HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 - 09-24-2002October 8, 2002
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes DRAFT
Study Session
September 24, 2002 - 5:00 p.m. INDEX
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
1.
2.
Heffernan, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
O'Neil (excused)
CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
Council Member Heffernan stated that he will be pulling Item 3
(Telecommunications Ordinance). He requested clarification on Item 12
(Emergency Information Demonstration Project) about the long term potential
liability to the City and how the privacy issues will be dealt with regarding
transmitting information over the internet or a wireless format.
RECYCLING PRESENTATION.
City Manager Bludau reported that Council Member Adams requested a study
session on recycling about three to four months ago. He stated that recycling is
an issue the City needs to look at every so often to see if it is doing the most it
can to meet Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) requirements. He reported that, for the
first time since the beginning of its recycling program, the City met the 50%
recycling goal.
General Service Director Niederhaus introduced Management Assistant
Hammond and Refuse Division Superintendent Russo. He reported that Council
Member Adams provided him with questions that will be incorporated into the
presentation. He utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the recycling
program. He showed how things used to be done from 1930 to 1950 through the
use of burlap sacks and local agricultural facilities. He reported that, for the
next 40 years, the City transported directly to a County landfill. He indicated
that, when he first started with the City, recyling cost the City $5 /ton, but today
it is $22 /ton. He stated that the City refuse transfer station was built for
$250,000 in 1990 and the City purchased two trailers to haul the refuse to a
recycling facility. He indicated that, early this year, the transfer station was
refurbished. He reported that the City has the first and longest operating
recycling program in the County (started in 1973). He stated that a feasibility
study was conducted to build a waste -to- energy plant in 1982; AB 939 was
adopted by the California legislature in 1989; and the City started hauling loads
to CR &R's recycling facility in 1990. He indicated that the recycling facility
takes unsorted trash and sorts it for recyclables.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the national landfill crisis drove AB 939. He
indicated that, in 1988, California was producing 38 million tons of solid waste
and 90% of it was being sent to landfills. He stated that it was projected that
California would exhaust its landfill capacity by the mid- 1990s. He noted that it
takes five to ten years to permit for a landfill that is located in the desert. He
Volume 55 - Page 387
Recycling
(44)
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
IIN
added that the landfills also pose a public health threat, particularly in those
days since they were not lined. He noted that the local landfill at Bonita
Canyon also closed at this time. Mr. Niederhaus explained that the purpose of
AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste to the maximum extent
possible and to improve the regulation at existing solid waste landfills. He
noted that AB 939 is an unfunded local government mandate and that this was
a quandary for the City because it does not charge residents for trash disposal.
Further, the bill included mandatory milestones in which 25% of the trash had
to be recycled by 1995 and 50% by 2000. He indicated that enforcement
provisions are severe and that local governments had to show a good faith effort
so they would not be fined.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that the City conducted its own waste characterization
study in 1990 since summer waste stream is affected by summer visitors. He
indicated that an outside consultant was utilized to monitor the City. He stated
that the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) was produced in 1991
and underwent an EQAC review. He indicated that the SRRE also included a
composting component for greenwaste, an education and public information
component, and a household hazardous waste component. He stated that
household hazardous waste is now handled by the County and the City pays
$1.54 /ton. He reported that any resident can go to the Huntington Beach or
Irvine location with up to 50 pounds of household hazardous waste and dispose
of it for free. Regarding the commercial solid waste recycling management
program, he stated that the City had no means of monitoring or controlling it to
meet the 50% goal, so it initiated a permit process so each hauler had an
individual permit and a requirement to start at 5% in 1990 and make their way
up to 25°x6 by 1995. He indicated that the City conducted a study and discovered
that a franchise system was more important since it generated revenue. He
stated that the franchise haulers agreed to a ten year contract with the City. He
indicated that one of the things the City does to facilitate recycling on
commercial sites is to regulate the demolition of properties in the City.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the City entered into a contract with CR &R, in
1990, for mixed -waste processing. He explained that, in mixed -waste
processing, the City picks up residential trash using City crews, takes it to the
corporation yard, consolidates it, and hauls it to a processing plant where the
trash is hand sorted. He indicated that the City looked at having individual
containers for plastics, aluminum, and paper but it was determined that this
system would be costly and involve too many truck trips. He reported that the
City issued its first permits to private haulers in 1990; the SRRE and Household
Hazardous Waste Element were approved in 1991; the greenwaste recycling
program commenced in 1995; the City surpassed the 25% requirement by 17% in
1995; the City amended the recycling contract in 1996, received a $189,000
rebate from the recycling contractor, extended its contract for six years, and got
a reduced rate; the City created ten year non - exclusive solid waste franchise
agreements with private haulers in 1996; and the City received the State award
in 2000 for achieving the 50% recycling goal.
Mr. Niederhaus indicated that the City's solid waste stream starts with the
27,000 residents. He stated that the trash then goes to the transfer station and
is loaded onto the transfer trailer. He indicated that about 20.2 tons/load goes
to the materials recovery facility (MRF) in Stanton. He reported that the trash
either goes through a recycling program, a greenwaste program, or directly to a
landfill. He noted that some of the larger trucks that can haul 10 to 12 tons can
Volume 55 - Page 388
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
sometimes go from the homes directly to the MRF. He reported that the City
collects about 40,000 to 42,000 tons /year of residential waste that goes to the
MRF and then to either a landfill or recycling facility. He stated that
commercial pickup stopped in 1996 due to Measure Q; however, about 37,754
tons of industrial waste (demolition of properties, road work, etc.) goes to a
recycling facility, is ground up, and turned into road base or building material.
Mr. Neiderhaus showed photos of a one -man operation at a resident's home, the
transfer trailer, the MRF sorting lines, baled aluminum, and landscape and tree
materials. He indicated that he heard it takes five to six weeks by the time
someone drinks from an aluminum can before it turns back into the same
material. He referenced the diversion rate chart from 1995 to 2001, but stated
that he cannot explain the drop in 1997. He reported that, in 2000, the City
recycled 49.4% but the City was given credit for 50 %. He stated that
Management Assistant Hammond conducted preliminary calculations for 2001
and believed that the City will reach its 50% goal again. He pointed out that the
City is performing well enough without additional recycling programs.
Mr. Neiderhaus noted that the City tried to use the automated collection system
for residential refuse in 1993; however, there was objection to the size and shape
of the containers which resulted in the budget authorization being withdrawn.
He stated that the City may some day see the trash rail- hauled to Eagle
Mountain by Palm Springs. He added that, pursuant to Air Quality
Management District (AQMD) Rule 1193, every trash truck that is bought after
July 2000 has to be powered by an alternate fuel. He stated that the non-
exclusive franchise system review will start mid -2005 and that the City looked
into using the MRF in Huntington Beach.
Mr. Niederhaus indicated that they are proposing a voluntary source - separated
recycling program as a way to address the residents who want to sort their
trash. He displayed a diversion rate chart of other cities in the County. He
explained that Lake Forest was incorporated in 1992 and had a low base year.
Further, Villa Park only has residential areas and is doing well with source -
separated recycling.
Mr. Neiderhaus stated that one of the main reasons mixed -waste recycling was
chosen in 1990 was due to the high percentage of rental properties. He
indicated that the City would have to deal with a very high education campaign
due to resident turnover. Further, the City wanted to reduce costs and truck
traffic, and mixed -waste processing offered this. He reported that source -
separation requires extra containers and that 40% to 60% of the homes cannot
accommodate the larger containers. He pointed out that the City would have
ended up paying over $60 /container, plus purchasing automated trucks. He
indicated that they feel that a source- separated program would not be as
effective for the City as it would be in communities with more owner - occupied
dwellings. He noted that they are evaluating the Newport Coast program that
uses two containers.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that, in order to go to a voluntary source- separated
program, they would advocate that the residents separate their materials and
pay a collection fee since this is not budgeted. He noted that the City charges a
recycling surcharge already and, if there were a voluntary program, there would
be an additional collection fee. He stated that no additional City funds would be
needed, except for the purchase of the recycling containers ($120/home). He
Volume 55 - Page 389
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
believed that a minimum of 500 participants would be needed to have the
program. He reported that it costs about $15.45 /month and the estimated
diversion rate is about 26 %. He stated that their assumptions for the voluntary
program tried to factor in the least expensive manner using the City's resources.
