Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/1999 - Adjourned Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • City Council Minutes Adjourned Regular Meeting January 30, 1999 - 8:00 a.m. ROLL CALL INDEX Present: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil Absent: None 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Mayor O Neil welcomed the staff, the Council and requested that the members of the community introduce themselves. He announced that the facilitator for the meeting is John Shannon, whose firm is handling the recruitment for the new city manager. 2. GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE OVERVIEW City Council/City Manager Form of Government John Shannon explained the Council/Manager form of government and how it has evolved in Newport Beach. He explained the history of the • Council/Manager form of government pointing out that it formed in the early 1900's and it is the predominant type of management for local government across the country. At the time it was formed it was a response to various types of political corruption that was occurring across the country and it was formed to create stability and a sense of integrity to government. The way that this form of government works with the City's Charter is that it places the full responsibility of the political leadership of the community on the Mayor,and the Council and it combines with that the expertise of the chief executive officer and a highly trained staff of professionals to implement the Council's policy and direction. The power under this model is centralized in the Council and in the Council acting as seven members. It provides the ultimate in responsiveness to the community in that the Council has the complete and direct control over the operations of the organization through the City Manager. He gave a comparison of this type of government to that which has directly elected chief administrative officers (i.e. county government). The Council's function under this arrangement as it is laid out in the Charter is to serve as the legislative body, to provide the vision for the community, to set the priorities and to hold the organization accountable for the achievement of the Council's priorities and objectives through the manager. The focus on this form of government is on the Council and if you do a parallel to the private sector, the Council functions as the board of directors and the manager functions as the president and chief executive officer. The manager function under this form and the way it is laid out in the City's Charter is consistent with the way it is done across the country. The manager is hired by the Council and can be removed by the Council at • their will, however there is a provision in the Charter that provides a 90 -day cooling off period after municipal elections. Under the City's Charter the City Manager is responsible for the budget and is responsible for the appointment and management of all staff except other Council appointed officials. The manager serves as the chief policy advisor to the Council and Volume 52 - Page 312 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • is responsible ultimately for carrying out Council's policy and providing complete and objective information to the Council so they can make the policy choices that need to be made. One other aspect of the job is that the manager becomes the person in day to day operations that is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the organization. There is a lot of talk about the role of the manager and policy and there is an old theory in local government that Council sets policy and the manager implements policy. The reality is that in most places they work as a team but there is a clear understanding in the area of policy that the manager can make recommendations, can provide advice, but ultimately the Council makes the policy choice and it is up to the manager to implement both the spirit as well as the specifics of that policy direction. In addition, in this forum there is a mayor and the mayor is selected by the Council Members and serves for a period of time. Generally the mayor serves as the political leader, will be viewed from the outside world as a focal point, presides at Council meetings, facilitates communication among Council Members and with the public, will take a lead role in assisting the Council in setting goals and priorities, is out front in promoting and defending the community and will frequently be a real focal point of intergovernmental relations. In addition, the City's Charter includes a non - interference provision that says if the Council's job is to make policy and the manager's job is to run the organization, then direction to the organization is to be given through the manager, but requests for information and interchange on those matters can be done across the departments directly by Council Members. The fundamental principle is • that if the manager is held accountable for running the organization then direction must be given through the manager. This is particularly important when there are issues of shifts in policy and reallocations of resources, etc. He said the City's Charter is well - written and is very clear about the Council and manager's roles and provides a framework in which to manage the organization. He noted that there are things that can disrupt this relationship. There are generally five things that can happen that can make this form of government less successful than it is capable of being. The first is the role reversal. The role reversal is where the Council becomes very focused on day to day administration and on solving fairly low level administrative problems and the staff sees a vacuum and moves into the policy setting role. It is very important that the organization is clear about how communication with staff will take place, how direction will be given to staff and how priorities will be readjusted or realigned. It is ultimately something that is based on the level of trust in the relationship among the Council Members and with the manager. One thing that can be very dangerous to the system is if there is any political involvement by the manager. If the manager gets in a role of counting votes, pooling coalitions of Council Members together to push an agenda or becomes a real advocate for an agenda that is running at cross purposes with the Council that will most certainly lead to a major disruption in the government. Another issue is unequal treatment of Council Members. If a manager and staff ever get into a situation where they provide different levels of information to individual Council Members, put a different spin on an issue to one Council Member versus another, and are not viewed as objective and even -handed • that will break down the trust and break down the ability of the organization to function. The last one to cause difficulty is the implementation of policy. There are two problems and the first is the Council's ability to be clear about what they want done and to be fairly specific with staff and staffs innate Volume 52 - Page 313 I` 1 ' City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • ability to interpret that policy and to implement it. The second one is if Council gives direction and they think they've given direction and it falls into what is called a "black hole" somewhere, which can be as disconcerting as anything to a group of elected officials. A variation on that is the implementation of the specifics but not the spirit of the recommendation. Conference Objectives Mr. Shannon explained that the Council is here to carry forth their major responsibility in the Charter, which is to provide policy direction to the staff and to provide the policy leadership to the community. He said he understands that the Council has a number of significant on -going issues that they want to be informed about by staff and in some cases will provide direction. Today staff is prepared to provide the Council with that information, respond to questions and take the Council's direction. There will also be an opportunity for each Council Member to express to staff what their priorities are in their districts so those can be taken and folded into the City's work program and can be addressed. In terms of the roles, Mr. Shannon explained that the meeting will be presided over and chaired by the Mayor and he will be available to assist with timing, etc. and also be available to record any major observations, findings or directions. Mayor O'Neil noted that this is a noticed public Council meeting and the Council can take official action. There may be votes taken on some items and other items may be referred to future study sessions. Some items may be referred back to the staff for additional information at either another City Council meeting or at a study session. 