Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 07-24-2001August 14, 2001 Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes ����j Study Session July 24, 2001- 4:30 p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 3 (Oceanfront Boardwalk Safety Program), Mayor Adams pointed out that "rollerskaters" is included as a definition but there is no mention of the word in the ordinance. He suggested replacing "skaters" with "rollerskaters ". 2. CITY HALL SPACE OPTIONS. City Manager Bludau stated that the staff report provides some background regarding past attempts to add space or make space modifications to City Hall. He expressed concern that the previous Preliminary Feasibility Report only considered a second story above the Revenue Department and that the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a needs analysis was included when the City never went out for Request for Qualifications (RFQ). He suggested waiting on this until the first of the year since the City will be looking at annexing Newport Coast and coming back with a budget on what it will take to provide services. He recommended that discussion take place today and noted that Council may want to form a Council committee to work with staff. He stated that Council does not need to make this a high priority at this time, but should have this come back during the beginning preparations of next year's budget which is during the first of the year. Mayor Adams noted that, if Council waits until the beginning of the year, there will be no relief from current conditions for quite some time. He asked if this was acceptable. Mr. Bludau believed that staff can find a way to live with this for at least six months, but this should be revisited early next year. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that everyone at the last study session made it clear that they were opposed to temporary facilities. However, if that appears to be the only solution because of increased demand for services in one of the departments, then the City may have to use modular facilities. He emphasized that City Hall should not be relocated and there should be no consideration of moving it. Mayor Adams stated that he is not opposed to temporary facilities; however, believed they should be used for a limited time until a permanent solution is found. Volume 54 - Page 384 City Hall Space Options (35) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX In response to Council questions, Mr. Bludau stated that the RFP reports when each of the buildings were constructed (handwritten page 20). He agreed with Mayor Adams that it makes sense to revive the RFP and expand the needs assessment to offer a number of solutions. He added that this can begin without Council involvement and that, after the first of the year, Council can be provided with the information. Mayor Adams suggested having this information prior to a committee beginning its work. Mr. Bludau stated that it would be about $25,000 to get this information and that the previous study was to analyze the needs and determine how space can be utilized. He noted that an important part of the study will be the timeframe. Mayor Adams suggested that staff prepare a report for a regular Council meeting that recommends soliciting an RFP, gives staff recommendations for the timeframe, and updates the RFP. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that it is difficult to determine the needs with this staff report. He indicated that Council needs to know how much land there is, how many employees are in the building, how much square footage is required for those employees, what other cities use, and how much net usable square feet is available. He emphasized that square footages, the number of employees, land area, and parking demands need to be taken into consideration, adding that the citizens also need better parking. Council Member Glover agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway, adding that something is needed that defines the workspace and places departments together. Council Member Bromberg noted that an envelope was placed before them from a modular company that builds modulars that do not look like modulars. Council Member Heffernan stated that Council should also consider how many more employees the City intends to have, how this compares with other cities in the County, and what residents expect for their services. Mayor Adams noted that employee levels were already discussed as part of the budget and that Council's expectations for the number of employees was made clear. Mayor Adams stated that the City is not providing the kind of work environment that it should. He emphasized that this is a genuine need and not something to just spend money on. He stated that Council wants to do this right. Rodman Muller, 20272 Bayview Avenue, stated that he is with William Scotsman and that he provided Council with the brochure. He reported that William Scotsman provides commercial modular buildings and that a lot of them are permanent facilities that are made to look like existing structures. He added that it is important for the City to know how many employees it has for space management and how much space is required for their tasks. Mayor Adams suggested that responses to the RFP be limited to licensed architects. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway noted that he received a call today Volume 54 - Page 385 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 from someone who is very qualified, but is not an architect. 3. THE OCEAN OUTFALL FOR WASTEWATER — ISSUES AND DISCUSSION. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the staff report deals with sewage and ocean water quality. He indicated that the question that will come before Council at a future date is "what should the City, as a member agency of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), recommend for the treatment of its own effluent from a five mile outfall off of Huntington Beach ?" He reported that the effluent is a mix of primary and secondary treated effluent. He indicated that the OCSD can currently discharge this from the outfall under a five year permit that is set to expire June 2003. He stated that, although this is two years away, the emotion and interest level on this issue suggests that the City should start learning about it early. Mr. Kiff reported that the 1972 Clean Water Act required sewering agencies to discharge only full secondary from their outfalls by 1977. However, the law was amended by Section 301(h) to allow certain agencies discharging into deep ocean environments to waive the full secondary requirement. He pointed out that OCSD is 1 of 36 sewering agencies that has a permit reflecting this waiver. He stated that, as OCSD prepares to renew its permit under the same waiver or adjust its treatment method, the City has a chance to take a formal position on the permit. He noted that Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway is the City's representative on the OCSD Board. Mr. Kiff stated that many people in the audience and Harbor Quality Committee believe that OCSD should not use the waiver in the next permit term, and that a coastal county that places a high economic and environmental value on ocean water quality should not be asking for waivers for sewage discharge. He pointed out that OCSD offers treatment options (page 8) that still require the waiver, but might be more effective in killing pathogens than full secondary treatment. Mr. Mff believed that Council's issues are 1) what treatment provides the cleanest, most pathogen -free water; 2) what type of rate increase might the market bear since any treatment method over what is done today will cost more money to the rate payer; 3) is now the time to take a position on this matter or should the City wait until OCSD finishes its studies on ocean water quality; and 4) what is the right message to send from a coastal city, and what message does the City want to send to OCSD and its other 24 member agencies about the importance of ocean water quality. Mr. Mff utilized a PowerPoint presentation to show what the outfall looks like. He reported that the outfall is 4.5 miles out, uses a one mile long diffuser, is 120 inches in diameter, and goes out near the mouth of the Santa Ana River. He noted that most of OCSD's member agencies are from Central and North Orange County, and that everything from Laguna Beach to Laguna Woods goes through a second outfall associated with the Aliso Water Management Agency and the Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority. He clarified that the 250 million gallons of outfall is not just effluent but is a 50% mix of things that have been treated to a primary level Volume 54 - Page 386 INDEX Ocean Outfall for