He indicated that the service can be contracted out for a similar or higher cost.
He reported that residents are currently charged $2.46 for the recycling portion
of waste collection. He stated that 40,500 tons /year are processed at a cost of
$1.6 million and services 27,000 households /week.
Mr. Niederhaus reported that the average rate for Orange County cities that use
the source - separated program is 45.86% versus 50% for cities that use the
mixed -waste process. He noted that it costs more for the mixed -waste program,
but the cost is offset since it is paid by the residents. He stated that a recycling
brochure is produced once a year with CR &R which instructs residents to keep
their wet and dry waste separated so it can be recycled easier.
In response to Mayor Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Niederhaus confirmed that the
40,500 tons /year only reflects residential waste collected by the City. He
explained that there is another 8,000 to 9,000 tons collected by private
companies at multi - family dwellings. He stated that the City does not pay this
fee and is not involved in the billings, except for the recycling surcharge.
Council Member Adams asked if the voluntary program would consist of a
recycling container and a waste container. Mr. Niederhaus confirmed, reporting
that the City would have about 125 homes signed up per day, and that the
recyclables would be collected on the same day as their regular trash. He
indicated that the recycling container would still be picked up manually since
the City does not have automated trucks.
In response to Council Member Heffernan's question, Mr. Niederhaus stated
that the calculation to determine the City's recycling rate is extremely complex.
Assistant City Manager Kiff noted that Villa Park's residential recycling is 65%
while the City's recycling is 30 %. Further, the fee for a source - separated
program is about $12.89; however, the residents are paying $15.86 if you add
the per household refuse charge and the recycling fee. He believed that it is too
early to tell what is happening in Newport Coast regarding how much trash was
assigned to it and whether it is being appropriately calculated. Mayor Ridgeway
noted that the largest component of Villa Park's material is landscape material
and believed it is a bad comparison to Newport Beach.
Council Member Glover stated that, normally when staff gives a report, there is
no counterpoint and believed that it is a bad idea.
Mr. Kiff utilized a PowerPoint presentation and stated that the two types of
recyclers are sorters and the non - sorters. He indicated that "co- mingled" means
that either clean recyclables are mixed into a single bin or wet refuse is mixed
with recyclables. He indicated that the diversion rate depends on the
calculation assigned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board in
1998 and that other factors were applied to it later (i.e. employment, CPI,
taxable sales, and population). He stated that landfills tally where the waste
carriers collected the waste from and, at the end of 12 months, the City needs to
be at 50% (about 117,000 tons). He noted that the City was at 121,000 tons in
2000 (48.5 %). Mr. Kiff believed that the pitfalls of the 50% goal are that
Volume 55 - Page 390
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
landscapers and contractors who work in many cities report all the tonnage into
the city's tally in which they last worked. Further, the MRF managers
sometimes do not sort for recyclables depending on the tonnage coming in for
the day. He pointed out that the CR &R contract only requires them to sort 25°x6
of the residential waste stream. He emphasized that the City is relying on
commercial and industrial waste to meet the 50% goal.
Mr. Kiff stated that what was important to the group he worked with was to
meet the 50% diversion by minimizing the amount of waste going to the landfill
and increasing the amount salvaged; doing this in a cost - effective way; teaching
future generations to recycle and to use recyclable products; and protecting
workers and the City from exposure to hazards. He indicated that their
concerns with today's system are that quality recyclable materials are often
rendered unusable in the home when it is combined with wet waste; the MRF
sometimes does not sort after the holidays; greenwaste is sometimes lost; people
may not be teaching good stewardship of the environment to children; the
hazard issues; and what happens if CR &R's 25% does not come through.
Mr. Kiff stated that, in looking at alternatives, they determined that the cost
should not impact residential budgets and more traffic should not be generated.
He noted that it would be difficult to go to a three bin system because of the size
of the roads and residents' yards. He pointed out that the current contract with
CR &R sets the 25°x6 rate for 5+ years and the market is weak for some
recyclables. He stated that the alternatives they discussed include 1) a Citywide
three bin curbside system in which wet waste, co- mingled clean recyclables, and
greenwaste would be separated; 2) a three bin program in specific
neighborhoods; 3) a two bin system using the MRF in which wet and co- mingled
recyclables are separated; 4) keeping the same system, but pay CR &R for a
higher diversion; 5) keeping the same system, but have a more aggressive
greenwaste program; 6) keeping the same system, but separate the different
waste into different colored bags; 7) keeping the same system, but educating the
public better; and 8) keeping the same system as is. He stated that they
recommend that Council move forward with Alternative 6 or 7. He indicated
that a better public education campaign could help keep the recyclables
salvageable and that progress can be evaluated after a certain amount of time.
He added that Council may want to consider a new Council Policy that increases
the diversion rate in any new contract because the City may be at risk if
commercial and industrial haulers are not recycling. Further, the Policy could
also require the MRF to use processed waste and direct staff to implement a
better education campaign.
Mr. Niederhaus stated that Mr. Kiff was not aware that there is a provision in
the CR &R contract that allows the City to raise the level to 50% at a cost of
$15 /ton and that the City can exercise this provision at any time. He indicated
that this cost can be passed onto the homeowner because it is recycling related.
He believed the cost would be about $4 rather than $2.46.
Council Member Glover requested that the City Manager ensure that staff has
everything together before addressing Council in the future. She believed that
allowing the City to put two staff members against each other in a presentation
is not in the best interest of the City. City Manager Bludau stated that the
presentations could have been smoother, but emphasized that the purpose of
today's study session was to cover the issue of recycling and the options.
Volume 55 - Page 391
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
In response to Council Member Proctor's questions, Mr. Niederhaus stated that
the last slide showed total numbers. Further, Villa Park is totally residential,
unlike other cities that have commercial and industrial portions in their solid
waste stream. Regarding Newport Coast, he reported that the exact tonnage
that the City collected or that Waste Management gave the City was used in the
calculations. He confirmed that mixed -waste recycling for residential waste
accounts for 23% to 30 %.
Dennis Baker believed that the counterpoint was refreshing. He stated that
Europe uses large, centrally located dome containers that are color -coded for
recyclables. He indicated that the domes have a big hook on top in order to pick
it up, place it on a flat bed truck, and replace it. He noted that other devices
have been used for over 20 years in Europe. He expressed his concern that it is
difficult for people to get rid of their household toxics. He concluded by stating
that it is a discouragement to pay more money to voluntarily recycle. He stated
that the City needs to make it easy for citizens to do the right thing.
Stephanie Barger, Executive Director of Earth Resource Foundation, stated that
she appreciated the thorough explanation of what is happening with recycling
and the options. She indicated that we live in a generation of "stuff', and
emphasized that recycling is Environmentalism 101 and that we are so far
behind. She stated that Tustin switched to source recycling and hoped that
within six month they would have 50% of the trash recycled, but this actually
happened in two weeks. She added that another city did source recycling and
saved so much money that the citizens received money back. She believed that
the City could make it work. Ms. Barger reported that Illinois sorts everything
and picks up batteries, paint, paperclips, etc. once a month. Regarding the
diversion rates, she stated that she has a concern about the percentages and
does not feel they are close to accurate. She added that she has been to the
landfill and has seen hundreds of plastic bags there. She stated that she would
like the City to give the citizens the opportunity to source recycle, believing that
it is educational since people could look at their waste stream and decide if they
can reuse, reduce, return, or eliminate waste.
Mayor Ridgeway believed that, if the City conducts more education and proceeds
with source separation, CUR can easily meet its 25% goal.
Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, stated that she appreciates that Council
conducted a study session on recycling. She indicated that it is a matter of
whether people are doing the right thing and teaching children and
grandchildren the right things. She stated that she tries to separate at home
and put her clean recyclables in a paper bag, but everything ends up together in
the trash truck. She believed that the City could eliminate the areas that have
high renter levels from participating in the source - separating program and
make separating mandatory for the other single - family residential areas. She
stated that CR &R has a contract with the City for 5% years, but believed that it
may be possible to amend the contract so some of the waste is taken to the dirty
MRF and some to the clean MRF since it is within the same company.
Ms. Skinner pointed out that there may also be a privacy issue with having
people go through the trash, noting that her credit card number had been stolen
before.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to continue this issue to
the October 8, 2002, study session.
Volume 55 - Page 392
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
September 24, 2002
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT - 6:07 p.m.