3. CTTYWIDE ISSUES Administration of Newport Beach Tidelands Mayor O'Neil explained that the administration of the tidelands has been a topic that the City has looked at recently, there is some feeling that the review of how the City administers the tidelands has not been updated and that it is time to look at how pier permits are issued, how leases are entered into with commercial establishments that use the public waterways, review some of the offshore mooring issues, whether or not the City is receiving appropriate value for the leases and permits and should there be a better way to enforce the permits. Fire and Marine Chief Tim Riley explained that this item is on the agenda to provide some direction to the staff on the issue of tidelands administration, and to clarify the task that they hope to achieve with the City Council at the February 22nd Study Session. In December a report was presented to Council to outline what tidelands are, what the City's activities are related to the tidelands, as well as some issues for consideration to assist staff with the management of this asset. As a result of that meeting Deputy Chief Tony Melum, Assistant to the City Manager Dave Mff, and he have worked • to try to determine what the issues are that the Council should take up at the February 22 -d study session, what the goals for this year are, and to give staff better direction on where to go with state tidelands. Through the use of a computerized presentation and included as part of the staff report, he Volume 52 - Page 314 INDEX City Council Goals/Priorities (33) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • explained that tidelands are tidal, submerged, and some filled lands owned by the State but held in trust by the City. In 1997 the Patterson map was redone, which identifies the boundary lines of all tidelands in the corporate limits of Newport Beach. The Beacon Bay Bill gives the City guidance as to what can be done with the state tidelands. The Bill says that these trust assets can be used for the purposes of general statewide interest, such as public wharves, docks, piers...; public beaches, marinas; and to preserve and maintain the natural state of the land for scientific study as open space, habitat for birds, marine life and scenic values. Today the City administers 21 different leases (i.e. Balboa Bay Club, American Legion, MarinaPark, Balboa Island Ferry); 66 commercial harbor permits; 1,200 annual permits for residential use of the tidelands; and 714 offshore and 484 onshore mooring permits. The things that need to be looked at are the way state tidelands are administered — is the City managing the tidelands in a manner which protects the general statewide interest? Another issue is equity — what's fair in terms of who pays what for using the tidelands? One of the concerns that has been addressed is how well is the condition of people's leases and/or permits monitored — can the City better inspect and monitor its leases and permits for user compliance? Another key issue — does the City's fee structure appropriately recapture the City's Tidelands current costs? The challenges are the future cost that the City may need to recapture — is the tidelands administration an appropriate way to do that? As a result of this, the staff has come up with some recommended tidelands goals. They are: 1) set new Council policies that describe what should be on a lease • versus what should be on a permit; 2) establish the manner in which lease rent and lease terms are set; 3) findings as to how the City fairly protects the general statewide interest of the trust; 4) clarify the issue of City tidelands staffing; and 5) development of a basic lease agreement. Council Member Debay addressed concerns and support for spot dredging. Director of Public Works said this would be investigated in more detail and noted that the City has not done an active dredging program in the Newport Island area or in the Newport Shores area. Chief Riley said that this year the staff plans to do a lower bay dredging study and explained the City's beach replenishment program and the need to expand that program. In response to Council Member Debay's question about city administration of the bay versus county administration, Chief Riley reported that staff has not actively looked at whether the City should control the Harbor Patrol functions. He explained that the Harbor Patrol is funded by County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Assessment District and minor portions of the County tidelands help pay for it as well. Council Member Debay said she would like to know the pros and cons of it. A member of the audience (name not given) noted that there was a time when the City had a budget for dredging hot spots in the area referred to and it was removed a long time ago. He said the residents would like to see a fixed amount from the federal, state and local governments to help take care of the bay. He said there are also residents that feel that the City would • do a better job of taking care of the harbor than the County. Council Member Ridgeway clarified that the tidelands administration refers to the lower bay and not the upper bay. He noted that a policy decision that Volume 52 - Page 315 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • needs to be determined is the MarinaPark issue. He said he has stated openly that he feels that MarinaPark should be interpreted as uplands and not tidelands. He said he thinks the City needs to make an even - handed policy decision from a business perspective on all of the tidelands and look at the economic returns to the City. Council Member Glover stated in reference to financing as it pertains to the larger marina areas, that the City of Long Beach has a program for leasing, and she believes the City should look at that. She said that it is in Newport Beach's best interest to keep the county, the state and the feds involved because there are millions of dollars involved in this process and they are the ones that help in the funding. She voiced a need for the City to settle the MarinaPark issue as soon as possible. Council Member Noyes questioned how the commercial and residential dock fees compare, as well as the County's fees vs. the City's fees. Chief Riley explained that the residential dock fees are based on a set dollar amount and not based on usage. Acting City Manager Danner explained that any surplus in the tidelands fund is transferred to the General Fund. City Attorney Burnham further noted that any surplus of tideland revenue over tideland expenses would go back to the State Lands Commission. Mr. Burnham explained that the Regional Water Board is currently considering the pathogen TMDL (total maximum daily loads) for pathogens that can make you sick. Depending upon what the Regional Board decides in terms • of the City's responsibility for monitoring the input into the bay from the storm drains and the input into the bay from vessel waste in the harbor, the City's costs could range from $15,000 per year to some larger number. The Regional Board is going to act on the 5t'' and before that time staff will meet with the Regional Board staff to try to find out what they expect the City to do if the Board takes the action that is anticipated. The City will have to retain someone to develop those plans and give the City cost estimates in order to come back to the City Council and advise what the costs will be. In most respects the costs will be at least shared with the County and in some respects the costs of the pathogen TMDL will be shared with other public entities. Chief Riley explained further the costs involved with the beach replenishment program, as well as eelgrass replacement programs. Mayor O'Neil said that the Council would receive more detailed information about fees at the study session and said he would be interested in finding out if the City ever has any excess revenues from tidelands. He said there needs to be an innovative review of how tidelands revenue might be spent — for example, if there is a roadway system that leads the public to the beach, is it appropriate to use tidelands funds to repair the roadways? He said he would be interested in knowing what leeway the City has in using these funds. If the City is going to be getting into more dredging and dealing with the contaminants in the bay and the waterway systems, the City will need additional sources of revenue and it is important to be up to date in the appraisal information on whether the City is receiving fair market value before the lease or permitting of the tideland areas. He said he would also • like staff to provide more detail on residential permits and the rights to use the tidelands and noted that there is a certain body of law that regulates that and he would like to have that available on the 22 ^d. Volume 52 - Page 316 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • Council Member Debay requested that staff make some calls prior to the meeting on February 22nd to find out what kind of source control there is for the watershed — who has the responsibility to check the different outflows in different areas so that if there is something harmful coming from a certain area that it can be tracked back? Jim Turner, 409 Bayside Drive, said he would be interested in knowing the ownership .of the channel in front of his house and who is responsible for dredging. Mayor O'Neil requested that staff provide a map on the 22.d showing where the City tidelands are, where the County tidelands are, and where the City has jurisdiction. Council Member Debay requested that the staff bring back information on where the feds are dredging in the lower bay. Steve Barrett said he feels there will never be a reserve. He addressed concerns with toxic sludge and the cost to remove it. He said the boaters are accused of dumping their waste in the bay, and he represented that he has never witnessed that in twenty years. He said he feels there are other ways to get increased revenues and use it directly for the bay. Charles Griffin said that living on the island he has had salmonella and addressed the duck problem and said it needs to be controlled. • Council Member Ridgeway noted that years ago there was a large pipe from the bay at 15th Street to