Wastewater (51) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX and 50% that have been treated to a secondary level, and that the biosolids have been removed. Mr. Kiff stated that this is not the same type of water treatment as seen in the purple pipes in the hills and clarified that the water in those pipes are tertiary treated water that will go through the secondary step and some type of advanced filtering. He noted that this water becomes the reclaimed water used for irrigation purposes. Mr. Kiff explained that sewage from homes and businesses goes down a pipe to a treatment facility. In some cases, before the sewage gets to a treatment facility, the sewering agency will spray it with sodium hydroxide to try to control the odor. He stated that, once it gets to the plant, it will go through a screening device to take out a lot of the large materials and smaller gritty materials. This is the preliminary treatment. He explained that the primary treatment tries to take out all the solids that can settle in the water by adding a clumping agent to encourage the solids to settle out. The remaining water will continue to the outfall or go on to secondary treatment. He stated that, during the secondary treatment, they inject bacteria to further digest the pathogens and materials in the water. He noted that the next step, which is not always used, is the tertiary treatment in which they send it through natural filters and charcoal to clean the water to a level that can be used for irrigation. Mr. Kiff highlighted the OCSD's options and costs for treatment included in the staff report. He pointed out that the last column notes whether a waiver is needed for the different types of treatments. Mr. Mff reported that OCSD will conduct three public hearings by March 2002. He stated that the Huntington Beach studies are underway and indicated that the study is important because OCSD and others are trying to show that the outfall plume does not affect ocean water quality at the surf zone. He reported that, in 2002, the draft treatment option report will be released, with the final report going to the OCSD Board; the permit will be prepared, more public comment will be conducted, and the OCSD Board will vote on the permit application. He added that they hope to submit the permit by December 2002 because the permit needs to be reissued in time for the June 2003 expiration date. Council Member Glover asked why all the other large sanitation departments have gone to the higher standard while Orange County has not made that transition. Mr. Kiff stated that each agency needs to make its own determination and decide whether to approach the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the waiver. He added that some agencies believe they would not pass the tests and decide not to request the waiver. He stated that Los Angeles County has done this. City Manager Bludau added that there were a number of agencies that were doing primary treatment and discharging in the ocean and, when the EPA went to higher standards, they made grants and matching grants available in order to go to secondary treatment. He indicated that a number of cities in San Diego did not avail itself to the grants and, in order to go to the higher standard now, the cities would have to pay for the costs since there is no more EPA money available. He believed this is why there is a reluctance to go to a higher standard. Council Member Glover believed that it is time for Orange County Volume 54 - Page 387 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX to make the transition because it is so much larger than the other entities. Mr. Kiff reported that OCSD is the largest agency that operates under a waiver. Doug Kurthof, 1020 Mar Vista, Seal Beach, complimented staff on the staff report. He stated that he first found out about this issue last year and was surprised because this is something that should have been taken care of a long time ago. He added that this is an unfunded liability. He stated that the only treatment not discussed involves injecting water with treated primary sewage which will then go to the tertiary treatment plant to be used for a groundwater replenishment program. Mr. Kurthof indicated that some believe that the effluent water is a resource that is being thrown away; however, with the population of Orange County, it is not a true statement. He stated that the options need to be looked at and these obligations need to be taken care of. Mr. Kurthof provided a handout which states that the cost of treatment would have to be born entirely by the cities. He reported that there are 21 cities in four districts which make up the OCSD and, in order to take care of this liability, 13 votes are needed. He stated that Los Angeles County did give up their waiver; however, it was a long battle and they did not voluntarily do this. He believed that the cities will end up going through this same battle in Orange County. He expressed the opinion that, if it costs a few more dollars to pay for this option, it is money well spent. Don McGee, 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, stated that he lives a short distance from the outfall pipe that OCSD utilizes to pump poorly treated sewage into the ocean in spite of the Clean Water Act. He indicated that, because of the 301(h) waiver from the EPA, 240 million gallons are being pumped a few miles offshore every day, noting that only half is being treated to any degree of efficiency. Mr. McGee reported that an oceanography professor at Orange Coast College told him, in 1988, not to eat any fish caught off the coast because he knew the pollution was contaminating the fish it was not killing. He noted that this was one trillion gallons ago. He emphasized that this cannot go on unabated and that depositing millions of gallons of poorly treated sewage into an ocean on a daily basis is a recipe for disaster. He believed that the greatest of minds cannot ascertain the ramifications of the effects of a multitude of chemicals, human waste, and other carcinogens that are routinely imbedded offshore each second of each day. He noted that earth and its resources are finite and this reality needs to be factored into a new paradigm regarding treatment. Mr. McGee stated that the cost of full secondary or a better tertiary treatment may sound large, but it pales in comparison to the cost of continuing the current program. He urged Council to give OCSD notice that the continued exploitation of the waiver and the degradation of natural resources is not warranted, necessary, or in the best interest of the City. Eileen Murphy, 201 21st Street, Huntington Beach, urged Council to vote against the 301(h) waiver and lead all the other cities. She stated that OCSD has the money budgeted and believed that they should use it. She indicated that she attended an OCSD workshop and reported that they are planning to put microfiltration on the fast track. She noted that it will take Volume 54 - Page 388 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX three years before they find out OCSD will still need the waiver. it even works, will cost $3 million, and Joey Racano, 317 5th Street, Huntington Beach, stated that he is a clean water activist and is with the Ocean Outfall Group. He stated that there are five different types of microfiltration and that the one that would be the best for this use would be reverse osmosis. He noted, however, that reverse osmosis is energy intensive and expensive. He reported that 240 million gallons a day is enough to fill Anaheim Stadium three times. He stated that people have to start realizing that there are over six billion people on the planet and that this number doubles every 35 years. He believed that the projected growth in Orange County begs for secondary treatment. Mr. Racano stated that he is against tertiary treatment because he believes the emphasis should be placed on purification instead of sterilization. Further, large areas need to be looked into for percolation ponds and paving should be done with porous materials. He added that there is a lot of things that people should be doing, but the most important thing to do now is to go to full secondary treatment and comply with the Clean Water Act without the use of waivers or exemptions that were created when Orange County was much smaller and less populated. He reported that there are 14 million new people in Orange County who are affected by anything that happens with the coastal waters. Mr. Racano stated that the activists are not going to let up and believed that OCSD is a sinking ship. Nancy Gardner, 323 Jasmine, stated that she is a member of the Newport Beach Surfrider Chapter and the Harbor Quality Committee. She indicated that the houses are worth what they are and