* :xsetxrxsex�exxx *xxx xa:x�a�r«
The agenda for the Study Session was posted on September 13, 2002, at
3:45 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport
Beach Administration Building.
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 55 - Page 393
INDEX
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
September 24, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. ��� INDEX
STUDY SESSION - 5:00 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m.
A. RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR
MEETING
B. ROLL CALL
Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Absent: None
C. CLOSED SESSION REPORT -None.
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member O'Neil.
E. INVOCATION - Reverend Dr. George R. Crisp, Christ Church by the
Sea United Methodist
F. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Thermoplaques to Outgoing Board & Commission
Members. Mayor Ridgeway presented certificates of appreciation to Bob
Foster, who served on the Civil Service Board from July 1994 to June 2002, and
Roberta Jorgensen, who served on the City Arts Commission from July 1998 to
June 2002.
Presentation by Edison for Energy Savings Project (contd. from
9/10/02). Kim Scherer, Region Manager for Southern California Edison,
introduced Cheri Carroll, Account Manager, who works directly with the City's
Utilities Department to make sure that the City is receiving the best rates
possible and is aware of the available programs. Ms. Scherer congratulated the
City on its proactive efforts in taking advantage of Edison's energy efficient and
conservation programs, and specifically thanked the Utilities Department and
Utilities Director Davidson. She announced that the annual savings to the City
was a total of 1.9 million kilowatt hours or $321,415. She presented a symbolic
check in the amount of $66,630, which represented the total of the rebate
checks received by the City, and an energy management and efficiency plaque
to Utilities Director Davidson and Mayor Ridgeway. Ms. Carroll also presented
a plaque to Utilities Director Davidson.
Mayor Ridgeway thanked the Utilities Department and Utilities Director
Volume 55 - Page 394
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
Davidson for the money that is being saved for the City through the Edison
programs. City Manager Bludau also acknowledged Utilities Director
Davidson for his efforts to reduce the City's use of energy.
Pretend City Presentation (continued to October 8, 2002).
S27. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF MAIN STREET FICUS TREE REMOVAL.
City Manager Bludau announced that he was the one who made the decision to
have the 25 ficus trees on Main Street in Balboa Village removed on
September 18, 2002. He stated that the removal of the ficus trees is a small,
but strategically important part, of the Balboa Village improvements, which
have been requested by the area's property owners and merchants since 1994.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, he reported that the City has engaged in an
exhaustive process, in close cooperation with the Balboa Peninsula residents
and businesses, to identify and implement means and methods to enhance
certain public areas on the peninsula.
City Manager Bludau stated that the public input process included open
meetings of the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee ( BPPAC), the
Economic Development Committee (EDC) and the Committee to Promote
Revitalization of Our Peninsula (PROP). In 1996, the first urban design
consultant was hired by the City to work with BPPAC to determine what public
improvements were needed for Balboa Village. The first report was presented
to the City Council in January 1997. In December 1999, a second urban design
consultant presented conceptual plans for the Balboa Village revitalization to
the City Council. These plans had previously been reviewed by PROP.
City Manager Bludau stated that in February 2000, funding options and a
phasing plan were presented to the City Council. In March 2000, 33 Balboa
Village merchants, including 13 from Main Street, signed a petition requesting
the removal and replacement of the ficus trees. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was approved for the project in January 2001. Other key dates
included PROP meetings, where the recommendation to replace the ficus trees
with coral gum trees was made and then later approved by the Parks, Beaches
& Recreation Commission. The City Council approved the plans, specifications,
financing plan and phasing plan for the three- phased Balboa Village
improvements on August 14, 2001. Also in 2001, the Coastal Commission,
Regional Water Quality Control Board and United States Army Corps of
Engineer permits were obtained.
City Manager Bludau reported that on February 14, 2002, the 180 -day appeal
period for challenging the project expired. On May 31, 2002, Phase I of the
project was completed at a cost of $3.5 million. In July 2002, the Balboa Arbor
Society filed a lawsuit against the City for procedural remedies. Mediation
discussions in July and August 2002 took place, but did not resolve all of the
issues. On August 27, 2002, the court enjoined the City from taking action to
remove the trees. On September 16, 2002, the court denied the Balboa Arbor
Society's motion for preliminary injunction.
City Manager Bludau stated that the timely completion of Phase II is a critical
part of the Balboa Village improvement project, and is being relied on by
Volume 55 - Page 395
INDEX
Main Street Ficus
Tree Removal
(62)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
property owners and the community. He also noted that the Coastal
Commission will not allow work between Memorial Day and Labor Day. In
conclusion, City Manager Bludau stated that many people do not agree with
his decision to have the trees removed, but he wanted the opportunity to
explain the reasons behind his decision. He corrected an earlier statement by
stating that the City prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it was
not approved by the City Council.
Linda Grant stated that she is saddened that the City Manager feels that he
has to take the blame, and disappointed that the Mayor had previously stated
that the Balboa Arbor Society rejected the City's offer. She stated that she
can't understand why the City has acted the way that it has or why the trees
were torn down with no respect. Ms. Grant stated that the City Council
members should speak for all of the people, and not just some of the people.
She begged the City Council to save the last two trees and suggested that they
would go well with the coral gum trees. She requested that if the trees did
have to be removed, that they be replanted. She stated that it hurts her to see
the destruction that has occurred and begged the City Council members to
listen to her.
Cindy Doran, 425 Seville Avenue, expressed her disappointment with the ficus
tree removal on Main Street. She stated, however, that she is in support of the
area being revitalized, but is dissatisfied with the coral gum trees planted on
Balboa Boulevard. Ms. Doran asked that the decision to replace the ficus trees
on Main Street with coral gum trees be reconsidered. She, specifically,
suggested that queen palm trees be considered and that it also be considered to
replace the coral gum trees on Balboa Boulevard with queen palms.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that the PROP Committee discuss the issue at their
next meeting.
Jan Vandersloot, Vice President of the Balboa Arbor Society, apologized for the
language he used in front of the media on the day that the ficus trees were
removed. He stated, however, that he felt hurt, disappointed and betrayed,
and noted that the Balboa Arbor Society was still considering an offer made by
the City the Friday prior. Dr. Vandersloot stated that it was astonishing at
how quickly the trees were removed, and that it could have been done at a later
date without delaying the implementation of Phase II. He stated that there
needs to be a better tree policy and that it needs to be made stronger by way of
an ordinance. Dr. Vandersloot noted that the problems with the trees began
when the parks department was combined with the general services
department. He additionally requested that the two remaining trees be
preserved, one of which would survive a transplant. In conclusion,
Dr. Vandersloot stated that the decision to remove the trees showed disrespect
for the citizens.
Richard Vogel, 351 Old Newport Boulevard, stated that he can't accept the
behavior of the City in the removal of the ficus trees on Main Street. He stated
that the legal system is what makes the United States great and that when the
government deliberately circumvents due process, the system breaks down. He
suggested that the voters think about the behavior of the City when they go to
the polls in November.
Volume 55 - Page 396
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
Joel Bumstine, resident, stated that the decision to remove the ficus trees was
the right decision and that the Balboa Village project, when completed, will
benefit the City. He stated that, in this case, the general good, not the vocal
minority, was accommodated. Mr. Burnstine stated that he also feels that due
process was served, with the court ruling in favor of the City. He
complimented the City for its decision to have the ficus trees removed.
Charles Griffin, 732 Bison Avenue, stated that he has grown ficus trees on
several properties over several generations. He stated that they grow fast, but
can be pruned and if they need to be replaced, it should be done on an
individual basis. Mr. Griffin complimented the City on being rigorous in its
procedures and following the law.
Marianne Zippi, 420 E. Bay Avenue, stated that the contract to be considered
later in the meeting for Phase II of the Balboa Village improvements, Item
No. 17, was supposed to include the removal of the ficus trees on Main Street.
She stated that she spoke with General Services Director Niederhaus and he
said that it was eliminated from the contract so that the City could remove the
trees immediately. Ms. Zippi stated that this was a reprehensible use of power.
Bud Grant stated that the Balboa Arbor Society did not reject the City's offer
but made a counteroffer, which was rejected by the City.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the Balboa Arbor Society knew that if the issue
went to court that all offers were off the table.