the ocean to help facilitate flushing and also a pipe in the Newport Island area to the ocean to facilitate flushing. He asked that this be placed on a future agenda for review. General Services Director Dave Niederhaus announced that earlier this week staff was called to the Grand Jury of Orange County. The Grand Jury is studying the storm drain and run -off problems and will be issuing recommendations to all the cities. General Plan Update Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood stated that the idea of updating the General Plan originated at EQAC based on some frustration and concern with the number of General Plan Amendments that they are being asked to review in the environmental process. She noted that the Economic Development Committee has reached a similar conclusion and for them it started with some strategic planning and they feel there needs to be some comprehensive planning done even if it begins with the vision process. Referring to the outline provided as part of the staff report she noted that it contains the strengths and weaknesses of the General Plan as identified by staff, some approaches that can be taken to update it and how to fund that. Also listed are some questions for the Council's discussion. In summary, she explained that the existing General Plan is so specific that • there needs to be a number of amendments made. As staff, the Planning Commission and the Council look at the amendment requests there isn't very much big picture policy guidance to assist with evaluating the amendment requests. In practice, TPO and traffic have been the governing Volume 52 - Page 317 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 Q1 1 • factors and most of the time is spent on those issues. If there isn't a traffic problem then in all likelihood the amendment is approved and if there is a traffic problem it may not be approved or it is scaled back. As there are many amendments coming up, it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether that kind of a system should be used to evaluate changes to the General Plan or should there be some policy guidance on larger issues, such as how much intensity of development does the City want to have, and how much tourism related development does the City want to have, and does the City want to consider future development in terms of how services are paid for that are provided by the City. She noted that the report provided by Public Works on infrastructure states that in order to keep up with the infrastructure the City would need $6.5 million per year. If the City Council wants to proceed with a General Plan update of some kind there are a range of approaches that could be taken. She stated that the comprehensive update would cost between $500,000 - $600,000 and would take between 2 -3 years. She indicated that staff would favor an approach that focuses either on strategic questions or specific geographic areas where there is the most concern. Even doing that it is a big undertaking and that needs to be understood before proceeding since it will require a lot of time and outreach. If the approach is to do something more quickly with fewer resources and still also be valuable in addressing individual projects as they come through, perhaps some kind of visioning process would assist staff and Council as the projects come up. • In response to Mayor Pro Tern Thomson, Ms. Wood explained that the Housing Element is the only component of the General Plan that has an update requirement. The state requires that it be updated every five years, however it has been delayed because the state has not funded the number - crunching for the regional housing units. In answering questions on priorities, Ms. Wood said that the Housing Element has to be a priority because it is required and staff should be able to handle that without additional resources. She noted that on Friday a grant application was submitted requesting approximately $400,000 to assist with the harbor element. She said she thinks that most General Plan issues in the coastal zone can be addressed under this grant as well. She noted that staff is hearing from a lot of sectors that the interim TPO revisions are items that can go forward without the more comprehensive planning. Planning Director Patty Temple reported that she has been communicating with the Coastal Commission staff in San Francisco as the LCP grant application has been developed and specifically talked about the idea of a harbor element and interweaving it with a public access plan. It really addresses how the competing stakeholders for the harbor can be addressed in a comprehensive fashion and not just in the financial areas, but on what kind of uses occur in the harbor, how they are allocated, what level of intensity is allowed, how they interact with the uplands, and how the uplands provide support facilities such as parking, restrooms, trash facilities, etc. for all the uses in the bay. She noted that the Coastal • Commission staff member was extremely interested in the idea and stated that she was excited about the prospect because at no time has any agency ever suggested doing something of that nature absent a developer specific project submitted for approval. Volume 52 - Page 318 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 Ilo 1 • Council Member Adams asked for staffs thoughts regarding annexation and asked if the Council is going to consider a General Plan update or even updates in just certain elements and should that happen after or before annexation. Ms. Wood said that the greatest concern would be the time commitment of City Council and staff and whether there are enough people to work on both issues. She noted that Newport Coast is already addressed in the existing General Plan and she doesn't believe the City is talking about potential changes to the development pattern in that area, therefore she doesn't see that as an issue area to be addressed in an update. Council Member Adams noted that in addition to the cost for the consultants, the cost for staff time would be tremendous and would probably far exceed the cost for consulting time. Ms. Wood said that she too believes it would take a significant staff commitment and if this is to be pursued an employee would probably need to be added to the Planning staff at the Principal Planner level who could take care of the day to day things and free up the Planning Director to manage this project. Council Member Adams says he believes there is a perception from the • community that there is going to be some magic revelation that is going to come through a General Plan update in regard to circulation and land use. He said he thinks the City will be setting themselves for a huge disappointment if that is what the expectation is, because that won't happen. Right now, he said he thinks it makes more sense to take on the harbor element and incorporate that in the General Plan through the LCP process. He said it probably makes more sense to look at specific plans, particularly an airport area specific plan, in lieu of a comprehensive general plan update and maybe consider an updated Circulation Element. Ms. Wood said she has some concern with taking on geographic areas separate from one another. Council Member Adams noted that the land use areas that the City will probably want to look at are the airport area and maybe Newport Center and when that is done CEQA will require that the impacts on the entire City be looked at. He said he doesn't think it is right that traffic has become the only thing that is considered when making land use decisions. He said he thinks it is more a matter of policy and the way the Council disciplines themselves in looking at decisions that may need to be changed, however isn't sure that it necessitates a complete General Plan update. Council Member Ridgeway said he has been a proponent of a General Plan update, especially the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element. He concurred that the City has been a regulatory city and not a policy driven • city on the land use decisions and yet years ago an attempt was made to identify the airport as a commercial business center and it has been regulated highly because of traffic. He said he believes the piecemeal approach that is being used at the airport and Fashion Island needs to be Volume 52 - Page 319 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 IhI1 • dispensed with. He pointed out that as he has stated in the past he feels the TPO is out of sequence with the General Plan update or the two elements he referred to (Land Use and Circulation). He concurred that most of the community is largely built -out. He noted that the Bonita Canyon annexation has created an unintended consequence and that is a lot more traffic than was originally analyzed. He said that the Council needs to establish a larger policy for what needs to happen and in doing that, the residential and commercial interests can best be balanced in a broad policy statement, and a Master EIR needs to be created that gets supplemented if somebody wants to change it at a later date. Another side component of doing it that way is if the Council agrees from a policy perspective that there is a greater amount of square footage needed in the airport area and the quality of life can be maintained, then the City needs to look hard at a circulation system and perhaps redesign it and reestablish the fair share fees. He said he thinks the City is remiss if they don't proceed forward with .a General Plan amendment, albeit it Circulation and Land