Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1997 - Regular MeetingCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Regular Meeting May 12, 1997 - 7:00 p.m. INDEX CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 u.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PRESENTED - None RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. FOR REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL Present: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance - Council Member O Neil. Invocation by Reverend Dr. Richard Todd, St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. • Recognized Zoning Code Committee and City staff for outstanding work on the Zoning Code Re- Write. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards to waive reading of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 28, 1997, approve as written and order filed; and waive reading of the Ordinances and Resolutions under consideration and direct the City Clerk to read by titles only. Louise Fundenberg, 808 W. Balboa Blvd., requested that the minutes be clarified on page 215 where it references that CDBG funds are available for economic development purposes on the Peninsula because it qualifies as a target area. Council Member Hedges explained that if the Council didn't discuss the specifics of what was intended by "target" area then the minutes cannot be changed, however it can be clarified during the community outreach program. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Assistant City Manager Wood explained that "target" area is defined in the federal regulations that govern the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. • It is based on the income of residents in the area. Staff has reviewed the census information for the peninsula and determined that A does meet the federal requirements. She invited Mrs. Fundenberg or other interested parties to come to the Planning Department to review the map that defines the area. Volume 51 - Page 227 • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 I_I D►. MATTERS WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION. ACTION OR REPORT (NON- Council Member O'Neil announced that the 16th Annual Corona del Mar Scenic 5K Run and 2 Mile Fun Walk will be held on Saturday, June 7, 1997. • Council Member Thomson requested that staff have the Public Safety Committee review the information on crossing guards provided by the Police Department and come back to Council with recommendations. • Mayor Pro Tem Edwards requested that staff bring a report back to Council at the earliest possible time regarding the traffic concerns at 22nd Street and Santiago Drive, including the re- routing of traffic by the City of Costa Mesa. • Mayor Pro Tem Edwards requested that staff bring back an update at the May 27, 1997 meeting on the Back Bay dredging issues. • Council Member Hedges requested that through the Public Safety Committee a policy be drafted establishing procedures related to the rules and dissemination of information regarding sex offenders under Megan's law. • • Council Member Noyes announced that the Celebrate Balboa Island Parade will be held on Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 11:00 a.m. • Council Member Noyes read portions of a report on the pollution in Newport Bay prepared by Peter Belden, a student, and thanked him for bringing this matter to the attention of the other students. • Council Member Hedges announced that the Friends of the Library will be having a book sale on Saturday, May 17, 1997. He said the Friends have requested donations of books, which may be dropped off at any of the library branches. • Mayor Debay announced the current vacancies on the Boards/Commissions. She noted that the deadline for applying is 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 1997. Nominations will be made at the Council meeting of June 9, 1997 and appointments made at the meeting of June 23, 1997. • Mayor Debay reported on the activities held at an Arbor Day Celebration at Anderson School and acknowledged and thanked the principal and students. • Mayor Debay presented a framed copy of the International Water Polo poster, reported that she attended the tournament and commented on the caliber of athletes in attendance. • Mayor Debay reported that there was a pedestrian accident involving a child at Newport Elementary, therefore a meeting will be scheduled with the Traffic Affairs Committee to discuss the incident. Volume 51 - Page 228 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • • Assistant City Manager Wood introduced the new Building Director Jay Elbettar. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Removed from Consent Calendar. 2. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 97 -19 AMENDING SECTIONS 7.04.100, 7.08.010, 7.08.040, 7.12.010, 7.15.010, AND 7.16.050 OF TITLE 7 OF THE NBMC PERTAINING TO ANIMAL REPORTS AND PERMITS (DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOG REGULATIONS, WILD ANIMAL PERMIT PROCESS, SHELTER AGREEMENT). APPROVE REVISED SHELTER AGREEMENT WITH DR. BRUCE C. BAUERSFELD, D.V.M., WHICH INCLUDES A CAP ON FEES WHICH MAY BE DEEMED REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE AGREEMENT. 3. Removed from Consent Calendar. • 4. Removed from Consent Calendar. 5. Removed from Consent Calendar. 6. Removed from Consent Calendar. MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS 7. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR MAY 8, 1997. 8. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -042) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,770 TO FUND THE CAREER INFORMATION CENTER. 9. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -044) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,000 TO SUPPLEMENT A BUFFALO IM LS PARK TOT LOT REPLACEMENT PROJECT. 10. APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -045) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 FROM THE SURFBOARD RESERVE DESIGNATION TO ACCOUNT 4330 -8200 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING FIVE (5) NEW SURFBOARDS TO SUPPORT • THE RECREATIONAL SURFING CLASSES. 11. Removed from Consent Calendar. Volume 51 - Page 229 INDEX Ord 97 -19 Animal Control (70) Animal Control/ Dover Shores Pet Care Center/ Bauersfeld C -2854 (38) Planning (68) BA -042 (40) BA -044 (40) BA -045 (40) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 I 1 s/Y 12. 1997 -1998 PROPOSED BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION LIMIT 1 1997 -98 HEARINGS. Set Public Hearing for June 9, 1997 and City Council Study Budget Session for June 2, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. (40) S21. Removed from Consent Calendar. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM EDWARDS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS REMOVED (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 & S21). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR, 1. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 97 -18 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.50, SECTIONS 5.50.025 B.6 AND 5.50.050 B.16 OF THE NBMC RELATING TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. City Attorney Burnham explained that this item involves amendments to • the City's massage establishment ordinance. He stated that one of the amendments clarifies who is permitted beyond the front lobby of a massage establishment and the second relates to the responsibility of on -duty operators or managers for the activities of either employees or independent contractors. He explained that Council Member Thomson commented that the middle sentence of paragraph 6 on page 5 could cloud the status of an employee or independent contractor. He said he concurs, therefore staff is proposing that the ordinance be amended to delete that sentence, which reads as follows: "All person(s) found working in the massage establishment shall be considered employees of the massage operator permit holder, including independent contractors." He said he doesn't believe that particular sentence is necessary to achieve the objective of the amendment. The second comment made by Council Member Thomson relates to paragraph 4 on page 5. This section requires that a massage technician holding a valid permit for a particular establishment be on premises whenever that establishment is open. He said he hasn't had an opportunity to discuss this particular provision with the Chief of Police and the Vice Officer of the Intelligence Section, however he has committed to Council Member Thomson that staff will evaluate the section and either bring back amendments to City Council to clarify the concerns or advise that staff believes that paragraph cannot be eliminated without impeding a portion of the ordinance. Motion by Council Member Thomson to introduce Ordinance No. 97 -18, • amended as noted. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Volume 51 - Page 230 Ord 97 -18 Business License/ Massage (27) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • Ayes: O Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 3. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 97- REGARDING USES OF THE OFF - STREET PARKING FUND. City Manager Murphy explained that Item #11 is a budget amendment which appropriates money for the creation of a comprehensive parking management plan for the Peninsula. He reported that initially staff believed that a change would be necessary to the off - street parking fund municipal code section to allow the money to be spent, however after consulting with the City Attorney's office it was determined that the Council could operate under the existing municipal code section to utilize these funds. Based on the attorney's opinion the code amendment is not needed, therefore he requested that this item be removed from the calendar. William Fundenberg, 808 W. Balboa Blvd., asked what is the normal purpose and use of the off - street parking fund, what are the limitations on the use of money from the fund, and was Item #3 connected to Item #11. • City Manager Murphy explained that the primary use of that fund over the years has been to acquire additional parking facilities as per Section 12.44.025 of the municipal code. Martha Durkee, Box 3353, Newport Beach, voiced concerns with having a man from Texas devise a plan that will greatly enhance his personal property at the expense of the Newport Beach residents and property owners. She said that people will be put out of business because of roads and expansion of sidewalks. She noted that based upon descriptions given by Mr. Kranzley on January 30, 1997, it appears that there won't be any parking on Balboa Blvd., there will be wide sidewalks inviting the tourists to come into the residential areas, the landscaping will go 15 feet into the plots which will render some properties useless, and there will be "pollution- free" shuttles to transport people to off - street parking areas off the Peninsula. Council Member Hedges took issue to Mrs. Durkee's characterization of the committee that wrote the Project 2000 report and the motivations which she assigned to the people, most of whom reside and own property in the area. Regarding the parking issues, he noted that a lot of people rent out their garages for purposes other than parking. Code enforcement will be beefed up as part of this project to ferret out the parking issues so there will be places to park in garages. He pointed out that Mr. Duda lives here by choice and volunteered for the position. The process was thought to be at most a 90 -day project, however it dragged on for nearly two years, partly because of • the outside consultant hired by the City and partly because of the public outreach meetings, etc. He pointed out that everything that has been done has been done in the public. Volume 51 - Page 231 INDEX Planning (68) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 INDEX Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards to remove this item from the calendar. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 4. AGREEMENT FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BALBOA THEATER Balboa Theater (contd. from 4114/97 & 4/28/97). Retrofit JWC, Inc. City Manager Murphy explained that this item has been on two previous C -3102 (38) agendas and is an agreement for the seismic retrofit of the Balboa Theater. A supplemental report was provided to deal with some of the issues related to inspections that took place in the past and some of the reasons why staff has recommended this action. He reported that Council Member Hedges believes there are still some legal issues related to the seismic work and some of the comments and claims by the current property owner and for that reason he has requested that this item be pulled from consideration and scheduled for discussion in Closed Session at the next meeting. Motion by Council Member Hedges to remove this item from consideration • and direct staff to schedule it for discussion during the Closed Session meeting of May 27, 1997. Council Member Glover asked for clarification on why this item has been on the agenda three times and now is being referred to closed session. She said that to her it has been pretty self evident about what has occurred. She said she talked to the City Attorney about this over a year ago, realizing that the problems that are outlined should have been addressed at that time. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards expressed concern regarding the control of the seismic retrofit and how the funds will be controlled. City Manager Murphy said that these issues are addressed in the contract and it stipulates that evidence of work be submitted to the City prior to the release of funds. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 5. AGREEMENT TO BECOME A PARTICIPATING AGENCY WITH THE Orange County • ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH CARE AGENCY TO IMPLEME NT Certified Unified SPECIFIC PROGRAMS UNDER THE CERTIFIED UNIFIED Program Agency Volume 51 - Page 232 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 INDEX C -2531 (38) City Manager Murphy explained that this agreement is related to the City's follow -up to a new state law known as the Certified Unified Program Agency. The City of Newport and the cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa attempted to respond with a joint agency in terms of hazardous materials issues and the California Environmental Protection Agency rejected the application and approved a competing application which was submitted by the County of Orange for all the cities in the County. As a consequence of that action and the loss of the appeal of that decision, staff is returning with an agreement between the County and the City to implement the action of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Council Member Hedges reiterated that the action tonight is to authorize the City of Newport Beach's participation in the Orange County agency, and questioned how this would differ from the County administered CUPA. Mr. Murphy responded that it does not differ and it basically implements what the County would like to do and approved by the California EPA. Council Member Hedges asked whether the Cotu ty's administration of the CUPA will cost more money. • Fire Chief Riley said that it was the contention of the four agencies that applied as a joint powers authority to implement the CUPA that some of the duplication of administration that occurs at the County level could be reduced. This would result in savings being passed on to the customer. Additionally, a part of the entire program allows the State to pass on a related surcharge for the administration of this program, which would be an additional cost to everyone who participates in the hazardous materials program. Ultimately there will be a higher cost to the business person in Newport Beach than what there would have been under the joint proposal. In general the state law was designed to incorporate six different hazardous materials programs into a single program that would be administered by one master agency. That was done to streamline the administration process, by having a single permit system, a single fee system and a single inspection system. He said it is their contention that the County administered program will cost more. He explained that the City's application identified what the fees would be, however the County's application to the State did not identify what the total scope of the fees would be, so it can't be quantified because it was not included as part of the application. One of the points of the law is that a fee accountability program has to be developed. He said that staff believes that users will have to go to Santa Ana to comply with the hazardous material laws, however it has not been determined yet. The law requires that a coordinated effort has to be attained so there should be remote sites. He explained that there are two major components of the program - hazardous waste permit generators and underground storage tank permitting. Those programs have always been very high profile programs • for the County and have generated a significant amount of revenue into the Health Care Agency. By maintaining total control throughout the entire County, they maintain the control of those programs. If the City would have Volume 51 - Page 233 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • been successful in the CUPA application, control of those programs would have been taken over within the jurisdictions. He said he believes there was a strong sense that this would have resulted in a significant revenue loss to the County. He said staff believes the jurisdictions could have administered the program more efficiently. He explained that there was the initial process and an appeal process, and the application was denied at both places. He explained that California EPA had the final decision, however a separate appeals board was established to hear the appeals. He said there were 58 cities throughout the State that applied as CUPA and only 8 were approved. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards questioned what would happen if the Council does not approve the agreement. Mr. Riley explained that if the City does not enter into an agreement as a participating agency then effective at the end of this year the County would assume control of all the programs. Those components are the hazardous materials disclosure program and the hazardous materials risk management prevention program. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to approve the participating agency agreement with the Orange County Health Care Agency and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. • The motion carried by the following roll calif vote: Ayes: O Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 6. NEWPORT PIER AND BALBOA PIER REPAIR (CONTRACT NO. 3093) AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT (BA -043) IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Edwards to approve the plans and specifications; award Contract No. 3093 to John S. Meek Company, Inc., for the total price of $127,340 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract; establish a 10% construction contingency in the amount of $12,000; and authorize a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $48,000 from the Balboa Island Bayfront Repair, Account No. 7011 - 05100314 to the Newport/Balboa Piers Repairs, Account No. 7011- C5100153. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None • Absent: None Abstain: None Volume 51 - Page 234 INDEX Newport/Balboa Piers Repair C -3093 (38) BA -043 (40) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 11. INDEX BA -046 (40) $125,000 FOR CREATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PENINSM A. City Manager Murphy explained that one of the directions to staff at the last meeting was to return with a budget amendment to undertake the parking management plan. The study will include review of all of the parking meters, sign regulations, street sweeping regulations, City -owned parking lots, availability of parking, etc. The goal will be to put all the information together in a comprehensive package that makes sense and that works to achieve the goals of helping to make the Peninsula a better place for both the residents and the businesses. The budget amendment authorizes staff to proceed with the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP), circulate the RFP and come back to the Council to award the contract. Council Member Noyes pointed out that if the City Council approves the budget amendment the first step will be the preparation of a scope of work and request for proposals (RFP), which will be presented to the Council for review and approval before being circulated to consultant firms. After circulating the RFP and reviewing the proposals received, staff will recommend a consultant for Council approval. Before the consultant starts work on the plan, there will be a public meeting for interested parties to discuss their questions, concerns and needs with staff and the consultant. • Another public meeting will be held when the draft plan is available to receive input and make adjustments before the plan is presented to the City Council for approval. Council Member Glover said that she believes there will be more than one meeting once the draft plan is available. Motion by Council Member O'Neil to approve Budget Amendment (BA -046) appropriating $125,000 for the creation of a comprehensive parking management plan for the Peninsula. William Fundenberg, 808 W. Balboa Blvd., said he is concerned that the outreach program as read by Council Member Noyes be followed and concurred that this might take more than one meeting. He asked