Mr. Grant additionally stated that the Balboa Arbor Society worked hard to
save the trees, but also realized that there was risk and liability to the City
involved. He stated that the concept of rubber sidewalks was presented to the
City Manager and should have been tested on Main Street. He hoped that it
would be looked at in the future so that other trees might be saved. Lastly,
Mr. Grant apologized if the songs sung at previous City Council meetings in
regard to the ficus tree issue offended anyone.
Amelda Ann Fernandez stated that although she is quite elderly, she has some
things to share about the ficus tree issue. She stated that, many years ago,
Dr. Wernher Von Braun invited her to Cape Canaveral to assist in conducting a
landscape study. She stated that she relocated donated palm trees on virgin
land and made beautiful trails and ponds. Ms. Fernandez suggested that the
City also consider receiving donated trees.
Kay Mortenson thanked Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg for taking the time to write
the article that appeared in the Daily Pilot. She stated that she found it
informative and agreed with the statement that everyone should put the issue
of the ficus trees behind them and work together on the revitalization plan.
Ms. Mortenson stated that based on the success of Phase I, it is expected that
Phase II will proceed in the same way, new trees will be planted and it will be
beautiful again.
Dayna Pettit, 1741 Plaza del Sur, stated that it is exciting to see the renovation
moving forward. The new look scheduled for Main Street will hopefully be
Volume 55 - Page 397
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
completed by May 2003. Ms. Pettit stated that a large majority of people
support the City and understand the importance of removing the trees in order
to move forward with the project within the time constraints that have been
imposed on the City. She stated that the process was begun ten years ago and
it is exciting to see the openness on Main Street and the project moving
forward.
Dan Gilliland, 1134 E. Balboa Blvd., commended the City for taking the time to
make a logical and fair decision about the ficus tree issue. He stated that it has
kept the village project on track. He noted that although it's painful to see the
trees removed, it was time for it to happen.
Stephen Miles, attorney for the Balboa Arbor Society, noted that since the
litigation commenced, the City Attorney's office has acted with complete
professionalism and courtesy. He stated that a three-day mediation occurred
where possible alternatives for resolution were discussed. Mr. Miles stated
that hasty action was not taken on the issue until the City Manager decided to
have the trees removed on September 18, 2002. He stated that the Balboa
Arbor Society was only looking for a few more days, so that neither party would
have to act in haste. He stated that the litigation is not over and the appeal
process should be allowed to proceed.
Larry Porter expressed his outrage at the removal of the ficus trees. He stated
that there was not a fair trial, and Dr. Jan Vandersloot and others were defied.
Mr. Porter stated that they will be vindicated by the changes that will come
with the November election.
Gay Wassall - Kelly, 409 E. Edgewater, President of the Balboa Merchants &
Owners Association, stated that both Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg's and former
Costa Mesa Mayor Peter Buffs's articles were enlightening. She noted that
three notable sites have disappeared in the last month. These included the
1925 home of Bill Ficker, the America's Cup winner, the ficus trees on Main
Street and the Seaside Graygoose Apartments, built in the 1920'x. Ms.
Wassall -Kelly stated that the structures were removed with few people
watching. Both will be replaced with new homes and the ficus trees will be
replaced with new trees. She stated that people will miss the notable sites, but
times change and people move on.
Mayor Ridgeway noted that the 25 ficus trees will be replaced with 32 trees.
Lynn Miller, Balboa Peninsula resident, stated that the Parks, Beaches &
Recreation Commission voted 4 -3 on May 7, 2002, to remove the ficus trees.
She stated that those voting against the removal did so because it didn't follow
City policy for removal of special city trees and all other city trees.
Ms. Miller stated that Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees,
requires that steps be taken to retain trees designated as special city trees.
Ms. Miller stated that in August, three urban foresters declared the ficus trees
on Main Street as being healthy and safe. She stated that the trees were
designated as special city trees in the mid 1990's, but some were later put into
the all other city trees category, which left them with less protection. She
stated, however, that trees in the all other city trees category can still only be
removed if there is extreme damage to infrastructure and landscape of public
Volume 55 - Page 398
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
or private properties, and only if steps have been taken to correct the problems.
Ms. Miller stated that the City has given the impression that all of the trees are
a problem, but it is only a few trees and the problems are a result of the City's
lack of responsibility and maintenance.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, reminded everyone that this agenda item
was added to the agenda late and has been taken out of order. He stated that
the sewer system on Main Street needs to be addressed before new trees are
planted. He stated that there are cracked sewer lines that need to be
examined, since they could be causing pollution in the waterways.
Additionally, Mr. Hildreth stated that he understands that the entire
revitalization project is to get rid of the "mom and pop" stores in the Balboa
Village area. This will occur because the rental fees will increase and he
wondered if the storeowners knew this when they voted for the project. He
suggested that there be a moratorium on fee increases. He noted the parking
structure on Onyx Avenue which has been replaced with residential units, and
how this is also hurting businesses in the area.
Council Member Heffernan stated that he was the one to appeal the decision of
the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission and was trying to look beyond
just the Main Street issue. He stated that there is not a sufficient City policy
or ordinance on the tree issue in general, and he'd like to find out how the
damage claims on Main Street compare to those elsewhere in the City. He
noted that it could become a multimillion - dollar issue. He stated that the issue
needs to be addressed and a tree policy needs to be established that satisfies
the concerns of tree retention, as well as potential claims.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg noted the many comments throughout the evening
and stated that due process was served. He explained that the City held off on
removing the trees to allow the Balboa Arbor Society time to attempt to get an
injunction. He stated that a full hearing was held in court and the judge
denied the Balboa Arbor Society position. Mayor Pro Tom Bromberg stated
that the appeal process could potentially take years because a writ of mandate
would be followed by a full appeal, if necessary. He stated that the community
has been waiting for over ten years to have the Balboa Village revitalized. He
stated that its time to move on.
Council Member Adams asked if relocating the two remaining trees is viable.
City Manager Bludau stated it is doubtful that either tree would survive
replanting due to their vast root systems and the sandy soil they're in. Council
Member Adams additionally asked if queen palms could be considered for Main
Street.
Mayor Ridgeway confirmed that the PROP Committee would be discussing the
issue at their next meeting. He additionally noted that the removal of the trees
is a huge loss for everyone, and he respects those who are feeling the loss
greater than others. Mayor Ridgeway stated that the City had to address the
larger issue, and consider the community at large and the revitalization of a
dieing village. He noted that the anger will pass with the passage of time. He
asked those who are mourning the trees to get past their anger, to accept that
the trees are not there and to respect what the City is doing.
Volume 55 - Page 399
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
24. AIRPORT GRANTS FINANCIAL REVIEW.
City Manager Bludau stated that on July 9, 2002, the City Council directed
staff to complete a compliance review to determine whether the grant
expenditures to the Airport Working Group (AWG) and Citizens for Jobs and
the Economy (CJE) conformed to the terms and conditions expressed in the
written grant agreements. He stated that the firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day &
Company (VTD) was hired to perform the agreed upon procedures.
Joe Aguilar, Principal, VTD, stated that his firm performed an agreed upon
procedures engagement, which assists the City in ascertaining the existence
and nature of expenditures related to the educational grants provided to AWG
and CJE. He clarified that an agreed upon procedures engagement is not an
audit. Although samplings and inquiries are performed, an opinion on the
financial records is not given. Mr. Aguilar stated that the purpose of the AWG
grant was to inform the public of issues regarding the future air transportation
demand in Orange County. The grant with WE was in regard to lobbying and
legislative activities related to the furtherance of City policies in regard to
future air transportation issues in Orange County. Mr. Aguilar stated that
VTD's report summarizes the findings and the procedures that were performed.
He stated that both AWG and CJE were cooperative and forthright in
providing information, and kept good records.
Mr. Aguilar stated that the records were reviewed to determine if the groups
could substantiate whether the media deliverables met the requirements. He
stated that good records were kept in regard to the signoffs by the attorneys.
He stated that VTD also reviewed how the money was spent in regard to
commissions. He stated that agreements were entered into and good records
were kept on how the money was paid to the consultants who ran the
administrative part of the grants.
Mr. Aguilar stated that VTD also sampled over 74% of the expenditures, and
felt satisfied with the groups' controls and how they documented their
spending. He stated that any obvious discrepancies are noted on Page 6 of
their report, and total approximately $82,000. He stated that this doesn't mean
that the money wasn't properly spent, it just means that the documentation
that was provided was not conclusive enough. He stated that VTD also
questioned some commissions that were paid on a project that was cancelled.