Use Element at this time. He said he thinks the City can focus geographically on the airport area, Newport Center, and probably Mariner's Mile. Referring to the TPO he said he feels it is inappropriate to have exempt intersections without having a complete General Plan update. Council Member Glover noted that all of the exempt intersections are in either Mariner's Mile or in the airport area. She said she feels the Council has too much on their plate to do the General Plan update and feels the • annexation is where the priority should be. She said it is important to have the new city manager on board before doing anything. She noted that she distributed her idea about a City visioning program which she feels should be implemented for the upcoming year and each of the Council Members should meet with their constituents to discuss it. She concurred that the City's projects are based on traffic and not what is best for the City. It was the consensus of the Council to table the General Plan update discussions for a couple of months until the new city manager is on board and the City Council can provide that person with specific direction about a visioning plan. While doing this, the TPO and LCP will continue to move through the process. Recess and Reconvene The Council took a brief recess at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. with all members present. Infrastructure Systems Update Mayor O'Neil announced that due to time constraints the infrastructure systems update will be postponed until a future study session. On the wastewater master plan, Council Member Debay asked whether staff has talked to the Orange County Sanitation District on what they are doing • with cities and the replacement of infrastructure. She said they are very concerned about the next twenty years and the capacity and don't want to have to build another outfall. She said they are willing to cut down on the infiltration and inflow in some of the older areas. Volume 52 - Page 320 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • Director of Public Works Don Webb stated that staff has submitted one application in conjunction with the Arches interchange project for the inflow and infiltration program. Staff also looked at the peninsula and did not find sufficient infiltration, however staff will be studying that and trying to pin down those sewers that would benefit most from that particular program and will be working with the County on it. Newport Coast Annexation Assistant to the City Manager Dave Kiff reminded everyone that the annexation is merely a proposal and the City has not taken any formal action to start the clock on an annexation of the Newport Coast. Since late 1997 a fiscal impact analysis has been completed, a staff report has been presented to the City Council on the land use entitlements, and staff spent four to five months meeting with a team of Newport Coast residents who appeared at the Council in late February of 1998. The talks ended in September when the coast residents asked for time off to conduct and review a fiscal impact analysis of coast cityhood. They completed their analysis, yet the City has not received a copy of it. In late 1998 the coast resident and master homeowners association president, Jim McGee, who was part of their negotiating team, contacted the City again and suggested the renewal of discussions. At the same time, representatives of the Pelican Point Development near Corona del Mar have inquired about a smaller annexation • prior to any larger action on the coast. Mr. Kiff said that from the City of Newport Beach's perspective this is a natural part of the City's growth since it is part of it's sphere. As far as why the City should annex the area, the City would gain "limited" control over some coast development. Some residential development does pay and it make fiscal sense to annex a residential area if the property evaluations are above a certain level. For the City of Newport Beach that is about $570,000 per parcel. Some of the reasons why the City shouldn't annex is that some residents have argued that all growth is not good and the coast community does not necessarily fit in with the City's communities, and the control gained is indeed limited. The City may be only able to process modifications of existing units. From the Newport Coast perspective, annexation would be attractive to them because of better law enforcement times, no more non- resident surcharges from the City so they would have unfettered access to the City's top quality services, and they could participate in the commissions and council. From their perspective the reason why not to proceed with annexation is they think there may be a better option (coast cityhood or remaining unincorporated). One of the issues that the City Council needs to address before annexation is entitlements. There are 4600 dwelling units entitled in the coast and there are 2150 resort units, 1800 of which can be privately owned or timeshares. As a condition of agreeing to the annexation, The Irvine Company has asked the City to enter into a development agreement to guarantee those entitlements. This is important because The Irvine Company, as a significant landowner, is required to give permission • and has a stake in the City's annexation. The second issue is TOT on timeshares. With the 1800 resort units proposed to be privately owned, the other 350 can be hotel rooms. In reviewing the data, staff has seen that about 30% of the other 1800 units would be placed into a nightly rental pool Volume 52 - Page 321 I h113 01:1 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • where TOT does apply. The larger question is can the City apply a TOT or a TOT in -lieu on current entitlements — probably not. Staff has looked at this issue in a number of ways and does not see an option for the City to go back and apply a TOT on these projects that are already entitled in the coast. He noted that there are five hotels in the area, one of which is under construction today. The third issue is building permits and inspections. The Irvine Company has asked that upon annexation they would be able to continue to process all the building inspections and permits through the County of Orange. A fourth issue is water and sewer service. IRWD is the current provider and arguably the City has the right to take over that water and sewer service both through LAFCO law and through two agreements that were drafted in 1972 and 1973. Those two agreements clearly show that the City can take over that service. It would involve a capital expense to fund it — possibly $6 million to hook up the City's pipes to the pipes that are there. The issue arises that IRWD customers pay lower rates than the City and that is because in the coast area their rates are subsidized by property taxes and commodity charges. When viewed separately the raw cost of water isn't much different. In light of these issues and the potential that the coast residents would oppose switching water services, last year the City Council directed staff to pursue a buyout of the City's 1972 and 1973 rights — in other words get some compensation for the agreements that the City entered into in 1972 and 1973. Another issue is refuse collection. The City's ordinance adopted in November of 1996 says that people who live within the City's boundaries as of November of 1996 can never pay for • residential curbside collection with anything but property taxes. It was silent on what the City can do in annexed areas. A brand new resident at One Ford Road and the Castaways gets their trash collected for free, but a brand new resident in Bonita Canyon pays for it. Waste Management today holds the collection contract in the coast and the City has to honor that agreement ,for five years after annexation. The decision for the Council would be does the City want to keep the trash service as is in the coast, should the City pay for it, which would mean ;paying Waste Management directly, or would the City pay for it after five years after notice is given on Waste Management's franchise and potentially have the City's forces take over the area. The next issue is Council districts. One "demand" by the coast negotiation team is that the coast be placed entirely in one Council district after annexation. He questioned whether this would be the best for them. The next issue is parks and parkways. The City included the cost of paying for the maintenance of the coast parks in the fiscal impact analysis. If the City pays for it the now private parks would become public and Coast residents are not certain that they want that. There has also been talk about keeping the parks private but allowing the Community Services staff to program the parks under an agreement with the master association. Another issue is slope maintenance, which is not in dispute now. The City needs to clearly delineate which slopes would be the City's maintenance responsibility for upkeep after annexation and which would remain with the master association. The next issue is the County tax sharing agreement. The County has committed to the City that it will use the master property tax sharing agreement should the City decide to complete the annexation, • which means that the City and the County would split the County share of the 1% levy. The master split is about 51% for the City and 49% for the County. The County has implied that the City could receive more of this split if the City is willing to include additional territories in the annexation. Volume 52 - Page 322 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • The County is interested in divesting itself of some of the 100's of unincorporated islands that it operates, like Santa Ana Heights. Based on the last review the properties in Santa Ana Heights did not make the annexation a net positive for the City. The County may be interested in formally sweetening the pot to include a higher share of the coast property taxes in exchange for the City's annexation of the Heights. He noted that staff has discussed making a similar adjustment for the County share of the property tax in the specific areas where the timeshares will be developed. Given that the County itself approved the timeshare entitlements, he said he believes the County should also provide the City with an incentive to take them in. This incentive may be a higher share of the basic levy from the property taxes in the timeshare area alone. The next issue is special tax relief, which is the second formal demand made by the coast resident negotiating team. They have demanded that the City find a way to reduce their property tax burden as a result of the annexation. A_coast resident today pays their 1% basic levy and on top of that they pay another $6700 in special taxes relating to their development (Assessment District 88 -1 and a Newport -Mesa Mello -Roos District). They have asked that the City return some of the surplus caused by the annexation back to the coast residents to reduce these special taxes. In late 1997 the City Council said it would not do so with the City's share of the property tax, but it left open the possibility of using the IRWD buy -out money. Finally the phasing of the annexation is an issue. There are a variety of alternatives — all of the coast could be annexed at once, all of the coast and Santa Ana Heights could be annexed if there • were an incentive to do so; a smaller annexation involving Pelican Point, the hotel sites, the golf course and Wishbone Hill; Pelican Point alone; or the City could process two annexations concurrently — one covering the populated area and one covering the unpopulated area; and finally the Council could take no action. He noted that the issue of phased annexation may call into question the status of the MOU with the Fire Authority. The MOU says that the property taxes and fire station shift to the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department upon annexation of the area that includes the station. A scenario may need to be negotiated where the station is not annexed in the first round but the City gets the appropriate property tax share in the area actually annexed. He stated that all of this depends upon the landowner, the coast residents and the Council's willingness to proceed with the annexation. He reminded the Council that the residents of Newport Beach are stakeholders, but not voters, so they rely on the City Council to make the best decision for the City. Mr. Kiff recommended that the Council form an ad hoc committee to meet with the coast residents and to set a sixty -day time limit on that discussion. Staff would be directed to complete the talks with The Irvine Company over the development agreement, complete the talks with IRWD and the Fire Authority, and negotiate a higher property tax with the County within the same time period. At the conclusion of sixty days move forward either with the full annexation if there is a sense of agreement from the coast negotiating team or a partial annexation of Pelican Point and possibly the golf courses, the hotel sites, and the Wishbone Hill area, with the prior • approval of the property owners and successful negotiations with The Irvine Company, the Fire Authority, IRWD and the County. In response to Council Member Adams' question about annexing Volume 52 - Page 323 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • geographical areas (populated vs. unpopulated areas) and the possible creation of islands, Mr. Mff said it would not create an island assuming Pelican Point is also annexed. He noted that I.AFCO law specifically says that you can't isolate an area on all four sides or an area bounded by the ocean. From a property owner vote standpoint, Mr. Mff said he feels there is less opposition to a partial annexation and it would also take the steam out of a possible cityhood proposal. He explained that the areas described in the 1972 and 1973 agreements with IRWD centers around the Pelican Hill area and the area immediately east of that and not the ridge. In response to Council Member Ridgeway, Mayor O'Neil explained that the County has a development agreement with The Irvine Company that allows The Irvine Company to develop the hotel sites with a certain percentage of timeshares. 83% of the resort hotel uses on the coast are allowed to be built as timeshares pursuant to the development agreement. Mr. Mff further explained that the County only has one hotel in it's unincorporated area that it receives TOT from so they see that as a negligible source of revenue. Mr. Kiff explained that the only TOT that the County would collect would be for those timeshares that the owners don't use for a particular day or week that goes into the nightly rental pool, which is about 30 %. He noted that there are five sites designated as hotels/timeshare units. Volume 52 - Page 324 110 1 Council Member Glover said she feels that doing these things in a sixty -day time period is rather optimistic. In response to questions raised by Council • Member Glover, Mr. Kiff clarified that if the area is annexed for 17% of the rooms the City would get TOT for every night they are rented. Mr. Burnham further clarified that the City would get all of the TOT revenue generated by that use once it is annexed, however the timeshares don't generate TOT like hotels do, but whatever use of those timeshares was covered by the City's TOT ordinance, the City would get all the revenue and the County wouldn't get any. Mr. Kiff pointed out that all of the timeshares that are unused have to be sent back to the management company and rented for nightly use and would be subject to TOT. Of the 2150 rooms, 1800 of those can be timeshares, so 350 rooms will always be in the TOT pool and then another 30% of the 1800 will also be in the TOT pool because they'll be unused timeshares. Mr. Burnham reported that the City's ordinance says that timeshare developments require a development agreement and the ordinance says that the development agreement will provide revenue essentially akin to or equal to what the City would receive if it were a hotel. He pointed out that since The Irvine Company and their successors have vested rights, it will be more difficult for the City to negotiate a development agreement that would be favorable to the City. Mr. Kiff said that in negotiating with The Irvine Company on the development agreement, they believe that imposing a TOT requirement or a TOT in -lieu would make the properties much less marketable to the hotel companies and they have said they are inclined not to agree to that. If Pelican Point were included in the annexation, it would become a voting and inhabited annexation, so The Irvine Company would represent a single voter, and, as a landowner voter, their single vote could not overturn the annexation. He clarified that if Pelican Point is added it becomes an inhabited and registered voter election . instead of a landowner voter election. Mr. Burnham pointed out that the property that is covered by the development agreement between the County and The Irvine Company comes to the City with those restrictions for at Volume 52 - Page 324 110 1 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 least eight years according to the Bergeson Bill. The City would have to abide by the terms and conditions of that development agreement for at least eight years and up to fifteen years depending upon certain terms and conditions. Mayor O'Neil pointed out that the financial projections for the annexation took into account that the City would not receive that TOT and the bottom line was that the City would still be on the plus side. Acting Finance Director Dick Kurth pointed out that in negotiating with the County the City might have good grounds to indicate that because of this TOT entitlement the City deserves a higher share of the property tax allocation. Council Member Noyes voiced concerns with the TOT issue and the use of City services and questioned the cost for the hotels to use the paramedic service. Chief Riley explained the cost to the hotels, and pointed out that it covers the non - insurance covered costs, however the City still goes after the insurance or medicare reimbursement. Council Member Noyes pointed out that Hawaii has just come up with a state bill that applies TOT to timeshares and it has a formula that is based on maintenance fees. Mr. Kiff pointed out that in state law there are two different classifications for timeshares. There is a timeshare estate which people literally own, which is what is proposed for the Newport Coast, and the state law explicitly prohibits the City from charging transient occupancy tax on a timeshare estate. Mr. Burnham reported that the attorney for the City of Anaheim has taken a position on the second category of timeshares where there isn't direct ownership that the City of Anaheim as a charter city, has the • authority to impose its own in -lieu TOT ordinance on that type of ownership. When there is a timeshare estate, an ownership of undivided portions of fee, there is additional property tax applied to that particular estate so each estate is taxed by the assessor