how the residents would be advised of these meetings and also questioned whether the City would actually start spending the money during the current fiscal year. Mr. Murphy explained that no work has been done yet. First the RFP has to be developed and brought back to Council for review, and then it will be circulated to qualified companies, and then the contract will be awarded. He reiterated that Council made their intent for the community outreach meetings clear at the last meeting. He said that intent is reiterated in this staff report and the outreach will be done specifically on each step. He explained that it is unlikely, however possible, that funds will actually be • spent during this fiscal year, however this year's budget is being amended in anticipation of the possibility of awarding the contract before the end of the fiscal year. Volume 51 - Page 235 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 Tom Hyans, President, Central Newport Beach Community Association, distributed a handout to Council regarding the Association's petition for capital projects for budget funding from 21st Street to Main Street. He voiced concern about the confusion regarding the proposed outreach program and said he hopes the outreach program is an extension of the workshops held by the BPPAC participants. He said the real issues need to be discussed at the outreach level, and it is not apparent that this will happen. Assistant City Manager Wood explained that the program that the Council approved at the meeting of April 28, 1997, included three components: 1) the brochure which is to be mailed to all of the residential addresses in the City and all of the commercial addresses on the Peninsula and followed up by a community meeting; 2) to advise community groups in the City of the Council's discussion at the last meeting, the financing plan, and to make available a speaker's bureau to those groups; and 3) project specific meetings as is outlined in the report tonight on the parking management plan. Mr. Hyans pointed out that there are four phases to completing the corrections to Balboa Boulevard between 21st Street and G Street between now and the year 2000. He said there are a lot of things happening on the Peninsula and they see an $8 million program that could put a stop to some of the things that are going on. • Council Member Hedges explained that this is the first in hopefully a long series of commitments by the City Council to undertake serious study and resolution of long -time and long - standing issues on the Peninsula. He said that in 1990 parking on the Peninsula was identified as a major problem and this budget amendment is intended to fund a comprehensive study of parking issues, including resident and guest parking, bus parking, and parking fees. In response to Council Member Glover, Mr. Murphy explained that the BPPAC committee is scheduled to sunset on June 30, 1997. The committee concurs with that sunset date, however they would like to stay involved informally through the public outreach process. Council Member Glover said she thinks it is important that at the beginning of each of the public outreach meetings that BPPAC and Project 2000 be explained. She said that the City will probably spend about $8 million on the Peninsula. She said she would give anything to get some of that money for her District since it is also a commercial area. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None • Absent: None Abstain: None Volume 51 - Page 236 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 S21. REGULATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS E (Requested by Council Member Glover). City Manager Murphy reported that this item is related to the regulation of telecommunications equipment and is in response to questions raised at the last meeting by Council Member Glover and others about what the City is permitted to do and what it is not permitted to do with regard to regulations. He said that the recommended action is to refer this issue to the Planning Commission and staff for consideration of code amendments to regulate the telecommunications equipment and bring the City up to the latest enforcement standards which would be allowed under federal and state law. Steve Stafford, 3250 Broad Street, questioned why the City doesn't regulate some of the things that can be regulated, such as equipment boxes for the underground utilities. He said the boxes are set on the sidewalk and they can be required as part of the construction project to be set back against the building. Motion by Council Member Glover to refer this item to the Planning Commission and staff for consideration of a possible code amendment to regulate telecommunications equipment. The motion carried by the following roll call. vote: • Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DISTRICT NO. 14 (NEWPORT BOULEVARD FROM 32ND STREET NORTHERLY TO NORTH OF THE ARCHES BRIDGE). Public Works Director Webb distributed pictures of the power poles that will be undergrounded as part of the Edison Company's Rule in Case 8209 (20A funding). The Edison Company has in the past, and will at least for another year, set aside money that allows them to underground facilities adjacent to major arterials and very public places. Staff became aware of additional funding that was not anticipated in conjunction with the Newport Boulevard Widening Project. He said an application was made to Edison and they felt it could be done, therefore this District is being set up. This will underground the power poles from roughly Coast :Highway to 32nd Street on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard. The Edison Company will pay for • the undergrounding and will pay for up to 100 feet of conduit to each private service. However, each property owner will have to actually make the connection from the conduit up to their service point, which could cost up to Volume 51 - Page 237 Q 1 cations Equipment Regulations (68) Underground Utilities Dist #14 Res 97 -38 (89) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • $500. A public meeting was held and all residents and business owners were invited and only two people attended. At that time, no one had any comments. In response to Council Member Glover, Mr. Webb reported that 37 residential and 16 commercial properties will be involved in this project. He explained that this project will be different than the undergrounding project that took place between Dover and the Balboa Bay Club because the work will be done in a public alley and the public right -of -way adjacent to Newport Boulevard in conjunction with a road widening project. Mayor Debay opened the public hearing. Frances Bury, 106 Via Undine, said she thought that an assessment district had to be formed to underground the utility poles and the property owners had to pay for it. City Manager Murphy explained that this is a different program, a Rule 20A program, which is established by the Edison Company. It is available for large arterial highways. This funding mechanism program has been used recently on MacArthur Boulevard and on Pacific Coast Highway and is not available for use in residential areas. Inasmuch as the City is doing the Arches Bridge replacement, this is an opportunity to do the work at this time rather than coming back at a later date. As indicated by Council Member Glover, these monies might not be available in the future. • Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Debay closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Hedges to adopt Resolution No 97 -38 establishing Underground Utilities District 14. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, -Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 14. RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE TO ADVANCE NEWPORT CENTER ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES (NCEO) (Requested by Council Member Noyes). City Manager Murphy explained that this item is on the calendar based on a reconsideration motion offered by Council Member Noyes that passed unanimously at the last meeting. The action on the agenda is to reaffirm the recommendations of the Newport Center Economic Opportunity Committee and to direct staff to solicit proposals for technical and environmental • analyses of the plan which will be paid for by The Irvine Company. Council Member Noyes explained that he asked for this to be brought back Volume 51 - Page 238 0 1 ' Committee to Advance Newport Center (NCEO) (24168) u City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 QP 1 because Council Members Hedges and Glover were absent from the meeting when this was discussed. He said he thinks it is important that they be given an opportunity to make comments and hopefully it will be their desire to get involved with this and be pro- active. He said he would like everybody to have a comment and to know that there is some solidarity on the Council to look towards the future and do this type of thing. Motion by Council Member Hedges to reaffirm -the recommendations of the NCEO Committee to accept the conceptual development plan for Newport Center and direct staff to solicit proposals for technical and environmental analyses of the plan. Council Member Thomson said he wants everyone to understand that this process begins now, there will be no secret meetings or secret agendas, everything is on the table, and it will take a long time to process through this. He said he is in favor of this and he wants it to happen, but he wants it to be the best thing for all of Newport. Mayor Debay explained that the Economic Development Committee (EDC) has been working for several years to find ways that the City revenue can be enhanced without raising taxes and penalizing the residents. She said the City looks at Fashion Island and Newport Center as a revenue center that brings dollars into the General Fund and supports the City. She explained • that Council Member O'Neil brought this issue to the Council, and an ad hoc committee consisting of herself, and Council Members O'Neil and Noyes, was formed to study this issue. Council Member Glover said she disagrees with Council Member Noyes about the need for solidarity and noted that there are two schools of thought on this. One is that you need a seven member vote on everything and the other is that some people should be asking questions. She said she thought this issue was raised when the Council set their goals for the upcoming year. At that time Council said they wanted to look at all of The Irvine Company's holdings. She noted that eleven years ago Measure A, which dealt with the build -out of Newport Center, was soundly defeated. She questioned how much retail area The Irvine Company is entitled to at this time. Mrs. Wood responded that they are entitled to approximately 280,000 square feet. She said that some of the pressure that has been put on is that if The Irvine Company isn't given this retail footage they can't be competitive, however she said she feels they did a very good job of being competitive on Bloomingdale's. She said she believes people in Newport find it very hard to buy "big packages," such as BPPAC. She said her reticence on this is that the City is now facing BPPAC, the annexation of downcoast, and MacArthur has just been redone, etc. She cautioned the negotiators to go slow and think about MacArthur Boulevard. She said she doesn't want to impact MacArthur and she is concerned that the City has lowered the level of that road and taken away some of the viewing area. She said she thinks quality of life is what the people in Newport Beach want: more than anything else. • She urged the committee to think about everything else that the residents have been asked to accept, as well as the timefram.e. Volume 51 - Page 239 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 1 • Council Member O Neil said that there is some perception or concern that this process will be moved along at a rate that is inappropriate. He said that the way he looks at it, this process will take as long as it takes. The plan that has been proposed is a conceptual plan that was developed for the sole reason of having something to model off of as far as trip generations, financial considerations, and environmental concerns. He said it is his intent, as well as the committee's, to come back from time to time as the studies go forward with periodic reports to the Council in order to get further direction. At the same time meetings will be held with the community and other business groups to get their input. He said he believes it is prudent for the Council to look at a center which is the major commercial and retail area in the City to make sure that it continues to be a vital center. He said he and the committee perceive this as something good for the City. He said right now the committee feels it is important to have a conceptual plan and hire professionals to look at some of the issues involving traffic, financing and the environment. He explained that the consultants will be hired by the City, however will be paid for by The Irvine Company. The City has the right as the land use authority in the area to plan for the property. He assured the Council that the committee will take their time and will report back to Council. Council Member Hedges stated that if Balboa Peninsula had undergone this same kind of planning effort that is being contemplated for Fashion Island • then the City would not be undergoing the pain, suspicion, and alleged questioned motivations of some of the people involved. This is the kind of pro- active planning effort that needs to be done. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards spoke in support of the program. He said that for all the concerns that have been voiced about what may or may not come out of this is more reason as to why long range planning should be done. He said that it seems where the City gets into problems with the citizens in terms of impacts, etc., is when it doesn't do long -range planning. He said he thinks it is time to look to the future of Newport Beach. He said that part of the reason this group was put together was for long -range planning, but also to see what the City can realize out of the long range planning. He said all of the concerns such as downcoast, the traffic corridor and MacArthur are all issues that are going to have to be dealt with. The only way to deal with them is by planning and bringing into the picture what is drawing the people at this time, which is Newport Center. Council Member Noyes stated that Council Member Glover's point about going slowly is well taken, however a key component that hasn't been mentioned is that this is a real opportunity for the public to get involved in the planning process of their own City. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor •Noes: None Absent: None Volume 51 - Page 240 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • Abstain: None CURRENT BUSINESS 15. NEWPORT BOULEVARD AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY " ARCHES" INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS (CONTRACT NO. 2886) - INCENTIVES FOR EARLY COMPLETION. Public Works Director Webb explained that the report explains the two options that staff considered regarding incentives. The project is currently set up for a 17 -month period or 350 working clays. Staff feels that is an appropriate time length for the project to be done and to be able to protect things like traffic during peak hours, not working; on holidays and weekends, and with a minimized amount of night work. However, if the Council wishes to consider incentives there are two that staff feel could be considered. One option would be to pick a date when the Council would like to see the project work completed and then get a bid from the contractors on how much it would cost to have it completed by that date. The current schedule has construction starting in September of 1997 with completion in March of 1999. If the Council wishes to pick an earlier date, he suggested that it be selected in order to have the project completed prior to the second holiday season or in late November or early December of 1998, which would shorten the project by about 100 days, and could potentially cost between $1 -$1.5 • million more. He reiterated that this is purely a guess and staff doesn't have any real knowledge of what the actual cost would be. He explained that currently the contract has a liquidated damages clause which provides for a $1,000 per day penalty if the contractor doesn't complete the work on time. Usually if you want to increase that penalty, you would offer a bonus to go along with it. Therefore, the second option that could be offered as an incentive would be to offer a penalty/bonus plan of perhaps $5,000 per working day for early completion or a $5,000 penalty if it isn't completed on time. He said staff would recommend that if an incentive is selected that it be the incentive /disincentive plan with some sort of maximum ($200,000 - $300,000). He explained that the City used the bonus /penalty plan on the Riverside Avenue project in front of the post office, which was a much smaller project. In that particular instance, the contractor got about a $10,000 bonus based on a $1,000 per day bonus plan. Motion by Council Member Glover to add an incentive /disincentive clause providing a $5,000 per working day bonus/penalty for completing the project before or after the 350 working day completion date with a cap of $300,000. She commented on the number of meetings that staff has held and their attempt to reach out to the public and her disappointment on the low number of businesses that participated in the meetings. Council Member Thomson said that he brought this up because this project will create a major disruption to traffic on the Peninsula. He said it is his understanding that there is two months of rain delay already built into the • contract. If it doesn't rain at all the City would end up paying money that shouldn't be paid. He requested that staff make sure the City isn't penalized if there aren't rain delays if the incentive /disincentive plan is approved. Volume 51 - Page 241 INDEX Newport Blvd/ PCH Arches Interchange C -2886 (38) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 INDEX Public Works Director Webb pointed out that in the report staff has estimated rain delays and changed conditions of roughly two months. If it doesn't rain those will not be part of the contract and the contractor would not be given rain delays unless they actually occur. He stated that it is not normal construction practice to penalize a contractor for the rain delay. City Attorney Burnham said he believes what Council Member Thomson is saying is that the added consideration given to the contractor would apply if they truly met the expedited timeframe and we would not count rain delays or force majeure events in that period of time. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Edwards' question about the advisability of this, Mr. Burnham stated that a contractor may have some reticence if the City follows Council Member Thomson's approach since the contractor will be giving the same bid that he would give if force majeure events did count. It may cause contractors some concern if they don't get the benefit of good weather in order to meet or exceed the completion date. He said he doesn't believe the alternative bidding process will complicate the construction process or create legal issues. Council Member Hedges said he had a discussion earlier with Mr. Webb on the issue of incentives. He said he would like to let the bids go out and have • an individual contractors bid on how much the job will cost and how quickly they can do it and let those be components of the bid, however on Public Works projects the City has to take the lowest responsible bidder. He said by using the time element as part of the bid it can be challenged in the award process and the City may be subject to allegations of favoritism or collusion. He said that issue makes the first alternative of having the contractor provide a bid alternative proposal which would compensate the contractor for shortening the construction by a specified number of days the better option. He said the City needs to establish what having the project done early is worth to the community. He said it is his understanding that two lanes in each direction are to be open at all times over the bridge as they are now during weekends and holidays and one lane at other times. The incentive would possibly get the project done two months earlier at best and questioned whether it is really worth $300,000, which is a policy call and value judgment the Council needs to make. Mayor Debay clarified that in the freeway situation it was a matter of having the freeway open or not open and also noted that it is not in the best interest of a contractor to draw out a job any longer than necessary. Council Member Glover voiced concerns over the impact that this type of project will have on the small businesses and their potential for loss of revenue. She concurred with Council Member Hedges that the City needs to weigh the numbers and do what is in the best interests of the City, however she believes it would be worth $300,000 to get the project done earlier. • Mayor Pro Tern Edwards said that part of the problem is that contractors overbid on the 350 days to protect themselves on the disincentives. Then you Volume 51 - Page 242 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • have not only a potential increase of the $200,000- $300,000, but an overbid so it ends up costing potentially more than the $200,000 4300,000. He said he would rather see an actual proposal to determine whether or