probably be the one to take the question to the Commission or Council for direction. Using residential zoning districts as an example, Assistant City Manager Wood reported that, in most city zoning ordinances, the setbacks are established and would apply to the entire R -1 or R -2 district. However, the City has districting maps with established setbacks for individual lots that may not be consistent block to block. She stated that this is often what people are asking for in order to get some relief from the regulations. City Manager Bludau asked if the queuing is black and white, or if there is a lot of discretion. Ms. Temple stated that, in most cases, it is black and white, and staff does not really have discretion over the type of application that might be required and has no discretion over how it is processed. She believed that the greatest amount of staffs challenges are with nonconforming buildings, modifications to those buildings, and what type of permit might be used to Volume 55 - Page 641 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 authorize the maintenance of the nonconforming feature. She stated that the City's code for nonconforming structures allows quite a bit of reconstruction of nonconformity by right, but with some discretionary permits. She believed that this was done after it was recognized that the City has an enormous number of nonconforming buildings. She believed that determining whether the City wants to force conformity is a policy call that should only be made by Council. In response to Council Member Nichols' questions, Ms. Temple reported that the condominium conversion provisions are in the zoning code and subdivision code, and sets specific standards that need to be met in order to qualify to be a condominium. Regarding two unit condominiums, she stated that the ability to do the conversion is a recent invention because, prior to that, it was almost impossible to meet the standards to convert a duplex to a condominium. She reported that the Council at the time established the parking requirement and determined that the appropriate body to review the permits was the Modifications Committee. She added that the modifications permit also provides the City with an opportunity to ensure compliance and to ensure all procedural steps are met. Council Member Nichols asked how this could be repealed. Ms. Temple stated that Council can call up the codes and review them, and indicated that she could provide the code to Council Member Nichols. 3. PROPOSED REFUSE COLLECTION SCHEDULE CHANGES. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, General Services Director Niederhaus reported that the proposed refuse collection change would affect about 4% of the residents (1,220 residential units) and improve efficiency. He introduced Refuse Superintendent Russo and Management Assistant Hammond, and noted that there are 31 employees in the refuse division. He reported that they average about 40,000 to 42,000 tons of trash a year from about 27,500 residents. He noted that they collect trash Monday through Friday, except during June and September when they collect six days a week. He stated that the City mostly uses the landfill in the Bonita Canyon area and collects trash from the west to east sides of town. He reported that they are proposing to move 10 tons of trash from Friday to Thursday, Thursday to Wednesday, etc. so they can continue to have a lighter Monday and decrease the tonnage on Friday's route. He stated that doing this would eliminate overtime and accumulated paid leave on Fridays and provide more uniform tonnage collection throughout the week. Further, this may decrease workers' injuries due to a more balanced schedule and will reduce the City's liability with regard to the 19 collection trucks on the City streets. Mr. Niederhaus displayed graphs of the current refuse collection statistics, a graph of the proposed refuse collection statistics, and reviewed the district changes, noting that District 3 is the only District that will not be affected. He explained that the areas were selected because it would be easy to notice and contain the area, and easy to keep the collection personnel informed. Mr. Niederhaus reported that they will publish press releases, have cable announcements, send out letters to the community associations and rental agencies, distribute door hangers, and provide information on the web to inform the public about the changes. He stated that they anticipate a smooth implementation because they plan to do a good public relations process. He indicated that the change does not need Council approval, but authorization from the City Manager, and would take place the week of :March 17. He added that there will be a 30 day grace period and, if a resident forgets. they can call Volume 55 - Page 642 INDEX Refuse Collection Schedule Change (44) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 General Services to let them know they forgot to put their trash out. 4. UPDATE ON NEWPORT BEACH'S WATER QUALITY /STORMWATER OBLIGATIONS. Assistant City Manager Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation to review the City's new stormwater obligations and noted that this is City Manager Priority #5 (to develop an organizational response to the City's new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit obligations). He reported that the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to protect recreational waters from pollutants and Section 303(d) states that water quality limited bodies must have clean -up plans (Total Maximum Daily Loads). He stated that, in California, the State Water Quality Control Board and the nine regional boards implement NPDES by issuing cities permits to operate the storm drain system. He indicated that the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit was adopted by the Santa Ana Regional Board in January 2002. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway pointed out that Council reviewed the permit language prior to it being adopted by the Regional Board and was the only city out of 34 who sent a letter of support. Mr. Kiff emphasized that the permit does not just apply to the City, but to all the inland cities. Mr. Kiff reported that the permit says that water in the gutter during dry weather is probably illegal. He stated that the concern is with what the water carries into the storm drains that are drained into the bay and ocean, i.e. fertilizers, pesticides, car and truck chemicals, dog manure, bird droppings, rabbit droppings, sediment, trash and yard debris, and soaps and cleaning supplies. He emphasized that "safe" soaps kill some animals and take the scales off of fish. He reported that whatever is in the gutter goes into the storm drain through catch basin inlets which go straight into the ocean with no treatment process. He noted that the City tries to filter it in some locations and, in very few places during dry weather, the City intercepts it and diverts it to the sewer line so it undergoes treatment. He displayed storm drain filters and catch basin screens that were purchased with Clean Beaches Initiative money. He also showed an aerial of the existing and future diversions. Mr. Kiff explained that gutters are not dry during "dry" weather because residents, businesses, homeowner associations, and sometimes the City over water landscaping, and storefront windows, awnings, patios, driveways, and sidewalks are hosed down. He pointed out that the solutions are easy and include designing projects better so runoff water stays on site, designing parking lots with swales, installing weather -based sprinkler controls, and planting xeriscape or drought tolerant landscaping. He stated that Irvine installed this type of sprinkler control in a pilot area and saw a 60% to 70% reduction of runoff. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that this technology will probably be used by all homes in the next five years and reported that the hookup to the satellite costs about $4 a month. Mr. Kiff noted that what is permitted in Anaheim Hills may not be permitted in Newport Beach. He reported that the permit states that "certain discharges... need not be prohibited..." (i.e. rainwater, potable water line flushing, landscape irrigation, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, non - commercial vehicle washing, and emergency fire fighting flows). However, by November 15, 2003, the City must prohibit discharges of runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved areas, pet waste, yard waste, litter, debris, sediment, runoff from storage areas, and water from the cleaning of municipal, industrial, and Volume 55 - Page 643 INDEX Water Quality/ Stormwater Obligations (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 INDEX commercial sites, including parking lots, streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios, plazas, work yards, and outdoor eating or drinking areas. Mr. Kiff noted that a person who was over watering the lawn and washing their car at home might pick up waste and carry it into the gutter. He believed that this may carry enough contaminants, since the City is so close to the bay and ocean, to require prohibiting these types of uses. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the City complained about this point because there were complaints from a number of people who owned businesses on major streets. He stated that people will need to either sweep or use sandbags to dam the water and suck it up with a vacuum. He noted that the City is currently using best management practices (BMPs) when it conducts street repairs. Mr. Kiff added that there are companies that specialize in these types of cleanings. City Manager Bludau asked why washing a car in Anaheim Hills does not put just as much pollutants into the waste stream as washing a car in Newport Beach since the result will eventually be the same. Mr. Mff stated that the next part of the permit states that this type of activity need not be prohibited if a city can determine that the water is treated or, by the time it reaches a water body, the bacteria has died due to UV light or natural processes which filter the water so it is cleaner. He stated that Newport Beach does not have the opportunity to have that type of treatment system due to the proximity of the City to the bay. He indicated that this is an interesting interpretation and that be is unsure where the Regional Board and others will go with this. However, Mr. Kiff believed that those types of activities could be prohibited since a portion of the permit states that discharges from the storm drain system cannot be legally discharged to the extent that it causes the water quality to exceed the bacteria standard. He noted that the standard is so low that very little contaminant can trigger a beach closure. Mr. Kiff referenced Attachment A of the staff report that highlights the types of field inspections that are required by the permit and noted that some of the inspections are fairly frequent. He stated that there is also an education and training component for City staff, all the people who contract with the City, and the builders and architects that come to the Planning desk to assist with designs they can incorporate into their building plans. He reported that there is a plan check component that requires the City to check each plan for water quality, including most residential, most commercial, and all City public works projects. He stated that there is also a water quality monitoring component, in addition to what the County does today. He indicated that the City needs to participate in a regional program to test for heavy metals, bacteria, viruses, etc. Mr. Kiff reported that there is also an administrative component for reporting. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway asked what happens with CalTrans and State public works projects. Mr. Kiff reported that they are under a similar permit, but believed that the City's permit is tougher. He stated that it is conceivable that CalTrans and the State would have to capture and treat the water as they build more highways, particularly in areas like Newport Bay where there is a problem with toxic pollutants caused by cars. Mr. Kiff reported that the permit requires that certain new developments include a Water Quality Management Plan that includes retention facilities for onsite treatment and specifically designed BMPs. He indicated that this would require the City to inspect /clean storm drains more extensively; continue street Volume 55 - Page 644 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 11013 D/:/ sweeping; use more xeriscape materials; and inventory, inspect, and improve fixed and field facilities. He highlighted the proposed organizational response, noting that it is similar to what other cities and the County are doing. He indicated that he and the City Manager discussed setting up a division which would be run by Code Enforcement Supervisor Sinasek. He stated that it would include a code services' division and water quality division which would have someone to handle the NPDES regulations, someone to work on education and engineering, two people to conduct the field inspections, and someone to handle the restaurants with regard to their capacity for grease interceptors or BMPs. Regarding the cost, he noted that this could be done with three staff members and a contracted grease interceptor inspector. He reported that there would be an education component and a one time cost to upgrade deficient City facilities. Mr. Kiff stated that the City Manager suggested transferring unfilled positions to fill these positions so there would not be a net increase in staff. Further, the food facility inspector could be funded through an inspection fee as part of the business license associated with food preparation facilities, the water quality plan check could be a plan check fee, and a portion of the existing water rate could be used to fund the education and xeriscape planting program. He indicated that Council should consider contracting out for some of these services because it might save money or the City could use grant funds for one time capital projects (screens, filters, diversions). He noted that some cities may enact a voter - approved stormwater fee to pay for more street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. He reported that the operation itself is not eligible for grant funds. Mr. Kiff reported that people can go to www.cleanwaternewport.com; www.swrcb.ca.gov /rb8; www.stormwater.com; and www.ocwatersheds.com for more information. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the City's attitude when it sent the letter, and probably still today, is that it must lead by example. He noted that it may look expensive to the City, but some of the inland cities are looking at costs in the millions in order to comply with the NPDES permit. He believed that not doing all these things leaves room for the other cities not to enforce their NPDES permits. Mayor Bromberg stated that Newport Beach is the leading coastal city in California when it comes to environmentally sensitive issues about water quality. He believed that the City has to do these things, otherwise it cannot approach the inland cities and tell them what they need to do. He added that this is a social responsibility, as well as a legal responsibility. Council Member Adams asked if the City has increased liability exposure with regard to the flood width on the streets because of the change in the inlet efficiency. Mr. Kiff indicated that the City has been taking the catch basin screens out from October to March. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the City has evidence that the screens and filters are mitigating the problem in West Newport. Mayor Bromberg added that the screens are working well on Marine Avenue. He expressed his hope that other areas on Balboa Island will also get them. Mr. Kiff emphasized that the goal is to stop debris before it gets into the storm drains and to have the debris picked up by the street sweeper. Council Member Webb stated that the City should also encourage its citizens to conserve water because it is in a semi - drought and the groundwater basin has been over utilized and soon will need to rely more on MWD water which is Volume 55 - Page 645 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 INDEX having problems because the Colorado River allocations have been cut back. He indicated that watering landscape is probably the largest use of water in the household and suggested looking at water conservation more intently since it will, in turn, reduce water runoff. Council Member Nichols asked if this is suggesting diverting storm sewers to the sewage sewers during the summer. Mr. Kiff stated that the City has a permanent diversion in place at Newport Dunes between March and October and the City intends to divert five other areas using State grant funds. He indicated that this will help the City ensure that Newport Bay stays clean in the event of a spill. He stated that the ideal situation would be to use a gravity system from the storm drain into a sewer line. He indicated that the City would need permission from the Orange County Sanitation District and will possibly have to pay a per gallon discharge fee. He noted that it is currently free to a certain amount and the City has never come close to the threshold. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway pointed out that more dry weather diversions are being done throughout the County, causing the Sanitation District to quickly approach its maximum capacity. He stated that it costs them money to process the water and agreed that there will probably eventually be a surcharge or cost. In response to Council :Member Nichols' question, Mr. Kiff indicated that it has not been possible to distinguish between animal and human bacteria. He stated that there has been a lot of research to determine the source; however, the published reports have been disappointing since they cannot do anything better than if they randomly picked a source. He reported that agencies, like the Sanitation District, send labs known sources so they could determine the source using their testing methods, but they are not close. Council Member Nichols noted that some of the beach closures are being caused by bacteria that people will not get sick from. Dennis Baker, Coastal/Bay Water Quality Committee, reported that California has lost 90% to 95% of its wetlands due to construction, but there is a move at the State, County, and city level to create constructed wetlands. He believed that doing all these things will not make the water pure, but constructed wetlands and regular wetlands do natural filtering. He stated that, if the City constructs wetlands, it would gradually be putting back the natural elements that can help. He suggested that this be part of the idea to clean the water and meet the permit requirements. He stated that the public unfortunately misconstrues the idea of what a constructed wetland is and believed that the City needs to make the public aware that this is a natural area that will serve many purposes. Laura Dietz stated that this is actually about changing the behavior of the citizens. She added that educating the youth through the Youth Council might be a way to build a grassroots campaign at basically no cost. Nancy Gardner, Coastal/Bay Water Quality Committee, stated that the Surfrider Foundation has a proposal for a natural wetlands area along the Santa Ana River that will hopefully come before Council during a study session. She noted that diversion only helps in the short term since it only moves the problem someplace else. and believed that a wetlands and changes in behavior are more practical. She stated that this is an expensive program, but suggested approaching non - profit organizations to assist with the outreach programs to Volume 55 - Page 646 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes February 25, 2003 take some of the burden off of the City. She reported that the Committee set its priorities for the year and one of them is to reduce runoff in the City. She stated that they will hopefully have a program running by the end of the year aimed at the residents and homeowners associations who are a large part of the problem. Mayor Pro Tem Ridge%i ay suggested that Mr. Kiff bring back the Committee's four main goals for next year for informational purposes. He reported that the Committee and Council created an education program for fifth graders that is underwritten by a number of corporations. He indicated that the Youth Council resists every time he pushes water quality to them, but he will keep pushing. City Manager Bludau referenced Attachment A and noted that there are mostly "noes" in the column that asks if the subject/action is done. He stated that it is going to be a challenge for the City to get all "yeses" and have minimum financial impact on the City. He believed that it is important that the City centralize and assign responsibility and authority, and ensure that the organization reflects the City's focused effort. Mayor Bromberg agreed, emphasizing that Newport Beach is the first line of defense for the bay. Council Member Nichols stated that a constructed wetland actually cycles the water coming down a wetland and, if properly used, can be good. He added that a wetland is just a water spot and only serves to help that small amount of water evaporate without really cleaning it. He indicated that the Irvine Regional Water District (IRWD) is proposing a constructed wetland at the old ponds. Council Member Webb indicated that the Crystal Cove development has several constructed wetlands which is an innovative way of passing water through a wetlands area. Regarding the organizational chart, Council Member Webb asked if personnel requests will be brought back during budget discussions. Mr. Bludau stated that he is going to look at vacant positions, possibly not fill some of them, and assign some to water quality inspections. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. ADJOURNMENT — at 5:15 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 19, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. IX&" � Recording Secretary 112 9 City Clerk Mayor Volume 55 - Page 647 INDEX