and the appropriate jurisdiction receives their share of that revenue. Mayor O'Neil questioned whether the City can impose a timeshare tax, similar to a TOT, on users of a hotel without needing to amend the development agreement with The Irvine Company. Mr. Burnham affirmed that this could be. done. Council Member Noyes suggested that the Council appoint an ad hoc committee to review the TOT issues in the City. Mayor Pro Tern Thomson pointed out that the City receives property tax every time a unit is sold, so there is an offset against the TOT loss. In regard to the IRWD issues, Mayor Pro Tem Thomson said that if this area is going to be in the City, the City should be running the water and sewer systems and have control over it. The extra fees that are being paid now are not being kept in the City and are used by the IRWD in other areas that they serve. He said it is important to maintain the credibility of where the money goes and from whom. In order to do that the City needs to take it over and identify the specific bonds in Mello -Roos that are being paid for those areas. Mayor O'Neil said he believes it is appropriate to appoint an ad hoc committee to open up the negotiations again. He appointed Mayor Pro Tern Thomson, Council Member Ridgeway and Council Member Debay to serve on this ad hoc committee. • In response to Council Member Adams, Mr. Kiff said that I AFCO law is silent on how a timeshare vote is valued. He said they are called registered voter districts so he assumes that if they are a registered voter in their Volume 52 - Page 325 1 1 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX timeshare estate, then they could indeed vote, however his expectation is that owners will maintain their voter registration at their permanent address and not become registered voters in Newport Coast. Mr. Kiff clarified that The Irvine Company would have one vote for every parcel they own, however he doesn't think they would outweigh the number of votes from Pelican Point. He also stated that if Santa Ana Heights or Bay Knolls were added all of those votes are totaled and to pass it only requires a majority of the total voted. Motion by Council Member Ridgewav to have the new ad hoc committee meet with the coast residents and to set a ninety -day time limit on that discussion and to also include information for the Council on Santa Ana Heights. Staff was directed to complete the talks with The Irvine Company over the development agreement, complete the talks with IRWD and the Fire Authority, and to negotiate a higher property tax. with the County within the same time period. Charles Griffin said he looks to this area as a natural corridor that has been utilized to get to E1 Toro. He says there is a federal law that says that offshore oil has to provide funds to the federal government to acquire urban parks and that fund has now been utilized. He said the City needs to get that in order to acquire this property. He said there is recreational open - space that has been agreed upon, however it is not being deeded over to the County or the City and it would be appropriate to go after funds aggressively • to acquire the property as a natural park. He said the residents have been working for over ten years to save that space. Tom Hyans requested that the City lay out a Councilmanic district reorganization map assuming Banning, Pelican Point and the Newport Coast areas are annexed. Mayor Pro Tem Thomson reported that staff is currently determining the population centers around the entire City by association and by segmented areas, so the boundaries can be adjusted to more fairly represent a split of seven Council districts. Airport Issues Deputy City Manager Peggy Ducey reported that the City is at a critical juncture in the E1 Toro Re -use process — the final stretch of the master planning for El Toro airport, completion of the environmental review, three very strong airport supporters on the Board of Supervisors, and airport opponents have not been able to be victorious on any of the major battles they have wagered and over the last two weeks have drastically changed their direction on the issue of the Millennium Plan. Staff is now seeing some concrete results from the work that has been done over the past year to broaden the support base outside of Newport Beach and that is shown in the coming together of the Orange County Airport Alliance that includes the airport proponents. There has also been success in bringing cities on board with OCRAA — the City of Tustin is scheduled to vote on Monday and there are a number of other cities considering placing it on their agendas within . the next two months. Where the City is today is a very different situation than a year ago and today staff needs direction from the City Council as to where to go from here. The draft report distributed to Council was developed between Mr. Burnham and herself as a result of the discussions Volume 52 - Page 326 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 FITUITRN • that happened at the study session a week earlier. She said it was evident to both of them that the Council needed a better understanding of the Orange County Alliance, how it would be structured and how it was anticipated that funds would be used. Staff put that information together for the Council strictly based on best -guess estimates because ultimately the Board of Directors of the Alliance will be deciding on budget, staffing, etc., therefore she cautioned everyone that these proposals have not been seen by the Board of Directors and she can't commit any of this for them. The- structure of the Alliance will have a Board of Directors made up of four to five key people that are involved in this organization. The reason for the number is to have a small streamlined board that can make decisions quickly, won't have a problem getting a quorum, and will operate efficiently and effectively. The Board of Directors will set oversight and policy and make financial decisions for the Alliance as a whole. Coordinating with that Board of Directors and structurally underneath the Board, is an executive committee that is made up of various sectors of the County that have not in the past been tapped through the airport issue. There are commitments from three people at this point — a south county former elected official, a female Tustin business owner and a Santa Ana School Board president, and hopefully a labor representative and a commercial airline pilot will be added to the group. The executive committee would act as an advisory board to the Board of Directors on overall or general policy decisions, but the Board of Directors would be the organization that sets policy. In terms of roles, it is envisioned that the Alliance will operate at two different levels. At one level it would • operate as a separate organization that would publish mailers under its own name, sponsor the website, sponsor the video, but also under the Alliance, activities of each individual organization would be coordinated. Staffing has not been determined since the Board has not discussed that, however Hill and Knowlton have been working with the board, as well as staff. She said she would expect that staff of each of the individual organizations would be involved as well. As far as her status and how she would dovetail with the Allhance, she indicated that that question has to go through two separate bodies. The City Council would need to determine if they want her to continue with the Alliance and then the Alliance Board of Directors would have to want her to continue with them. She said staff recommends that the Council appoint one of its members as a member to the Orange County Airport Alliance, that $350,000 in matching funds be committed to the Alliance, the concept of direct funding of the Airport Working Group be approved pending a detailed program plan and then formation of a Council ad hoc committee to review the status of consultants, as well as other terms and conditions for funding and return to the City Council with recommendations. Council Member Adams said he thinks the Council needs to decide whether the City wants to offer up either a half of a full -time equivalent (FTE) or a quarter full -time equivalent or some staffing help to the Alliance. The assignment itself should be up to the City Manager since the Council only hires the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Clerk and it isn't the Council's job to be hiring somebody to assign to the Alliance. Council Member Ridgeway concurred and stated that the City Council is not the best repository for personnel decisions, although they can give some direction. He said he feels there is a larger issue with the Alliance and that Volume 52 - Page 327 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • is one of oversight and accountability. The City will be making a large investment in this organization and by definition will not have oversight and accountability, however it would be incumbent if the City moves forward to at least have reasonable expectations of the Alliance and where they are headed. Those expectations need to be spelled out since the City may be making a substantial contribution of money to this group. Council Member Glover pointed out that this is only one facet of the airport strategy. She voiced concerns about focusing on only one group since the City has worked with other groups and had great success with them. She concurred with Council Member Adams about the staffing issues and said it in inappropriate for a staff person to lobby her