people visit the City because it is located on the water. She believed that the City has to set higher standards when taking care of the waters so that it can say it has done everything it can. She believed that it makes sense economically for the City to deny the waiver. Larry Porter, 2712 Cliff Drive, distributed an editorial from the June 9 edition of the Los Angeles Times that generally states that the waiver no longer makes sense and that it is time for the EPA to make sure Orange County subjects its water to the same treatment standard as many other densely populated areas, including Los Angeles. He noted that Los Angeles has gone to secondary treatment and believed that this is better than what OCSD is doing now. Further, this option only adds 5 cents per person per day. He reiterated that the waiver expires in 2003 and stated that scientists and environmentalists are already voicing concerns about the wisdom of piping a plume of partially treated sewage four miles offshore and hoping it will not drift back to plague swimmers. He noted that they did not consider which way the wind blows, that grease and oil float, and that the plume changes. He believed that common sense must take over at some point and that the rate payers will have to bite the bullet and do the job right. He agreed that the City should set an example. Mr. Porter continued to read that Orange County beaches withstand urban runoff from the Santa Ana River and bacterial waste from water fowl in the Talbert Marsh Area. Further, the hundreds of millions of gallons of sewage discharged daily from OCSD's outfall pipe should be as clean as possible. He stated that, as resilient as the ocean is, we cannot afford to treat it as a sewer. He Volume 54 - Page 389 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX concluded by highlighting a presentation by Jan Vandersloot that discusses the different treatment scenarios and results of the discharge. Jan Vandersloot stated that he has been working on this since December 2000 as a member of the Ocean Outfall Group (OOG) which has about 120 members. He reported that they have been attending the monthly OCSD Board meetings, attended OCSD staff meetings to learn about their operations, and visited the Cities of Orange, Stanton, Yorba Linda, and Huntington Beach. He requested that Council take the first step to adopt a resolution opposing the waiver and even ask them to revoke the waiver before the expiration date. He believed this is a reasonable step since the ocean that is right outside the City's doorstep is being impacted by partially treated sewage. He reiterated that the 240 million gallons a day equates to filling the Anaheim Stadium three times a day. He reported that the dumping creates a sewage plume that is six miles long, three miles wide, and 100 feet thick. Dr. Vandersloot stated that OCSD's waiver is one of the last out of 15,000 sanitation districts in the country. He thanked Mr. Kiff for working on this staff report and for being able to get OCSD to give him data. He stated that they are finding out that it is actually cheaper to go to full secondary with disinfection than what OCSD has reported to OOG. He noted that it will actually cost about 3.8 cents per person per day, and a little over six cents a day per person to go to full secondary plus W disinfection. He requested that the audience members who oppose the waiver raise their hand and stated that about 95% oppose the waiver. Dr. Vandersloot reported that the groundwater replenishment system was approved in March by OCSD and the Orange County Water District, and uses 100 million gallons a day of secondary treated sewage. He explained that doing this means that most of the sewage going into the ocean will only be subjected to primary treatment. He pointed out that the same amount of sewage will be going out of the outfall; however, it will be 80% primary treated and only 20% secondary treated. He emphasized that the water quality will be worse because of the groundwater replenishment system. He added that the benefit to having all the water treated to secondary level is that it can still be turned into reclaimed water. Dr. Vandersloot added that OCSD wants to take primary treated water and push it through a membrane for microfiltration, believing that this will solve the problem and be cheaper than going to full secondary. He emphasized that this is an experimental idea and has not been proven to be feasible. Dr. Vandersloot reported that the 1996 20 -Meter Study showed that, when there was a very large reading of bacteria in Newport Beach at a depth of 20 meters, it seemed to correspond to the outfall's elevated bacteria reading. He added that the beaches of Newport Beach were affected by the plume; however, OCSD will tell us that they never saw the plume come to shore. Council Member Heffernan asked what the City's position has been on the previous waiver request. Dr. Vandersloot stated that he could not remember but believed the City did not oppose it after a public hearing in 1998. He added that the waivers are only for five years because it is presumed that it would end. Volume 54 - Page 390 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX In response to Council Member Proctor's questions regarding the cost for the 50.50 mix (page 8), Mr. Kiff stated that he spoke with OCSD's staff last week and that it is his understanding that the "Total Capital Cost to 2020" is the cost of making sure they have enough plant capacity to reach the population served in 2020. He indicated that the $1.6 billion reflects the cost for the plant, using the 50 -50 mix, to reach the 2020 population of 2.8 million. He reported that the current population base is 2.35 million. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway added that there is no accuracy to any of the numbers. He noted that he is on the Planning, Development, and Construction Committee at OCSD and that the cost to rebuild and update Plant No. 2, which offers an opportunity for full secondary treatment, kept ranging from $48 million to $126 million. He stated that the operational cost would actually be about six cents per person per day. He reminded everyone that they pay their sanitation fee in their tax bill and that it is currently about $90 per household. He stated that, with a family of four paying an additional five cents per person per day, it raises the annual tax bill by about $80. Irwin Haydock, 11570 Aquamarine Circle, Fountain Valley, provided Council with a handout that reflects his understanding of the situation and discusses his experiences over the last three decades as an environmental scientist in charge of ocean monitoring and research for Los Angeles County. He noted that the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has 57 members and that more of those cities are inland cities than coastal cities. He stated that they went to full secondary treatment because the mayor at that time decided to do this. He reported that San Diego received its waiver because they went 90 meters deep instead of 60 meters. He indicated that Orange County was the first to get a waiver in 1985 because they made decisions about source control that were ahead of Los Angeles County at the time. They received a second waiver in 1998 because of how the current general manager talked to the Board about the balance between air, land, and water in 1990. Mr. Haydock further discussed the history of outfalls. He stated that it is a constant effort on the part of all the staff he has worked with to understand the ocean and its motion, and to be able to predict when the plume would hit the beach. He emphasized that they never said it would not hit the beach. Mr. Haydock stated that it is time to do something. He noted that Los Angeles County does not have full secondary treatment yet and, since they just lost their waiver last year, have been continuously chlorinating the water every day. He reported that Palos Verdes only has 180,000 visitors a year, while Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Seal Beach have millions of visitors each year, making the risk for a viral bacteria a greater concern. Bob Caustin, Defend the Bay, stated that now is the time for the City to take the lead and work with the other cities that are going to make this decision. He pointed out that when someone talks about 70% of the solids falling out, it means 30% of the solids that have been flushed into the toilet from hospitals, hospices, and homes, continue to go out into the ocean. He noted that with the 50 -50 mix, 40 million fecal coliform per 100 ml is now going out Volume 54 - Page 391 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes July 24, 2001 to sea. He stated that he would like to work with the City to figure out a way to bring the full secondary treatment plus W disinfection into play. Council Member Bromberg stated that he previously sat on the Harbor Quality Committee and noted that Newport Beach is the most preeminent coastal city in the State. He requested that this issue come back with a resolution to oppose the waiver and also consider a full secondary treatment with W disinfection. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he does not believe that the OCSD will be requesting a vote during the remainder of this year. He believed that it is fair to wait, noting that he asked that the 301(h) waiver issue be brought before the Harbor Quality Committee and since the OCSD is spending $3 million to $4 million to collect data. He agreed that this does need to come back and Council ultimately needs to adopt a resolution in opposition to the 301(h) waiver. He expressed hope that the vote will be unanimous. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None. ADJOURNMENT — 6:10 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on July 18, 2001, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 54 - Page 392 INDEX CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting July 24, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. DRAFT INDEX PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION MEETING — 4:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION — 4:40 p.m. CLOSED SESSION — 6:10 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT — None. « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING B. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Absent: None C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member O'Neil. D. INVOCATION — Reverend Father Sean Condon, Our Lady Queen of Angels Church. E. PRESENTATIONS — None. F. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC G. CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON- DISCUSSION ITEM): Council Member Heffernan reported that the Newport Beach lifeguard operation also includes the Junior Lifeguard Program which, this year, is comprised of 1200 junior lifeguards. He stated that everyone that applied for the program was accepted. Further, he complimented the Fire Department and the lifeguard division. Council Member O'Neil stated that there is an annual problem in the summer with the airplanes that pull the banner advertising along the beaches. He stated that this is burdensome to many residents, but past reports have indicated that the City has little jurisdiction over the airways. Council Member O'Neil requested that staff look at the issue again and, specifically, coordinate with the other coastal cities in the area to see if something can be done. He suggested that if the pilots could at least make their turns over the ocean, it would help. Volume 54 - Page 393 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 Council Member O'Neil additionally requested that staff look into and report back on the use of the City's view parks. He stated that possibly regulations should be adopted that limit the number of events at the parks or require a fee. He stated that the continuous use of the parks for weddings and other activities prevents the rest of the community from enjoying them. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed that a limitation on the number of events should be considered. He suggested that one commercial event per day in a residential neighborhood might be appropriate. Council Member Bromberg announced that the City hosted the Mayor of Okazaki, Japan the previous week. He stated that it was a wonderful event and the Sister City organization does a great job. Council Member Bromberg encouraged anyone that was interested to get involved in the Sister City program. Council Member Bromberg announced that the discussion on the Harbor Policy and the Harbor Element as it pertains to Balboa Island that was scheduled to take place at the City Council meeting of August 14, 2001, would take place at a later date. He explained that the Harbor Committee established a subcommittee at their meeting earlier in the day and that the subcommittee would look into the matter further prior to it returning to the City Council. H. CONSENT CALENDAR READING OF MINUTES /ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. READING OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. Waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration, and direct City Clerk to read by title only. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 3. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by City Attorney Burnham. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 4. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 5. MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 2.12, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND CHAPTER 2.32, DUTIES OF CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. Adopt Ordinance No. 2001 -14 and Ordinance No. 2001 -15. Volume 54 - Page 394 INDEX Ord 2001 -14 Ord 2001 -15 Public Works/Traffic Engineer (66/74) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX 6. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Heffernan. RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION 7. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the audience. 8. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 82 — SALE OF BONDS. Adopt BA -002 Resolution No. 2001 -64 which sets forth the terms and conditions for Res 2001 -64 the sale of bonds and approves the Purchase Agreement submitted by Assessment the designated underwriter for Assessment District No. 82; and District 82/ 2) approve a budget amendment (BA -002) adjusting revenue estimates Sale of Bonds in Account No. 400 -6982 in the amount of $366,822 to reflect (40/89) contributions from property owners and the sale of bonds and increase expenditure appropriations in the amount of $366,822 in Account No. 7401- C5100419 to reflect the net proceeds available to complete construction. 9. CORONA DEL MAR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Res 2001 -65 RENEWAL, ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2000 -2001 FISCAL YEAR, Corona del Mar AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BID/Levy for FOR 2001 -2002 FISCAL YEAR. 1) Approve Corona del Mar Business FY 2001 -2002 Improvement District 2000 -2001 Annual Report; and 2) adopt (27) Resolution of Intention No. 2001 -65 to levy for 2001 -2002 Fiscal Year and set the public hearing for August 14, 2001. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS 10. FORD ROAD REHABILITATION — JAMBOREE ROAD TO C -3407 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD — AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3407). Ford Road 1) Approve the plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C -3407) Rehabilitation [Federal Project No. STPL 5151 (012)) to All American Asphalt for the (38) total bid price of $409,409 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and 3) establish an amount of $41,000 to cover the cost for testing and unforeseen work. 11- SAN MIGUEL DRIVE FROM SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD TO C -3374 FORD ROAD — AWARD OF CONTRACT (C- 3374). 1) Approve the San Miguel Drive plans and specifications; 2) award the contract (C -3374) [Federal (38) Project No. STPL 5151 (013)) to All American Asphalt for the total bid price of $715,051.18 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; and 3) establish an amount of $71,500 to cover the cost for testing and unforeseen work. 12. SAN MIGUEL DRIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (C -3311) — BA -003 COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work; C -3311 2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize San Miguel Drive the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after Roadway the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with Improvements applicable portions of the Civil Code; 4) release the Faithful (38/40) Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance; and Volume 54 - Page 395 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 5) authorize a budget amendment (BA -003) transferring $43,100 from the unappropriated Circulation and Transportation Fund Balance to Account No. 7261- C5100535. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 13. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by City Manager Bludau. 14. FY 2001 -02 CULTURAL ARTS GRANTS. Approve the recipients for FY 2001 -02 Cultural Arts Grants as selected by the City Arts Commission in accordance with City Policy I -12 — Reserve Fund for Culture and Arts. 15. BUCK GULLY: SHORT -TERM DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF DIVERSION PROJECT. 