He noted that this doesn't mean that the consultants didn't work on the
projects, but money was provided for a media spot or publication that wasn't
completed. Mr. Aguilar stated that funds provided to a law firm were also
questioned because the nature or the magnitude of the litigation couldn't be
ascertained. He noted that VTD doesn't have attorney /client privileges,
however. He also noted that of the $250,000 provided, $207,000 is unspent and
in a trust fund at the law firm.
Mr. Aguilar stated that VTD also reviewed the spending that occurred after
February 12, 2002, and summarized these findings on Page 7 of the report. He
stated that AWG spent approximately $482,000 after that date and CJE spent
approximately $31,000. Mr. Aguilar stated that a review of the publications,
media spots and any other deliverables was also done. The attorneys
determined whether the deliverables were in compliance with educational
Volume 55 - Page 400
INDEX
C- 3425 -A
C -3490
Airport Grants
Financial Review/
Airport Working
Group (AWG)/
Citizens for Jobs and
the Economy (CJE)
(38)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002 INDEX
purposes and all of the documentation provided ascertained that. He stated
that VTD also sampled and confirmed services provided by the vendors, as well
as the existence of any related party expenditures. He stated that only one
item was found and it was in regard to money provided for legal services. He
explained that the AWG executive director is a partner at the law firm that
was retained to provide the legal services.
Council Member Heffernan asked why the February 12, 2002, date was
selected when the election didn't occur until March. City Manager Bludau
stated that it was the date selected by Council Member Glover as the date
when no further expenditures should occur.
Council Member Glover confirmed this and stated that those working on the
John Wayne Settlement Agreement told other communities that the City would
not be spending money on lawsuits or items concerning Measure W.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the balance of funds in the AWG account,
$51,887, and the $207,000 in the trust fund would be reimbursed to the City.
Mr. Aguilar stated that they were noted as discrepancies only. Council
Member Heffernan asked if anything in the grant agreement required that the
funds be paid back to the City. Mr. Aguilar stated that the grant agreement
allows the groups to spend the money until it's gone. Council Member
Heffernan asked if the money in the trust fund for litigation falls within what
is allowed in the grant agreement. Mr. Aguilar stated the nature of the
litigation would need to be known to answer the question. Council Member
Heffernan asked if litigation is a permitted educational component permitted
by the terms of the grant. Mr. Aguilar stated that it would be expected that the
litigation is consistent with the deliverables, the formation of those
deliverables, defending their use and determining legality.
Barbara Lichman, AWG Executive Director, stated that the agreement allows
the grant to be used for other activity relevant to the manner and means of
accommodating the current and future air transportation demand in Orange
County. She stated that the $207,000 in the client trust account is
administered by the State Bar of California and cannot be taken until it is
billed for. She stated that the amounts billed to date have been for the
settlement agreement. Ms. Lichman noted, however, that despite the feelings
of some of the council members, the settlement agreement alone will not
protect Newport Beach and other efforts should be supported.
Tom Naughton, 1700 Port Margate Place, AWG President, stated that he is
pleased with the audit report. He pointed out, however, that AWG was never
made aware of the February 12, 2002, date to cease spending and there is no
record of it in the minutes of the City Council meetings that occurred on that
date. Mr. Naughton stated that AWG will continue to pursue an airport at El
Toro because it is believed that service for an additional 30 million air
passengers in the County will be needed in the future, and the pressure to
expand John Wayne Airport will be too great for Newport Beach to fight alone.
Mayor Ridgeway informed Mr. Naughton that the first reconvened meeting of
the Aviation Taskforce for the Southern California Association of Governments
(SLAG) would be taking place the following day. Mayor Ridgeway stated that
Volume 55 - Page 401
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
he would be attending the meeting and that they'd be discussing the entire
regional airport issue as it relates to the regional transportation plan. He
asked Mr. Naughton to let him know if AWG would like to be represented on
the Taskforce.
Marianne Zippi, 420 E. Bay Avenue, stated that the grant was originally
awarded to AWG and CJE together. She asked why this wasn't the grant that
was reviewed by the auditors. She also asked why it was decided to do a
review that was significantly reduced in scope, instead of an audit. Lastly,
Ms. Zippi asked if the items in the lawsuit against the City for the
inappropriate use of public funds by El Toro Re -Use Planning Authority
(ETRPA) were included in the samples reviewed by VTD.
City Manager Bludau stated that the scope of the compliance review was for
the $3.6 million. City Attorney Burnham added that the March 2001 grant had
several different components, which included public information, a carryover
grant and a lobbying grant. They were later separated into the two grants.
Ms. Zippi expressed her concern for the $246,000 spent by CJE prior to the
separation. City Attorney Burnham stated that he'd be happy to go over the
documents with Ms. Zippi.
Mayor Ridgeway noted that VTD reviewed 74% of the material, which is
extraordinary.
Mr. Aguilar noted that Exhibit C of the report lists all of the deliverables that
were reviewed by VTD, and it does include the items included in the lawsuit.
He stated that all of the documentation was consistent and in compliance with
the educational component. City Manager Bludau added that the compliance
review provided more information that an audit would have. Mr. Aguilar
agreed and stated that an audit would not have sampled 74 %, nor done the
compliance work or other procedures requested by City staff. He stated that it
allowed VTD to focus more substantially on the goal of the grants.
Charles Griffin stated that he knows the history of AWG and feels that they
have the welfare of the citizens of Newport Beach at heart and have served the
City well. He stated that they deserve the continued support of the City
because the fight is not over. Mr. Griffin stated that El Toro needs to be kept
in the transportation plan. Additionally, he stated that an unanticipated
consequence of Measure W and the closure of El Toro has been a different use
of the airspace. He requested that the remaining funds be used by AWG and
CJE to help the City to continue working on a solution.
Motion by Council Member Proctor to accept the Airport Grants Financial
Review Report for the Airport Working Group (AWG) and Citizens for Jobs and
the Economy (CJE) dated September 16, 2002.
Council Member Proctor stated that one - and -one -half years ago, it was decided
that an educational effort was needed, as well as an extension to the settlement
agreement. He stated that there was support for both efforts and when the
grant was issued on May 22, 2001, the best possible people were hired. He
stated that it's unfair to conduct an audit after an unsuccessful election without
looking at the success of the extension of the settlement agreement.
Volume 55 - Page 402
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
Council Member Heffernan stated that he requested the audit due to the
process. He added that he never felt that the budget and work plan were
detailed enough. Council Member Heffernan stated that when the City is
spending this type of money for a public outreach program, two vendors who
are competing for the work would have resulted in a more detailed work plan.
Secondly, he stated that any conflicts of interest, or even appearances of one,
need to be disclosed upfront. Council Member Heffernan specifically brought
up the issue of Dave Ellis who was a representative of AWG and was also paid
by several council members, which represents an appearance of a conflict. He
stated that Mr. Ellis received $458,000 of the grant. Council Member
Heffernan stated that he is trying to avoid potential mistakes in the future on
vendor contracts paid for with public money.
Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg stated that many council members were involved
with community activities long before they were on the City Council. He stated
that it would be difficult to do business if he couldn't work with people he knew
or had worked with before. Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg stated that the review
that was conducted was complete and clean. He added that AWG deserves
everyone's appreciation for what they've done for the City in regard to airport
related matters.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that Mr. Ellis received $189,000 from the grant.
Council Member Heffernan stated that the correct total is $458,000.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: O'Neil, Bromberg, Glover, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: Heffernan
Abstain: None
Absent: None
RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 9:20 P.M. WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT, EXCEPT COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER.
G. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
H. 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 Proctor requested that staff research ordinances used
by other cities that are more than reactive to events that permit crowd
control, prior to the first meeting of the July 4'b West Newport Safety
Planning Committee.
Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg stated that he attended a reception hosted
by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust regarding Proposition 50, a $3.4 billion
bond issue in the November 2002 election concerning water quality,
coastal protection and water resources. He stated that it also involves a
coastal wetland purchase. He encouraged everyone to look at the bond,
Volume 55 - Page 403
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
and requested that the CoastallBay Water Quality Citizens Advisory
Committee look at the issue and that a resolution of support be
considered by the City Council.