for a job because the only people that report directly to the City Council are the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Clerk. Council Member Adams stated that he would be supportive of Ms. Ducey if the City decides to have her as that person. Mr. Burnham stated that assuming that the Council wants to go forward and participate with the Alliance, it is important for those representatives to express to the Alliance the City's expectations and a primary expectation is that the Alliance focus its efforts in those segments of the population and organizations where other pro airport groups, such as CJ &E (Citizens for Jobs and the Economy) have not traditionally been active or for political or • other reasons have some difficulty in generating support. He said that he has heard, though not first -hand, that CJ &E is not opposed to the concept of the Alliance, however there is some concern that the Alliance would engage in activities similar to those that CJ &E might engage in or that the Alliance may tap resources that CJ &E might otherwise attempt to tap. That is why it is important for the Alliance to focus its activities on areas that would not interfere with or impede CJ &E in doing what it may believe is appropriate. Mayor O'Neil concurred with Council Member Glover that the Alliance is part of the group of pro - airport entities that are important, but it won't take the place of AWG, CJ &E, Orange County Business Council, or any of the other pro - airport organizations. He said he believes the City would be able to fund the Alliance, as well as fund efforts on the part of AWG or the Orange County Business Council, if the Council saw fit. He concurred that it is not appropriate for the City to be funding the activities of organizations without some kind of oversight, therefore the City will need to have some kind of board membership, approval authority of how the money is going to be spent, or maybe the money would be phased over to them. He noted that staffs recommendation is that an ad hoc committee be formed to find out how to deal with the consultant team the City currently has in place who should probably now be retained by the Alliance, the office space and the equipment, etc. He said he thinks the concept of an Alliance is good because it takes Newport Beach out of the forefront since it is a regional issue. He also said that Ms. Ducey's role also needs to be defined, whether it is still related to the airport, or in another role. He noted that the Council needs to • discuss the settlement agreement with John Wayne, since it is a local issue and one that will be more significant as it gets closer to the December 31, 2005 expiration date. Volume 52 - Page 328 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • Council Member Adams said he thinks that if the City joins the Alliance and has a member on board, that that member should come back to the Council with a request for funding after that member has a formal position on the board and understands the budget and the vision, etc. With regard to the City's expectations, he asked whether there is a written memorandum of understanding with the Alliance, or a formal contract or written document with them that provides the expectations in writing. Mr. Burnham explained that the City will need to adopt a resolution designating one of the Council Members as the person to sit on the Board. He said at this time no formal documents exist, however it would be appropriate for staff to direct a motion that would include the City's expectations, as well as make the appointment. Mayor Pro Tem. Thomson voiced concern about; having fourteen or fifteen cities involved and having 4 -7 members on the executive board and questioned how that would be fair to the cities not involved. He also noted that the Alliance would not be focusing on John Wayne and the Council needs to redirect and refocus its own efforts on keeping the cap on John Wayne. Ms. Ducey explained that initially staff envisioned that the airport authority would become the strong advocate for the airport, but also acknowledged the need to increase the membership from the eight cities that have been • involved for a long period of time to a more broad based support. The organization has evolved and will fulfill a different role than what was initially envisioned as a strong advocate. The focus was to create a truly pro - airport organization that could go out and take the hard - hitting actions that have been advocated for. Only the City of Anaheim and the City of Los Alamitos will be represented on the Board. OCRAA, as the membership is expanded, will become a vehicle where accurate information can be reviewed and disseminated to those cities through their own communication channels. She said she sees two very different roles. One is the very strong advocacy role that the Council has always advocated for, and the other is accurate information, which points to an airport at El Toro as the best use. Council Member Glover said she feels the pro - airport movement is maturing and has matured beyond Newport Beach and therefore it would be an appropriate time to let the region take the leadership on this issue and for the City to do their part along with the north county allies or people who have the same sentiments. She said the point has been reached where the City can now feel more comfortable with the rest of the County taking the leadership role in this and the City can on parallel tracks be involved in the regional movement for E1 Toro, but also be working on the John Wayne settlement. She spoke in support of the City doing whatever can be done to further regional involvement with the City being one of many players. Regarding the settlement agreement, Mr. Burnham stated that he has three assumptions that are the premise of the John Wayne settlement agreement . extension proposal. Those assumptions are: 1) it is a backup plan if there is no commercial aviation re -use at E1 Toro — if there is a fatal flaw with El Toro then this would be ready or if for some reason El Toro is not converted; 2) the efforts relative to the John Wayne Airport settlement agreement Volume 52 - Page 329 E • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 n � � extension would compliment the City's efforts and the efforts of the Alliance relative to El Toro — it wouldn't conflict with it; and 3) it has to be recognized that there is some reluctance on the part of the County to enter into any hard negotiations at this point in time regarding the settlement agreement extension while they are looking at the alternative of serving a substantial portion of the air cargo and air passenger demand at El Toro. After considerable discussion about the approaches to use to negotiate with the County and the County's stance on this, Mr. Burnham stated that there is no settlement agreement extension that can be put in concrete and the only way to really insure that there isn't an expansion of John Wayne Airport is a commercial aviation re -use at El Toro. A settlement agreement extension is a good level of protection in the event that doesn't occur, however it isn't guaranteed. Whatever any airport community or proprietor does, as was seen in 1990, is subject to federal action. Congress passed the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA) which prohibits, without FAA approval, noise or access restrictions on stage 3 aircraft and the settlement agreement is both a noise and an access restriction on stage 3 aircraft, which is the only type of aircraft that operate at JWA. The County and the City fought very hard to grandfather the settlement agreement from the impact of ANCA and one of the issues that is being discussed with special airport counsel for the County, is does the City have to take a settlement agreement extension to the FAA and if so, what standards would the FAA apply in looking at that agreement. He noted that in the past when the City has worked on settlement agreement issues it has been Newport Beach and the County and what he has heard from a number of Council Members and the community is that it would be a good thing if in pursuing an extension of the settlement agreement, other communities that are impacted by JWA were brought in and AWG used as a vehicle for dealing with community organizations in those communities (Tustin, Orange, Villa Park, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa). Instead of the settlement agreement issue being just a Newport Beach issue it is broadened to include the entire JWA corridor. He said that given the fact that the City has been in a very cooperative mode with the County on aviation issues over the years, this is a good time to at least initiate discussions with County personnel about how a settlement agreement extension might work so that the groundwork is laid for a decision to do that, if the need arises. Council Member Noyes spoke in support of taking a very aggressive stance on the airport settlement agreement. Mr. Burnham said that in his mind he has always used 2001 as the date on which some good foundation for a settlement agreement extension needs to be laid, because that is the point at which the County absent El Toro would start looking at master planning John Wayne Airport. Once that master plan process is underway, it would be more difficult to accomplish what the City wants. The City of Irvine would be a community the City would approach on a settlement agreement extension partly because there is the potential if there is an expanded JWA that it would impact the City of Irvine