not he is willing to go forward with it. Public Works Director Webb explained that the contract needs to be awarded by June 23, 1997. Right now the City is advertising for bids and if this incentive is added to the contract it will be accomplished through an addendum. If the Council wants to include it in the contract it must be acted on tonight. Substitute motion by Council Member Hedges to add a bid alternative to the proposal to compensate the contractor for shortening the construction period by a specified number of days with completion of the project within 350 (base bid), 330, 310 and 290 working days. The Council discussed the process and procedures to be used. Mr. Webb explained that the City will put together a base bid which is to complete the project within 350 working days and there would be three alternative options to complete the project in 330, 310 and 290 working days. If the project is not completed by the day shown there would be a $1,000 per day penalty applied. • Responding to concerns raised by Council, City Attorney Burnham explained that the Council will make the decision about which alternative to accept and in so doing, will make the decision as to who is the lowest responsible bidder. The Council will not be involved in any confusion over who is the lowest bidder because first the alternative will be selected and then it becomes an administerial job to identify the lowest responsible bidder. He said there was a recent decision regarding the bidding of alternatives by the City of Pasadena and the court determined that the alternatives can be bid, however there has to be a process in place so the Council doesn't know which firm is the lowest responsible bidder for that alternative. The alternatives cannot be used as a way to decide which contractor will be selected. Council Member Glover reiterated her concern for the small business owner and explained that she is uncomfortable with the process, therefore won't support the motion. The substitute motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: Glover Absent: None Abstain: None iZ 0 16. INFORMATION REPORT ON AUTOMATIC FAX DISTRIBUTION I Automatic Fax SERVICES (Requested by Council Member Hedges). Service (40) • City Clerk Harkless explained that this report was requested by Council Member Hedges slid noted that two alternatives have been outlined in the Volume 51 - Page 243 • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 10 0` staff report. One alternative would be to use the NewsOnDemand system provided by Business Wire, whose basic service is to get news to the media. The service would be free to the caller and the cost to the City would be 40 cents per minute for incoming calls and outgoing fax requests. This service requires that the City pay an annual membership fee of $100. Based on some supplemental information received today, she reported that the cost to transmit approximately 60 faxes per day could :run as high as $1600 -$1700 per month based on the average time to transmit a fax. The other system provided by Tele- Works, has two main components. The first is the Automated Citizens Information System (ACIS) which includes a fax on demand system and a phone -in service. The fax system can be purchased as a stand -alone system for $14,000 or it can be purchased as part of the complete system at a cost of $18,950 with an additional $5,000 for an additional five lines. The phone in system is an extra component outside of the scope of what Council Member Hedges asked for. This system has been used in 200 cities across the nation and ten cities in California are using it and it was most recently approved by Huntington. Beach. Council Member Hedges reported that this is part of the effort to enhance public accessibility to information. He said that according to some late information he received from the City Clerk, fax machines are quite common. Most people have telephones, less have fax machines and even • fewer have computers and can access the Internet for information. He said this is part of his attempt to increase public accessibility, however he feels it would be premature to add either option to an unfunded or supplemental priorities list and would be appropriate for a committee to review this and make a recommendation. Motion by Council Member Hedges to refer this matter to the Finance Committee for further review and study. Council Member Noyes said that the City has a. problem now with people calling the Marine Department and asking for tourist information. He said there is a proposal in the City to provide a line in order to connect those requests into the Visitors and Convention Bureau. He said a lot of staff time could be saved by being able to transfer these calls. City Manager Murphy said that staff has looked at a voice system that can be regularly updated and offered to check into this. In response to Mayor Debay's concerns about timing with the budget, he indicated that he didn't feel there would be a problem to add it to the supplemental items for consideration in July or August. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay • Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None Volume 51 - Page 244 • • L J City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 17. CITY OF IRVINE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT WITH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. City Manager Murphy reported that several meetings ago the Council discussed Planning Area 26(A) with regard to the City of Irvine. Coincident with that discussion by the City of Irvine and the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) there has been a consideration of realigning the boundaries between the two cities as the corridor has opened. He asked that the Council take several actions and to give direction on the proposal from the City of Irvine and from LAFCO. Referring to an aerial map, Assistant to the City Manager Ducey pointed out the areas under discussion. She explained that initially what the City of Irvine came to LAFCO for was to detach areas that are currently within their municipal boundary and have the areas go back to the County of Orange and then annex other areas on the other side of the corridor and make them part of the City of Irvine. At the time LAFCO knew that the City of Newport Beach was considering annexing Newport Coast and suggested they add as part of this reorganization an adjustment to the sphere of influence. If ultimately the City of Newport Beach decides to pursue annexation of Newport Coast this area must be within the City's sphere of influence. The action that the City of Irvine is proposing before LAFCO and what staff is asking authorization for is to approve and ultimately detach from the City of Irvine an area which would go into County unincorporated area. The entire area south of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor would then come into Newport Beach's sphere of influence. This does not require that the City annex the Newport Coast but it sets the stage for that to happen. The recommended action is: 1) approve this adjustment in the sphere of influence; 2) authorize the Mayor to write a letter to LAFCO indicating that support; and 3) to continue to study Planning Area 26(A), Bonita