• Council Member Heffernan requested a report on the status of the Big
Canyon Reservoir; specifically the amount budgeted in fiscal year 2002-
2003 and how the project will be affected by the availability or
unavailability of federal funds.
• Council Member Heffernan requested that due to the number of claims
against the City, Council Policy G -1, Retention or Removal of City
Trees, be reviewed. He stated that there needs to be a citywide uniform
policy or ordinance.
• Mayor Ridgeway announced that the Newport Beach Fire Department
built a playhouse in remembrance of New York Station No. 2 for this
year's Building Industry Association (BIA) HomeAid Project. He
encouraged everyone to attend the event at Fashion Island.
Mayor Ridgeway requested that the Harbor Commission review the
annual permit for tidelands, and evaluate whether charter boats can be
conditioned as a part of the annual permit. He requested that staff
agendize the item and prepare the appropriate report.
I. CONSENT CALENDAR
READING OF MINUTESIORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
1. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the
audience.
2. 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.
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION
3. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member
Heffernan.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
4. Removed from the Consent Calendar by a member of the
audience.
5. ADOPTION OF THE 2002 NEWPORT BEACH FIRE CODES.
Adopt Ordinance No. 2002 -19 to adopt the 2001 California Fire Code
(Title 24, Part 9), with amendments, as part of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
6. ADOPTION OF THE 2002 NEWPORT BEACH BUILDING
CODES. 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 2002 -20 to adopt the 2001 California
Volume 55 - Page 404
I 0 1 DI'
Ord 2002 -19
2002 Newport Beach
Fire Codes
(41)
Ord 2002 -20
Res 2002 -59
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002 INDEX
Building Code; and 2) adopt Resolution No. 2002 -59 to adopt the
2002 Newport Beach
Resolution of Findings.
Building Codes (26)
7. TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SIGNS — A REQUEST TO AMEND
Ord 2002 -21
ZONING CODE CHAPTER 20.67 — SIGNS, TO ALLOW THE
PA2002 -128/
ADDITION OF A SINGLE "RIDER" SIGN AND A SINGLE
Code Amendment
"BROCHURE BOX" PER PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH
2002 -004/
AN AUTHORIZED TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE SIGN [CODE
Temporary
AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -004 (PA2002- 128)]. Adopt Ordinance
Real Estate
No. 2002 -21 amending Chapter 20.67 related to temporary real estate
Signs
signs.
(68)
8. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -002, LOCAL
Ord 2002 -22
COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -001, AND CODE
GPA 2002 -002/
AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -002 (PA2001 -186) — 205 ORANGE
PA2001 -186/
STREET— REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
Local Coastal
USE DESIGNATION FROM RETAIL & COMMERCIAL TO TWO-
Amendment 2002 -002/
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, CHANGE THE LOCAL COASTAL
Code Amendment
PLAN DESIGNATION FROM RETAIL & SERVICE
2002 -002/
COMMERCIAL TO TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND
205 Orange Street
CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION WITHIN THE
(45)
NEWPORT SHORES SPECIFIC PLAN FROM COMMERCIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL, IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING
SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DUPLEX. Adopt
Ordinance No. 2002 -22, which would grant approval to Code
Amendment 2002.002.
9. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -001 (PA2002 -098) — 3513 FINLEY
Ord 2002 -23
AVENUE — REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FRONT YARD
PA2002 -098
SETBACK OF 3513 FINLEY AVENUE FACING THE RIVO ALTO
Code Amendment
CHANNEL ESTABLISHED ON DISTRICT MAP NO. 3 FROM 40
2002 -001/
FEET TO 20 FEET. Adopt Ordinance No. 2002 -23.
3513 Finley Ave. (68)
RESOLUTIONS FOR ADOPTION
10. LEASE -TO- PURCHASE HOUSING PROGRAM. 1) Adopt
C -3571
Resolution No. 2002.60 that authorizes participation by the City of
Res 2002 -60
Newport Beach in the Lease -to- Purchase Program as a voting member
Lease -to- Purchase
of the Orange County Area Housing and Finance Agency (Agency); and
Housing Program/
2) authorize the City Manager to execute a Joint exercise of Powers
OC Area Housing &
Agreement for membership in the Agency and to attend Agency
Finance Agency
meetings and take any and all actions necessary to coordinate the
(38/54)
City's voting membership in the Agency and participation in the Lease -
to- Purchase Program.
11. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86 (AREA BOUNDED
Res 2002 -61
BY OCEAN BOULEVARD, OCEANFRONT BOULEVARD, "G"
Res 2002 -62
STREET, AND CHANNEL ROAD AND THE PUBLIC BEACH)
Res 2002 -63
FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITIES. 1) Adopt the following
C -3572
resolutions: a) Resolution No. 2002 -61 making findings on a petition
Assessment
for, adopting a map showing the proposed boundaries of, and making
District 86
appointments for Assessment District No. 86; b) Resolution No. 2002 -62
(38/89)
Volume 55 - Page 405
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
Volume 55 - Page 406
declaring intention to order the construction of certain improvements in
proposed Assessment District No. 86, declaring the improvements to be
of special benefit, describing the District to be assessed to pay the costs
and expenses thereof, and providing for the issuance of bonds; and
c) Resolution No. 2002.63 giving preliminary approval to the report of
the Assessment Engineer, setting the time and place for a public
hearing as November 12, 2002, and ordering the intention of
assessment ballot procedure for Assessment District No. 86; and
2) approve the Special Counsel Agreement with Robert Hessell.
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
12.
Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member
Heffernan.
13.
BALBOA ISLAND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND WATER
C -3397
MAIN REPLACEMENT (C -3397) — COMPLETION AND
BA -012
ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work; 2) authorize the City Clerk to file
Balboa Island
a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize the City Clerk to release the Labor
Pavement
and Materials bond 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been
Rehabilitation and
recorded in accordance with applicable portions of the Civil Code;
Water Main
4) release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after Council
Replacement
acceptance; and 5) approve a budget amendment (BA -012)
(38/40)
appropriating an additional $3943.55 from the balance of the Measure
M Turnback Fund balance to Account No. 7281- C5100645.
14.
BEACON BAY SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT (C -3277) —
C -3277
COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work;
Beacon Bay
2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize
Sewer Main
the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after
Replacement
the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with
(38)
applicable portions of the Civil Code; and 4) release the Faithful
Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance.
15.
HAZEL AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (C -3448) —
C -3448
COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE. 1) Accept the work;
BA -013
2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; 3) authorize
Hazel Avenue
the City Clerk to release the Labor and Materials bond 35 days after
Pavement
the Notice of Completion has been recorded in accordance with
Rehabilitation
applicable portions of the Civil Code; 4) release the Faithful
(38/40)
Performance Bond one (1) year after Council acceptance; and
5) approve a budget amendment (BA -013) appropriating $15,739.99
from the Measure M Turnback Fund balance to Account No. 7281-
05100639 for this project.
16.
BALBOA VILLAGE IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II —
C- 3527 -A
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH EMMET
BA -014
BERKERY — AMENDMENT NO. 1. 1) Approve Amendment No. 1 to
Balboa Village
the Agreement for Temporary Employment of Emmet Berkery in the
Improvements —
amount of $33,600 and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Phase II
Amendment; and 2) approve a budget amendment (BA -014)
(38/40)
transferring $33,600 from the unappropriated balance of the General
Volume 55 - Page 406
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
Fund to Account No. 5100 -7020 (Part -time Salaries).
17. Item removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Ridgeway.
MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS
18. NOMINATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE (EDC) TO FILL EDC VACANCIES. Appoint Gay
Wassall -Kelly as Balboa Village representative and Kevin Weeda as
Lido District representative to fill vacancies on the Economic
Development Committee.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg to approve the Consent Calendar,
except for those items removed (1, 3, 4, 12 and 17).
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
J. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR AND REGULAR
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2002.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, stated that Volume 55, Page 371
needs to be corrected so that the sentence at the top of the page reads,
"and is still a pier permit ". Additionally, on Page 378, the P. O. Box
number was left out. It should have read, "P. O. Box 5350".