more than El Toro would impact them. Mayor O'Neil appointed Council Member Glover as the Chair of the Aviation Committee, Council Member Adams as the representative to OCRAA, and • himself as the representative to the Measure A Citizens Advisory Committee, as an ad hoc committee to meet with appropriate staff to determine how the City proceeds with the consultants, the office space and those types of issues, based on the assumption that the City participates in Volume 52 - Page 330 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • the Alliance. Motion by Council Member Adams to approve the City's participation in the Alliance and to direct staff to draft a resolution for the formal appointment of the City's representative to the Alliance that would include the City's expectations of the Alliance and the understanding of the City's participation. Charles Griffin stated that oversight needs to be provided not only in promoting the airport, but also in what is being promoted — the design. He spoke in support of a modern airport that complies with the FAA regulations of widely separated, maybe non - parallel runways. He said that perhaps the consultants are not necessarily sensitive to the impacts on south county. In order to be consistent with these groups, it is necessary to provide an airport that they can also support. Mr. Burnham reported that he met with Mr. Griffin and he answered a lot of the questions about his alternative plan and he intends to speak with special counsel in the program office to make sure they are taking a very hard look at Mr. Griffin's suggestions. Without objection, the motion carried. 4. LUNCH BREAK • The Council recessed for lunch at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 12:30 p.m. with all members present. 5. DISTRICT GOALS District 7 Mayor Pro Tem Thomson identified and explained the following goals for District 7: • The San Joaquin Reservoir — MWD and IRWD's desire to convert the reservoir into a reservoir for recycled water and the need to have it aerated if this is done. He said the City needs to work on a deal to have them install water lines to the adjacent community associations for the greenbelts and City parks in that area. • Commuter traffic in Corona del Mar — There is a need to work on signage consistent with Caltrans normal signage indicating a free bypass road. He addressed concerns with the speed of cars on San Joaquin, as well as the volume of traffic. • High intensity lights for crosswalks near schools and parks, such as corner of Crown and San Joaquin. • Pump noise emanating from Big Canyon Reservoir. • Noise mitigation issue on MacArthur Road. Volume 52 - Page 331 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • Creation of a central park in area behind the library. • District 6 Mayor O'Neil identified and explained the following goals for District 6: • Preferential residential parking in old Corona del Mar. • Little Corona Tidelands. • Replacement of ficus trees along Pacific Coast Highway with King Palms and Hong Kong orchids. • The Corona del Mar Residents Association developed a list of issues to be considered by Council, however it will be brought back at some time in the future. He said there are concerns regarding signs and also noted that at one time the City had a landscape architect on staff, which could benefit the City. • District 5 Council Member Noyes identified and explained the following goals for District 5: • • Finish retrofit of the Balboa Island Bridge, including the construction of the additional walkways. • Reconstruction of the public restroom at the Balboa Island side of the ferry landing. • Formally request The Irvine Company to advise the City on the future buildout plans for Newport Center. Motion by Council Member Noyes to write a letter to The Irvine Company requesting that they advise the City of their plans at a future study session. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. • Create an ad hoc committee to look at TOT /timeshare uses in the City. Mayor O'Neil said this should be put on a future agenda with a resolution to establish the committee and the assignment of the committee members. • District 4 Council Member Adams identified and explained the following goals for District 4: • John Wayne Settlement Agreement. • Back Bay issues — long term dredging cycle and funding. • Resolution of the treated water outfall issue in the Back Bay. Volume 52 - Page 332 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX • Examination of the appropriateness of a specific plan for the airport area. As far as smaller and more specific issues, Council Member Adams identified and explained the following: • Closure on the Bison/Jamboree traffic issues. • High school traffic issue — status of the free right turn lane project. • Outstanding lighting issues at the Fletcher Jones dealership. A future issue that may come before Council is the possibility of the dealership constructing an auxiliary parking lot under the freeway and also getting entitlement for their planned restaurant. He also addressed the proposed landscaping issues and reaching closure and completion on that issue. • A uniform guide signage program in the City with decorative signs in specific areas. • Regular reporting from City Council members that serve on committees. is e District 3 Council Member Glover identified and explained the following goals for District 3: • Underground all utilities. • Plant more trees and stop destruction of trees. • Address traffic from downtown Costa Mesa. • Support the Environmental Nature Center. • Keep Castaways Park as a natural park. • Mariners Mile (adopt design framework, get median grassed, and keep clean with trash pick -up on sidewalks). • Begin flag program on bridges. • Start Balboa Bay Club project. • Develop Horwin property. • Develop Ardell property. • • Community Center or meeting rooms for the community. Volume 52 - Paige 333 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 • District 2 Council Member Debay identified and explained the following goals for District 2: • Undergrounding project for West Newport along Seashore and around the Lido Sands area • Caltrans West Park (Sunset Ridge). • 19�h Street bridge. • Quality of life issues in beach areas. • Commercial strip on West Coast Highway. • Taylor Woodrow development — annexation issue. • Automated trash system in West Newport. • Streetscape — visioning of undergrounding of wires, street end projects, etc. • Spot dredging in back areas — clean up water quality. • Re- energize community policing program. • District 1 Council Member Ridgeway identified and explained the following goals for District 1: • Balboa Village Area — Incentives for rezoning of properties, city participation in facade improvements, upgrading of Balboa Boulevard from Main to Adams (interlock pavers — CDBG). • Cannery Village — Revisit zoning of PC text (more single family residential). • Lido Marina Village — Marina authority, hotel — TOT rebate to entice hotel — city driven or developer driven, city participation of city owned land. • Marina Park — Encourage uplands designation and residential use. • General Plan Update — Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Housing Element — Affordable. • Outdoor dining permits (conditions regarding food and alcohol on • city owned property). , • Policy on skateboard parks. Volume 52 • Page 334 1100) WN • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 leases vs. permits and Newport Bay as part of General Plan). Policy on TOT for 30 days of occupancy. Balboa Peninsula signs. James Turner questioned when the Balboa Island bridge retrofit program would be complete. He was informed that it is scheduled to be done by the first of June. Nancy Gardner explained the function of the Newport Bay Watershed Management Bay Committee. Jan Vandersloot addressed issues regarding city beautification (landscaping, undergrounding of utilities), park in open space above Newport Village, establishment of parking on the peninsula, annealing the upper bay area, CIOSA negotiations being carried out re: Newport Knoll, and active involvement in the Orange Coast River Park. Phil Bettencourt informed the Council that the Building Industry Association and the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce can be used as resources for issues such as TOT and Corona del Mar parking issues. • Val Skoro, Corona del Mar Residents Association and Irvine Terrace Homeowners Association, reported that their #1 priority is beautification. A big area of concern is the signs in the City. Other priorities are aesthetics (ugly building designs), the possibility of hiring a landscape architect and the requirement for landscaping when new businesses are built, and the redesign of upper bayview (the land at the corner of Jamboree and Coast Highway) to make it a focal point in the City. Tom Hyans addressed the General Plan issue and said that the land use element needs to be updated and the basis for CIOSA needs to be updated. Charles Griffin spoke in support of undergrounding utilities on Balboa Island and voiced concerns with the utility lines that cross the tennis courts in Irvine Terrace Park as well as the high voltage wires on MacArthur Boulevard. —1:55 p.m. Volume 52 - Page 335 INDEX • • • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 30, 1999 INDEX The agenda for the Adjourned Regular Meeting was posted on January 26, 1999, at 5:18 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ayoi-h, 7r). b6-0,_ Recording Secretary t 4 , Mayor City Clerk NIL Volume 52 - Page 336