1) Authorize the City's participation in a short -term (until October 15, 2001) diversion of dry weather flows from Buck Gully into the City's sanitary sewer system; 2) find that the diversion project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 3) authorize the Mayor to execute an Agreement for Short -Term Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion at Buck Gully with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD); 4) authorize City staff to issue and the City Clerk to record with the County an encroachment permit for a diversion system at the base of Buck Gully after all design criteria and environmental review is complete; and 5) authorize the City Manager to execute any related agreements associated with the proposed diversion where required by state or federal regulatory agencies. 16. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Heffernan. 520. APPOINTMENTS TO THE AVIATION COMMITTEE. Confirm Council Member Bromberg's appointment of Craig Page as the alternate member and John Cunningham as the regular member to the Aviation Committee representing District 5. 521. APPOINTMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMITTEE. Confirm Mayor's appointment of Planning Commissioner Shant Agajanian to the General Plan Update Committee to replace Planning Commissioner Larry Tucker. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to approve the Consent Calendar, except for those items removed (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 16). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Volume 54 - Page 396 INDEX Cultural Arts Grants (62) C -3436 Buck Gully Short -Term Dry Weather Urban Runoff Diversion Project (38151) Aviation Committee (24) General Plan Update Committee (24) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 10, 2001. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, referred to Volume 54, Page 374 of the July 10, 2001, minutes. He reread the letter he read at that meeting and asked the City Council to read along to see if the minutes were correct and verbatim. Mayor Adams requested that the City Clerk's office record the comments of Mr. Hildreth as is done for all other speakers. Council Member Glover asked what ability the City Council has in saying how the minutes should read. She suggested that possibly some clarification needs to occur. City Attorney Burnham stated that the practice in the past has been for the Mayor to discuss the format with the City Clerk. He added that the City Council could also develop a formal Council policy. Council Member Glover stated that she'd like clarification on what occurs when someone disagrees with the content of the minutes. City Clerk Harkless stated that the City Council has the right to change the minutes. Mayor Adams added that the public still has the right to comment on the minutes. Motion by Council Member Proctor to waive reading of subject minutes, approve as written and order filed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 3. MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 12.54 OF THE NBMC PERTAINING TO OCEANFRONT BOARDWALK SAFETY PROGRAM. City Attorney Burnham stated that the ordinance will be revised prior to adoption to use the word "rollerskater" throughout, rather than interchangeably using "rollerskater" and "skater ". Motion by Council Member O'Neil to introduce Ordinance No. 2001 -16, as amended, and pass to second reading on August 14, 2001. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 54 - Page 397 INDEX Ord 2001 -16 Oceanfront Boardwalk Safety Program (70) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA NO. 14). Ron Winship, 34 Corsica, stated that he is in support of the Newport Coast annexation, but he'd like more information provided on the extent of what is being offered to the City. He added that he's specifically interested in the extent of growth expected in the area. Council Member O'Neil stated that an analysis had already been prepared that addressed the concerns of Mr. Winship. He suggested that this be forwarded to Mr. Winship by the City Manager's office. Mayor Adams stated that the information had also previously been discussed in a public forum. Motion by Mavor Pro Tern Ridgeway to adopt Ordinance No. 2001 -13 approving Development Agreement No. 14. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 6. KOLL OFFICE SITE B: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 97 -3(B), ZONING AMENDMENT NO. 905, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 119, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 16, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) NO. 158. Council Member Heffernan stated that he wanted to be consistent with his prior objection to the matter. He stated that Measure S (Greenlight) applies in this case and there will be an election. He stated that it is premature to discuss a general plan amendment prior to the airport specific area plan being done. Ron Winship, 34 Corsica, stated that the July 24, 2001, issue of the Daily Pilot included two articles, one written by George Jeffries and another by Colonel Bob Barnes. Mr. Winship stated that the articles highlight what the City Council is doing wrong, and added that the general plan update should be completed prior to approving any general plan amendments. Mr. Winship disagreed with comments made by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway and Mayor Adams about the airport area being different. Volume 54 - Page 398 INDEX C -3432 Ord 2001 -13 Newport Coast DA 14 (21/38) C -3433 Ord 2001 -11 Ord 2001 -12 Koll Office Site B GPA 97 -3(B) Zoning Amend. 905 Traffic Study 119 Development Agr. 16 EIR 158 (38/45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX Mayor Adams stated that he did not make such a comment. Mr. Winship stated that the airport area is a part of the City and he doesn't think the Koll project should be approved. He added that the Greenlight proponents should have been included in the process from the beginning and, in the future, if a development is determined to qualify as a Greenlight issue, further review and understanding of the project should be done. Mr. Winship stated that the project has aesthetic problems. In conclusion, he stated that the City Council members that vote in favor of the project should also be proponents of the project during the election process. Tim Strader, 3501 Inlet Isle, partner in Koll Center Newport, stated that the previous speaker doesn't know the facts. Mr. Strader stated that the process starts with the general plan, and that the City's plan indicates that office projects should be built in the airport area. Mr. Strader stated that the process for the current project was begun in 1997, before a general plan update was considered, and has included hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and an environmental impact report that has been reviewed by approximately twelve organizations. He stated that a couple of issues regarding traffic have been exaggerated and explained that significant impacts have to be mitigated. Mr. Strader cited a couple of examples of conclusions made by the traffic study. He concluded by stating that the people that oppose the project are uninformed and didn't participate in the process. He stated that he wants to get the facts out and let the citizens vote on the issue. Elaine Linhoff, 1760 E. Ocean Blvd., stated that she also hoped that the City Council read the two letters in the Daily Pilot because they were very articulate. She stated that she is informed on the issue and that the project is not permitted under the current general plan. She stated that the City Council is being fiscally irresponsible by spending money on a general plan update and an airport specific area plan while, at the same time, approving a project that will affect the plans. She stated that the plans should come first. Ms. Linhoff stated that the fair share costs can't be calculated without knowing the airport specific area plan. She stated that by supporting Greenlight, she did not intend for every project to go a vote of the people nor for the City Council to act irresponsibly. In conclusion, she requested that consideration of the project be postponed until after the general plan update and airport specific area plan are completed. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to adopt Ordinance No. 2001 -11 approving the Development Agreement and Ordinance No. 2001 -12 approving the Zoning Amendment. Council Member O'Neil stated that the project is a good project for the City. He disagreed with accusations that the City Council acts at the will of the development community. Council Member O'Neil stated that the City Council acts at the will of the majority of the community, which includes developers, residents and business owners. He stated Volume 54 - Page 399 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX that the City Council spent a great deal of time in developing stringent and comprehensive guidelines for Greenlight, and interpreting how it should be applied. He added, however, that if a project is before him and merits approval, he will vote in favor of it. Council Member Proctor stated that he hoped that everyone could agree that reasonable minds can disagree. He stated that the issue is difficult for him because he thinks the project is a good one, but he's having a philosophical problem with his obligation as a City Council member. He stated that he's not sure that if he votes in favor of a project, if he has to become a proponent of the project during the election process or if he can just let the voters decide. Council Member Proctor stated that he is leaning towards thinking that if he votes in favor of the project, he has to become a proponent of the project and support it now and in the future. Mayor Adams stated that there's a third option. He stated that the City Council can make a decision on what's best for the City, based on all of the information provided, and then allow the public to affirm or overturn that decision. Mayor Adams stated that voting in favor of a project doesn't necessarily make that council member a proponent of the project. Council Member Proctor stated that he is only trying to explain his thought process. Council Member Glover noted the two letters in the Daily Pilot referenced earlier, and stated that one of them concerned her. She explained that the airport has been a continuous issue during her entire tenure on the City Council, and the City has always tried to solve it and not politicize it. She stated her concern for citizens who favor no growth in the City and then willingly politicize and use the airport issue to support their cause. She referred to the letter that indicated that if Koll is approved, the airport will be enlarged. Council Member Glover expressed her extreme disappointment for attempts to make such an association. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he was also disturbed by the accusations in the letter by Colonel Barnes. He stated that the City has taken a responsible position in regards to the Koll project. Referring to comments made earlier by Mr. Winship, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he does feel that the airport area is different because it is surrounded by three freeways and has approximately 11 million square feet of office space. He stated that if the Koll project were to be placed in a coastal zone near a residential community, he would not approve it. He added that what was unique with the Koll project is that a development agreement was negotiated for long -term funding for future mitigation. Council Member Bromberg stated that the Greenlight material supports letting the citizens vote, and the proponents of Greenlight need to decide if they are going to practice what they preach. He Volume 54 - Page 400 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 referred to letters and comments made by Greenlight proponents that are contrary to letting the citizens vote. Council Member Bromberg added, however, that he also understands the dissenting votes of Council Members Heffernan and Proctor due to the general plan update not being completed yet. Council Member Bromberg stated that he's given the two points of view a lot of thought and has struggled with his conscience but has concluded that without the general plan update being completed, he doesn't have enough information to make a decision. Council Member Glover stated that as a former Planning Commission member, in addition to her time on the City Council and the General Plan Update Committee, she would guess that the general plan update will take approximately three years. Mayor Adams added that if the next general plan update is always being waited for, there would be no flexibility or legitimacy in ever considering a general plan amendment. He stated that general plan amendments are a part of the planning process. Mayor Adams stated that one could consider the current general plan as always being invalid. He added that the Koll project has been under discussion for quite some time and possibly the timing is not good, but he feels that the Planning Commission did a good job and the voters will find that there is enough information to make a decision. Council Member Bromberg stated that if an update is being done, it must be necessary. He stated that he needs all the facts before making a decision. Council Member Heffernan stated that he views Greenlight as providing a vision for the future of the City. He stated that many people are investing in the City to have a residential community, which is inconsistent with many of the actions taken by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated that Greenlight allows the citizens to vote and have the final say. City Attorney Burnham clarified that the action before the City Council at the current meeting is to adopt an ordinance which approves a development agreement and an ordinance which approves a zoning amendment. He stated that the general plan amendment was approved by the City Council at a previous meeting. He added, however, that if the citizens do not vote in favor of the general plan amendment, the two ordinances do not take affect. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Mayor Adams Noes: Heffernan, Bromberg, Proctor Abstain: None Absent: None 7. FUNDING FOR THE BALBOA VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT Volume 54 - Page 401 INDEX Res 2001 -63 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 CT. Dolores Otting stated that there was a public hearing notice in the Daily Pilot the previous week for the Balboa Village Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Plan. Ms. Otting asked for clarification on how a public hearing could be held at the City Council meeting of August 14, 2001, authorizing the submittal of a loan application for the project but the current meeting has a resolution regarding the use of money yet to be borrowed. City Manager Bludau stated that the City will be approximately $3 million short on the Balboa Village Improvement Project and that money will need to be borrowed. He stated that money will be spent prior to being borrowed and the resolution before the City Council at the current meeting will authorize that the money spent prior to borrowing will be added to the borrowed amount, in order to repay the General Fund. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that a number of funding sources are needed for the project and the City would like to use a Section 108 loan, which allows the City to borrow from the Federal government and, in essence, get an advance on a grant. She stated that this is the item on the August 14, 2001, City Council agenda. Per Council Member Glover's question, Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the total expected to be spent on the peninsula is $7.5 million. She added that the design contract has been amended, but other items are being deleted or postponed so that the total is kept within the $7.5 million. Council Member Glover noted that overruns were expected in the initial discussions of the project. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that the City always expected the need for both loans. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rideeway to adopt Resolution No. 2001 -63 regarding the City's intention to incur a tax- exempt obligation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 13. DEDICATION OF ARROYO PARK — JULY 28, 2001 (INFORMATION ONLY). Recreation Manager Loughrey stated that the Arroyo Park Dedication would be held on Saturday, July 28, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he displayed the dedication program. He stated that the park is a great asset to the community with its nine Volume 54 - Page 402 INDEX Balboa Village BID (27) Arroyo Park Dedication (62) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 acres, a lighted sports field, full basketball court, playground and picnic area. He noted that the park is located on Bayswater between Highway 73 and MacArthur Boulevard, and that access to the park is from Bison Avenue. Recreation Manager Loughrey continued his PowerPoint presentation by displaying several photographs of the park. Motion by Council Member Glover to receive and file the report. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 16. CITY COMMENTS ON SARX DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR). Council Member Proctor asked if there were any legal options available to the City regarding the issue. City Attorney Burnham stated that there were not. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that the City of Huntington Beach is looking at pursuing the removal of the Santa Ana River Crossing (SARX) from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). He asked what the City's recourse would be if they were successful. City Attorney Burnham stated that it's difficult to answer the question because he hasn't read the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and doesn't know how things will proceed. He added, however, that litigation over the EIR is always an option, alleging California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) noncompliance. Mayor Adams asked if the City is documented sufficiently to pursue such litigation, if it is found to be necessary. City Attorney Burnham stated that he's seen the comments regarding the EIR, and they do seem relevant. Council Member Proctor requested that feedback be provided to the City Council regarding its options to pursue the SARX project. City Attorney Burnham stated that the discussion could take place in Closed Session. Council Member Heffernan noted that the issue involves the 19th Street bridge from Costa Mesa to Huntington Beach. He stated that it's a long awaited bridge and diverts traffic from Coast Highway, but that Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa are opposing the project. Council Member Heffernan asked how much more traffic will be added to Coast Highway from the Banning Ranch project if the bridge is not built. City Attorney Burnham stated that he didn't think the EIR for the Banning Ranch project assumed that there would be a 19th Street bridge, but that it does assume that there would be a connector to Coast Volume 54 - Page 403 INDEX SARX Draft EIRIOCTA (61) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX Highway. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway added that a disbursement of traffic was needed for the Banning Ranch project, and that they also plan to utilize 16th and 17th Streets. Council Member Proctor stated that the improvement is important to Newport Beach, but there is opposition to it from Costa Mesa and he understands that if there isn't total agreement, it can't go forward. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that unanimity is needed. Additionally, he pointed out that the west side of the bridge is in Newport Beach, and not all of Costa Mesa opposes the bridge. City Manager Bludau noted that both Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa use the bridge in their traffic models, but they now want to remove the bridge from the County's circulation plan. Pat Copps, 5 Surfside Court, expressed his disappointment in the City considering the transmission of the comments in the staff report to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). He stated that he is educated on the issue and supports the removal of the bridge from the master plan. He stated that he feels that future traffic circulation will be addressed by the mitigation and this differs from the comments that the City is considering transmitting. Mr. Copps stated that by not going forward with the project, growth of the community will be allowed while natural resources are maintained. He noted that he has canvassed the residents in Newport Terrace and feels that his comments are representative of the area. Mitch Gray, 26 Starfish Court, stated that he is a longtime resident of Newport Beach and can remember when there were vacant lots and more natural resources. He stated that when he first bought in Newport Terrace, it was quiet. He added that a six -lane roadway will be noisy and unsafe. Mr. Gray stated that he feels strongly about the issue and suggested that the money be used to clean up the bay instead. Council Member Glover stated that not having the bridge will have an adverse affect on Coast Highway and the residential districts in the area. She stated that the City felt it had a handshake deal with Costa Mesa, and it would be unfortunate if the project didn't go through. Per Mayor Adams' question, City Attorney Burnham stated that the bridge had been on the MPAH for approximately twenty years. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to direct staff to transmit the comments to OCTA. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Volume 54 - Page 404 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None J. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary Martin, 323 Narcissus Avenue, stated that he has a problem with the noise from Carmelo's restaurant. He asked for the City Council's assistance in solving the problem. He stated that Carmelo's use permit states that they're supposed to play classical music but they don't, and in addition, the bands do a loud grand finale. He stated that he has called the police to report the problem and found out that, last year, the police received 120 complaint calls but no fines were issued. Mayor Adams stated that he spoke with Mr. Martin about the problem and has directed staff to report on the issue. He stated that the City will get back to Mr. Martin. Derrick Gleason, Santa Ana Heights, stated that Santa Ana Heights has taken the brunt of the air transportation needs of the County for twenty -five years. He stated that the upcoming negotiations regarding the extension of the settlement agreement provide the opportunity for the City to try to get a better quality of life. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the City increasing the passenger load without getting anything in return. He stated that the options available to the City include taking advantage of the new technology in aircraft. Mr. Gleason provided a press release on the topic. He stated that revenue sharing should also be considered by the City. Ron Winship, 34 Corsica, stated that the City Council doesn't deal well with certain celebrities in the City. Mr. Winship placed a hat on his head, mentioned a Volkswagen website, and welcomed the new Public Works Director. He stated that City Hall needs a second story and a parking structure. Lastly, referring to Dennis Rodman, he advised the City Council to not take celebrities so seriously. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Drive, stated that the City Council is not addressing the most important decision facing Newport Beach, which is the annexation of Newport Coast. Mr. Beek stated that money is being spent by the City, but nothing is being done. He provided a proposed ballot measure for the annexation and stated that Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) at their meeting the week prior, passed a motion recommending that the City put the question of annexation before the voters. He stated that it will give the City Council the opportunity to show that they do care what the citizens are thinking and that they are paying attention to them. Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that on May 22, 2001, City Manager Bludau stated that the City does not have possession of the records that Mr. Hildreth is requesting. And, on June 26, 2001, Council Member Heffernan stated that he would investigate the matter Volume 54 - Page 405 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 regarding the access rights referred to by Mr. Hildreth. Mr. Hildreth read from the letter he provided to the City Attorney on June 26, 2001, which stated that the records he requested may have been lost or destroyed and asked what the penalty would be for a City employee who failed to provide, or destroys, documents in the City's custody. Additionally, Mr. Hildreth stated that the City has incorrectly sent him correspondence addressed to 120 Grand Channel. In closing, he asked for the City Council's help in obtaining a normal residential pier. In regards to the matter brought up by Mr. Beek, Council Member O'Neil asked what ability the City has to place annexation measures on the ballot. City Attorney Burnham stated that there is case law, which indicates that the City does not have the legal authority to have all citizens vote on an annexation, and that a vote can only take place among the registered voters of the area to be annexed. Council Member Glover stated that she finds the comments of Mr. Beek very discouraging. She stated that the Greenlight proponents state they are slow growth when, in actuality, they are no growth. City Attorney Burnham stated that he has spoken with Mr. Beek about the annexation issue and was told by Mr. Beek that he is seeing the annexation as diluting the Greenlight vote. Dolores Otting stated that on August 9, 2001, she plans to speak during the public comments section of the League of California Cities meeting. Ms. Otting provided a copy of some of the pages from the minutes of the City Council regular meeting and study session of November 8, 1999, and referred to the comments of Mr. Yeager regarding the issuance of bonds for Hoag Hospital and the notice for a public hearing. Ms. Otting stated that the item was not advertised as a public hearing, but was conducted in the Public Hearings section of the meeting. She asked if it should have been noticed as a public hearing. Additionally, Ms. Otting noted that Item No. 6 on the current meeting's agenda is 116 pages. She attempted to print some of the pages from the internet, but feels that the system is not user friendly. K. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES — None. L. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL. STATUS REPORT 17. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR JULY 19, 2001. Planning Director Temple stated that the Planning Commission agenda of July 19, 2001, contained five items. She stated that the first item was an approval of a residential variance on Pacific Drive. Secondly, the Planning Commission completed its deliberations on the update of the subdivision code. She stated that this would be before the City Council at the meeting of August 28, 2001. Planning Director Temple stated that two other items were minor, and included a sign program in the airport area and a review of the Planning Commission's determination regarding compliance of a modification permit. Volume 54 - Page 406 INDEX Planning (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 INDEX Planning Director Temple stated that the most significant item on the agenda was a proposal for a new shopping center at Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard in the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. She stated that the Planning Commission's review was limited to site planning issues, approval of a spire on the tower roof and approval of their sign program. The most significant change made by the Planning Commission was a requirement that no signs be included on the tower element of the shopping center. Council Member Heffernan stated that he plans to meet with The Irvine Company later in the week regarding the shopping center project. He stated that he understands that the City is limited in its oversight, but he wants to address how the circulation in the area will be affected by the project. Planning Director Temple confirmed that an appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the date of the action by the Planning Commission. She added that a call for review by a City Council member can be handled through her or the City Clerk's office. Mayor Adams confirmed with City Attorney Burnham that the City does not have any discretion regarding use. Mayor Adams pointed out that the City would have had nothing to say had the area not been annexed. Council Member O'Neil asked if the City would be receiving any sales tax from the center. Assistant City Manager Wood stated that there is an agreement with the City of Irvine that Newport Beach would receive a share of the sales tax if Newport Beach changed the entitlement to increase the amount of commercial development. City Attorney Burnham added that the Planned Community text that accompanied the development agreement gives the City the right to issue the use permits for each of the eating and drinking establishments. Ron Winship, 34 Corsica, stated that a seventy -foot tower is unacceptable and won't affect how much money is received by the shopping center. Per Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway's request, Planning Director Temple stated that the item regarding compliance of a modification permit was an appeal by Mr. Butler of her determination regarding the substantial conformance of a planned construction project with an approved modification. She stated that she found that the plans submitted for the building plan check were not in substantial conformance and the Planning Commission sustained her determination. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to receive the oral report on the most recent Planning Commission actions; and 2) receive and file the written report. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Volume 54 - Page 407 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. KOLL OFFICE SITE B GPA: MEASURE S POST APPROVAL REPORT. Planning Director Temple stated that this is the City's first Measure S post approval report for City Council consideration. She stated that the approved project exceeds two of the three thresholds and is, therefore, required to be submitted to the voters for their approval. She stated that the project applicant is willing to sustain the cost of a special election, which is being scheduled for November 20, 2001. Council Member Heffernan asked for an estimation of the cost of the election. City Clerk Harkless stated that the County is estimating that the cost will be between $1.25 and $2.50 per registered voter. She added that there are approximately 50,000 registered voters in the City. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing Ron Winship, 34 Corsica, stated that the cost and revenue sharing is not right. Mayor Adams stated that the applicant is paying for 100% of the special election. Mr. Winship stated that due diligence by the City Council is needed. He suggested that the City Council members that voted against the project should also vote against the proposed action. There being no further testimony, Mayor Adams closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Proctor to determine that General Plan Amendment No. 97 -3(B) requires voter approval pursuant to Section 423 of the Newport Beach City Charter; authorize the Mayor to execute the cost - sharing agreement with the applicant (Koll Center Newport Number A); and direct the City Clerk's office to submit resolutions to the City Council for consideration on August 14, 2001 that would call the election on November 20, 2001. Council Member Proctor stated that the City Council's obligation is to place the matter on the ballot, given that the project has been approved. Council Member Heffernan agreed that the Greenlight guidelines require that this matter must be placed on the ballot. Volume 54 - Page 408 INDEX C -3438 Koll Office Site B GPA 97 -3(B) Measure S (38/39/45) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 Council Member Bromberg stated that no one should be afraid to let the people vote. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None N. CURRENT BUSINESS 19. INFORMATION REPORT REGARDING STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. Council Member Glover stated that she requested that the item be placed on the agenda because she had previously assumed that there was appropriate zoning requiring mobile and manufactured homes in some areas and single - family residential in others. She stated, however, that there is a State law that allows mobile homes to be placed anywhere with no restrictions. She stated that there is a lot in the City where a mobile home has been placed and will be used as the residence. Council Member Glover requested that staff look at design review, do historical data gathering on other communities that have encountered the same issue and report back on if there is any way that the City can get control over the situation. She asked if Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC &R's) could be used. Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated that State law limits cities from placing zoning or permit requirements on manufactured homes that would be different than that placed on single family homes on the same lot. She stated that CC &R's are private documents and would probably not be impacted by the State law but added, that the City doesn't enforce CC &R's. Council Member Glover requested that additional research be done and that overlays also be looked at. She stated that there must be a way for the City to have more control. City Attorney Burnham stated that his office would work with the Planning Department on the issue. Motion by Council Member Proctor to accept and file the report. The motion carried by the following roll call vote, with Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway not voting: Volume 54 - Page 409 INDEX Manufactured Homes (68) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes July 24, 2001 Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None O. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None. Council Member Proctor and Mayor Adams commended Mathis Winkler, reporter with the Daily Pilot, who recently accepted a position with a different publication. P. ADJOURNMENT — 9:15 p.m. The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on July 18, 2001, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on July 20, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 54 - Page 410 INDEX