Mr. Hildreth noted that he had also stated that the P. O Box was being
used as the service address as well as a billing address, and that this
was not included in the minutes either. On Page 379, the minutes also
inaccurately reflect him saying that the structure was acquired by the
City, when he had stated that it was removed by the City. Later in the
same paragraph, he stated that he was referring to the City installed
ladder, not the structure. Mr. Hildreth requested that the City record
his words correctly.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg 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, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
3. ORDINANCE RELATING TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICA-
Volume 55 - Page 407
INDEX
Economic
Development
Committee
(24)
Ord 2002 -24
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
TIONS; ADOPTION OF COUNCIL POLICY L-23 RELATING TO
THE SITING OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES ON CITY -OWNED LAND.
Council Member Heffernan stated that with the recommended action,
the City is attempting to keep pace with the wireless era.
Assistant City Manager Mff stated that the telecommunications
ordinance lays out the guidelines by which the City would permit
telecommunications facilities on both public and private property. The
council policy would express the City Council's intent to make public
property available under certain circumstances for the placement of
wireless telecommunications facilities.
Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that the Police Department has
recommended a couple of amendments to the ordinance. Section
15.70.070(C)(2) should be changed to read, "If the Police Department
determines that the proposal has a high probability that its facilities
will interfere ". He stated that this will allow the Police Department to
assume that a facility may interfere with emergency communication
devices, without having to prove it. Assistant City Manager Kiff stated
that the same change needs to take place in Section 15.70.070(D)(2) for
private property. Additionally, Assistant City Manager Kiff stated that
Section 15.70.080 should refer to a "compliance and radiation report"
and not just a radiation report.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the Fire Department agrees that
the Police Department should be placed first. Additionally, he asked if
any of the antenna or device applications would have to be found to not
interfere with emergency police or fire communication. Assistant City
Manager Kiff stated that there would be a Police Department review
for any application, public or private, but an application cannot be
denied for private property due to a possibility of interference. He
stated that this is why the language in the proposed ordinance states
that the Police Department and the applicant must work together to
resolve the issue to the maximum extent practicable. Assistant City
Manager Kiff stated that the City would have the right to deny
applications for public property installations. Assistant City Attorney
Clauson stated that there is a process in place for interferences that
would create a serious problem, and explained that the item could be
brought before the City Council for review and possible denial. Council
Member Heffernan noted that the reason for the detail in the City's
ordinance regarding this issue is the Federal Act that preempts local
jurisdiction in many cases.
Bob Morales, Arcadia, AT &T Wireless, commended City staff and the
Telecommunications Ad Hoc Committee on the development of the
wireless telecommunications ordinance. He stated that AT &T Wireless
is constantly striving to improve its system and noted that one in every
four persons in the United States relies on wireless phones.
Mr. Morales stated that AT &T Wireless hopes that the ability to use
public right -of -ways will help mitigate the issue of antennas in
Volume 55 - Page 408
INDEX
Council Policy L -231
Wireless
Telecommunications
(69)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
residential communities.
Motion by Council Member Heffernan to introduce Ordinance
No 2002 -24, as amended, relating to Wireless Telecommunications and
pass to second reading on October 8, 2002; and adopt new Council
Policy L -23.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
Council Member Adams thanked Council Member Heffernan for his
work on the Telecommunications Ad Hoc Committee.
4. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE DEALING WITH HARBOR REGULATIONS,
ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION IN NEWPORT
HARBOR.
12.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, pointed out that the duties of the
Harbor Resources Director include the maintenance of files and records
of all pier permits issued. Mr. Hildreth stated that the files and records
of the department need to be audited, so that misplaced documents can
be found. Additionally, Mr. Hildreth suggested that the appeal process
be set at fifteen working days as the standard. He further noted the
deletion of Section 17.41.095 and asked if the City Council was trying to
alleviate itself of some duties by referring appeals to the Harbor
Commission. He stated that the Harbor Commission is not the
appropriate body to handle appeals. He specifically disagreed that the
filing of appeals should be sent to the Harbor Resources Director, as
outlined in Section 17.42.030, because he has shown that the current
director can't keep documents very well and misdirects mail.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg to adopt Ordinance
No. 2002 -18 amending Title 17 of the NBMC.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
INDEX
Ord 2002 -18
Harbor Regulations
(51)
APPROVE ACULERT EMERGENCY INFORMATION C- 3570/Emergency
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND AGREEMENT. Information
Demonstration
Council Member Heffernan asked for a report on how the program will I Project
Volume 55 - Page 409
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
work, how privacy issues will be dealt with and how someone would
participate in the program. Fire Chief Riley responded by stating that
members of the current Fire Medics Program have already been given
the opportunity to provide their medical information, which has been
entered into a database and is accessed by field personnel through
existing mobile data computers. Unlike the encrypted wireless
transmissions, the current system being used does not provide for
secured transactions and the technology is hard to keep up to date.
Fire Chief Riley stated that the proposed system would have a company
manage the database through encrypted wireless technology, and that
each member would be provided with a unique barcode identifier,
which would be scanned by field personnel. This would allow for
confidential medical history information to be accessed. Fire Chief
Riley stated that all Federal regulations are being met for medical
information confidentiality, in both the current and proposed records
system.
Mayor Ridgeway asked what the expected cost of the program would
be. Fire Chief Riley stated that current Fire Medics Program members
would pay no additional fees, because it is expected that new members
would offset the fees. He added that the approximate cost per
household would be $3. Additionally, he noted that the Fire Medics
Program at an annual household cost of $48 covers all household
members for out -of- pocket paramedic or ambulance expenses.
Per Council Member Heffernan's question, Fire Chief Riley stated that
if a member is not carrying the barcode identifier when it is needed,
field personnel should be able to obtain the medical information.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg to approve the Fire
Department's partnership with Aculert that provides both medical
information and a family notification program for use by fire agencies.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
17. BALBOA VILLAGE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2 — AWARD OF
CONTRACT (C- 3527).
City Attorney Burnham stated that staff is proposing the recommended
action, and that the City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the information in the staff report and all other relevant
information and makes the following findings: 1) On August 14, 2001,
the City Council approved the complete plans for the 3 phases of the
Balboa Village Improvement Project (the Project); 2) In conjunction
with the August 14, 2001 approval of the Project, the City prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), State CEQA Clearinghouse
Volume 55 - Page 410
INDEX
(38)
C- 3527 -B
BA -015
Balboa Village
Improvements —
Phase 2
(38/40)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
2001011130, which concluded that, with the specified mitigation
measures incorporated, the Project would not have a significant effect
on the environment. Consistent with CEQA, the MND was submitted
to the State CEQA Clearinghouse, circulated for comment and the City
prepared responses to the comments; 3) Phase 1 of the Project was
completed May 30, 2002. The plans approved on August 14, 2001 called
for construction of Phase 2 to commence in September 2002. The
Coastal Development Permit for the Project requires all Phase 2
construction to cease prior to June 1, 2003. The City Council is
therefore continuing with the implementation of the Project by
approving the construction contract for Phase 2; 4) The contracts for
construction of Phase 2 are fully consistent with the plans approved by
the Council August 14, 2001. Minor revisions were made to the
drawings and specifications, primarily to reflect as -built information
from Phase 1 construction. No substantial changes are proposed in the
Project as adopted in August 2001; 5) No substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
being undertaken which would require major revisions to the
previously prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration. No changes in
circumstances have occurred that involve a new significant
environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a
previously identified impact; 6) The City Council has received no new
information of substantial importance, that was not known and could
not have been known in the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
of Project approval, and that shows either that the project will have
significant effects not discussed in the MND, or that feasible new
mitigation measures have been identified. In particular, at the time of
its August 2001 Project approval, the City had the benefit of the
information in the MND, the April 2001 City Ficus Landmark Trees
report, prepared by Integrated Urban Forestry, and the May 2001
Analysis of Costs To Retain the Main Street Ficus Trees; 7) No
additional environmental review is warranted on the Balboa Village
Improvement Project or on Phase 2 of the Project; and, 8) In the
implementation of Phase 2, the City Manager shall fully comply with
any order of any court of competent jurisdiction.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg to approve the plans and
specifications for Phase 2 construction, with the findings as noted by
City Attorney Burnham; award the contract (C -3527) to Hillcrest
Contracting for the total bid price of $2,840,899.97 and authorize the
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; approve a budget
amendment (BA -015) appropriating $392,500 from CDBG 108 Loan
Proceeds to Balboa Village Phase 2, Account No. 7161- C5100543;
approve a budget amendment (BA -015) appropriating $68,000 from the
Circulation and Transportation Fund Balance to Account No. 7261 -
05200703 — Balboa Village Phase 2; and approve a budget amendment
(BA -015) appropriating $25,150 from the Gas Tax Fund Balance to
Account No. 7181- C5100543 — Balboa Village Phase 2.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Volume 55 - Page 411
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
K. PUBLIC COMMENTS
INDEX
John Lightburn, Committee to Abolish Helicopter Noise, stated that his
committee has received letters of support over the last several weeks.
He read from the letter received from Nicole Weinberger, "Dear
Mr. Jacober. I recently read an article in the Tuesday edition of the
Daily Pilot about your organization. I am writing to give you my
support of your efforts to curb the police helicopter noise in our area. I
have often awoken to this disturbing noise. The helicopter flies around
and around in circles, and is very loud and annoying. I have also
wondered if this is necessary and if the expense is worth it for security.
We have a lot of other noise to contend with; for example, cars, buses,
airplanes and even the high school. If possible, it is one's best interest
to keep our environment free of unnecessary and expensive noise
pollution. Thank you for your concern and for actually doing something
about this." Mr. Lightburn also read a letter received from Jill Harley -
Watkins, "Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on the phone
last week about your committee and thank you for your courage to fight
for our right to quiet enjoyment. As you've requested, Ive enclosed a
copy of the letter I wrote to the Daily Pilot. I'd appreciate being
apprised of your progress and any way that I can participate. P. S.
Please don't give up the fight."
Shirley Conger, Corona del Mar, AWG Board Member, presented a
petition to the City Council, which requests that the former Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro be turned over to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and that the FAA authorize Los Angeles
World Airports to operate it as a commercial airport. Ms. Conger stated
that without an airport at El Toro, the pressure from the airlines and
the traveling public will force John Wayne Airport to expand. She
stated that it will mean the destruction of residential neighborhoods
and Newport Beach's quality of life. Ms. Conger noted that the petition
can be signed by any elected official and will be sent to the Secretary of
the Navy, the FAA Director and the Mayor of Los Angeles.
Jim Hildreth, 120 The Grand Canal, resubmitted letters he provided to
the City Council on September 18, 2002. The letters are a part of the
public record and on file in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Hildreth also
provided a letter to City Manager Bludau requesting City records.
Mr. Hildreth stated that the records have to be there, that there is
evidence that they existed at one time, and that City policy requires
that these records be maintained. He stated that he wants to know
what happened to them. He, additionally, pointed out that if the City is
willing to do this to him, who else might they be doing it to. He stated
that the documents are a part of public record and, therefore, need to
be provided when requested.
Volume 55 - Page 412
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002 INDEX
• Mayor Ridgeway stated that Mr. Hildreth needs to accept the fact that
the City does not have the documents he is requesting.
L. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
• Status report — Ad Hoc General Plan Update Committee
(GPUC). Assistant City Manager Wood stated that at the GPUC
meeting of September 23, 2002, there was an update on the telephone
survey and a discussion about the agenda for the final public event,
which would be the Community Visioning Summit to be held on
November 16, 2002, at the Oasis Senior Center.
• Council Member Heffernan reported that the Telecommunications
Committee is working on an ordinance that will create a uniform policy
for dealing with right -of -way issues, such as those concerning wireless
telecommunications and Southern California Edison.
• Council Member Heffernan reported that the Finance Committee also
met, and is working on indexing and managing the leases that are
governed by the City. He stated that it is being handled by the
Administrative Services Department.
• Status report — Local Coastal Program Certification Committee
(no meeting held since the previous City Council meeting).
M. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND ORAL STATUS REPORT
19. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 19,
Planning
2002.
(68)
Assistant City Manager Wood stated that there were three items on the
agenda, and all three items were continued. She stated that the Design
Guidelines for Balboa Village was continued to October 17, 2002, to
give the Planning Commission more time to review the matter.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the Committee to Promote Revitalization
of Our Peninsula (PROP) would also be reviewing the matter at their
8:30 a.m. meeting on October 4, 2002.
Assistant City Manager Wood reported that the other two items on the
Planning Commission agenda were for variances for houses on small,
unusual lots. She stated that the Planning Commission asked for
design changes to both.
N. PUBLIC HEARINGS
20. EZ LUBE (PA2002 -034) — 3600 EAST COAST HIGHWAY —
PA2002.034
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
EZ Lube/
DENY A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN AUTOMOBILE
3600 E. Coast Hwy
LUBRICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 2,641 SQUARE
(68)
FOOT BUILDING WITH TWO SERVICE BAYS LOCATED IN
CORONA DEL MAR. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A
Volume 55 - Page 413
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
INDEX
REQUEST TO WAIVE THREE OF THE TEN SPACE OFF -
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT (contd. from 6125102 &
6/27/02).
City Clerk Harkless announced that the applicant has requested that
their appeal be withdrawn.
Council Member O'Neil stated that the applicant has done the right
thing by withdrawing their appeal.
21. FY 2001 -2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
CDBG
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
Consolidated
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER).
Annual
Performance and
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
Evaluation
Report (CAPER)
Hearing no testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
(67)
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg to approve the FY 2001 -2002
CAPER and direct staff to submit the document to all appropriate
parties.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
22. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CITIZEN
CDBG
PARTICIPATION PLAN (CPP).
Citizen
Participation
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
Plan (CPP)
(67)
Hearing no testimony, Mayor Ridgeway closed the public hearing.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Bromberg to approve the Citizen
Participation Plan.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
23. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -005 (PA2002 -161) BALBOA
PA2002 -161/
VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Code Amendment
2002 -005/
Mayor Ridgeway opened the public hearing.
Balboa Village
Volume 55 - Page 414
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
O.
Motion by Council Member O'Neil to continue the item to
October 22, 2002.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
25. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAFCO
ACTIONS ON CITY'S ANNEXATION APPLICATION OF EAST
SANTA ANA HEIGHTS, BAY KNOLLS AND THE EMERSON
TRACT AND ON LAFCO ACTIONS REGARDING WEST SANTA
ANA HEIGHTS.
City Manager Bludau stated that the Local Agency Formation
Commission ( LAFCO) conducted a hearing on September 16, 2002, to
consider the City's annexation of East Santa Ana Heights. He stated
that the item was approved, pending the petition process, and would be
effective on July 1, 2003. He stated that LAFCO also took action to
remove Bay Knolls from the City of Costa Mesa's sphere of influence
and include it with the annexation of East Santa Ana Heights on
July 1, 2003.
City Manager Bludau additionally reported that LAFCO discussed
several areas that have petitioned to be within the City of Newport
Beach's sphere of influence. LAFCO gave West Santa Ana Heights six
months to meet with the City regarding the issue, and made Santa Ana
Country Club and Mesa Drive a part of the City of Costa Mesa, pending
the protest process.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that he attended the meeting also and feels
there will be a successful petition by the Santa Ana Country Club and
the residents south of Mesa Drive. Additionally, Mayor Ridgeway
stated that the properties in West Santa Ana Heights that would be
within the boundaries of a runway extension at the John Wayne
Airport should be annexed into Newport Beach since the homeowners
would have a vote on the matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Bromberg stated that he is encouraged by the near-
completion of the annexation of East Santa Ana Heights, Bay Knolls
and the Emerson Tract.
Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Brombere to direct the City Manager to
undertake an analysis of service requirements for West Santa Ana
Heights and a revenue/cost analysis of such an annexation.
Volume 55 - Page 415
INDEX
Design Guidelines
(68)
East and West
Santa Ana Heights,
Bay Knolls, and
Emerson Tract
Annexations
(21)
City of Newport Beach
City Council Minutes
September 24, 2002
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
26. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVES TO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
COMMITTEE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE.
Motion by Mayor Ridgeway to confirm his appointment of Michael
Toerge to both the General Plan Update Committee and the LCP
Committee.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Bromberg, Adams, Proctor, Mayor
Ridgeway
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Glover
P. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — None.
Q. ADJOURNMENT — 10:17 P.M.
The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on September 18, 2002, at
3:45 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 September 20, 2002, at 3:30 p.m. on the City
Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
Administration Building.
Clerk
Recording Secretary
Mayor
Volume 55 - Page 416
INDEX
General Plan
Update Committee/
Local Coastal
Program Committee
(24)