Village, in terms of how that will impact the City and possibilities of how the City might be able to make this work better for the City. She reported that this was originally reviewed by the Legislative Committee in November of 1996. Motion by Council Member Glover to: 1) approve the sphere of influence and detachment changes suggested by the City of Irvine in Planning Areas 26(B & C), 27 & 28; 2) authorize the Mayor to forward a letter to LAFCO supporting the changes; and 3) direct the Legislative Committee to study Planning Area 26(A) and report back to the City Council. Council Member Hedges clarified that Planning Area 26(A) is currently in the City of Irvine and currently in the Irvine School District and the City of Irvine has a Council policy which states that the boundaries shall coincide. Mayor Debay reported that she heard that there is an area that abuts Tustin that is in the City of Irvine but is in the Tustin School District, so that exception has been made. City Manager Murphy reported that Planning Area 26(B) is also in the Irvine Unified School District and has been proposed by the City of Irvine to Volume 51 - Page 245 1 1 Annexation/Sphere of Influence (2 1) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • be placed into the County unincorporated area and into the Newport Beach sphere of influence such that in the future part of the Irvine Unified School District would potentially become part of the City of Newport Beach. This again is inconsistent with their policy. In response to Council Member Hedges, Ms. Ducey explained that this was initially reviewed by LAFCO in April and it is scheduled to go back to them in June. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the Bonita Village area is entitled for 2100 residential units, however the property owner has proposed developing 1300 units. Council Member Hedges voiced concern about agreeing to a partial package. He said that if the City proceeds on part of it, then the ability to discuss the rest of it will be lost. He spoke in support of this being approached as an all or none package. Substitute motion by Council Member Hedges to continue discussions with the City of Irvine, reference all of the planning areas and those components, 26(A), (B), and (C), 27 and 28 and try to come to a logical resolution on using the corridor as the natural boundary. • Council Member Thomson stated that he has no interest in pursuing annexation of that area unless and until the entire Council can be convinced that it is good monetarily for the City of Newport Beach. He said that in this area there will be 1300 high density homes, a small commercial area and perhaps a school, which may impact the traffic patterns in this area. He spoke in support of delaying this until some maps of the street areas can be provided and to allow more time to review it and see what kind of impact it will have on the City. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards said that if the City goes along with at least some of the changes then the City will have some input in regard to what ultimately may occur. He said the Council needs to be mindful that this area will impact the City whether or not the Council decides to bring it in under the sphere of influence or through annexation, etc. He pointed out that under the guidelines of the Newport Mesa Unified School District, the parents of the students in that area can petition to come to the Newport Schools regardless of what decision is made. He said he doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have some impact and address concerns related to density, housing, etc. Carol Hoffman, The Irvine Company, explained that in this instance The Irvine Company has a very small subdivision that crosses two boundary lines and is an extension of Newport Ridge. She said they had approval in the County for a subdivision but because of the land forms itself it extended beyond the County boundary and went into the City of Irvine. In trying to • process a plan that was going through two jurisdictions, it became apparent that this was the time to clarify the boundaries. She said The Irvine Company and LAFCO felt that there were two very distinct situations. The Volume 51 - Page 246 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • first is an adjustment of a sphere boundary and. by adjusting that boundary back into the County, then The Irvine Company could finish that one tract map in County jurisdiction without really complicating the City of Newport in terms of any commitment they would make to annexing at this time. It would be a jurisdictional issue that could be resolved very simply. In contrast to that all of the approvals have been given for Planning Area 26(A) and development there is proceeding. She said that it was The Irvine Company's feeling that the way the staff wrote the report it acknowledged or clarified two issues: 1) that the sphere of influence and detachment areas are one issue as viewed by LAFCO; and 2) the potential annexation or other way that Newport might want to look at 26(A) was very different. Therefore if the Council approves the sphere of influence and detachment occurs, it clarifies a boundary in an area where development isn't occurring right now, except for in a small portion of it. Then the City can look more carefully, clearly and comprehensibly where development is immediate, ongoing and more adjacent to the residences of Newport Beach. She said The Irvine Company's request would be that the recommendation forwarded by the staff be approved and that Council recognize the difference between the two actions. She said they would be happy to work with the City in the analyses that would be necessary on the larger area of 26(A). Ms. Hoffman reported that there will be approximately 100 units in the subdivision referenced earlier and through detachment will be in the County unincorporated area and in the sphere of influence of Newport Beach. • Council Member Glover stated the importance of Council Member Thomson's involvement in this process. In response to delaying this, Ms. Hoffman expressed The Irvine Company's desire to cooperate with the City the best they can. She said it would be an inconvenience in terms of the timing of the processing of the map. Also, she said she can't guarantee what LAFCO's timing is and they may in fact merely take action to allow the property to come out of the City of Irvine and not be placed in any sphere. She said she thinks that is what would happen with regard to the area east of Planning Area 26(A). Mr. Murphy said that if the Council wants more time to look at this, another appropriate action would be to direct a letter to LAFCO and the City of Irvine indicating the Council's action and to let the City of Irvine know that Newport Beach is interested in talking about 26(A.) and the long term issues, as well as all of the other areas. He reiterated the importance of letting the other public bodies know where the City stands. He pointed out that LAFCO specifically asked for the City's position on this issue. Council Member Hedges said he feels it would take more time if the City is going to be negotiating with different agencies. Since The Irvine Company has a vested interest in the outcome of this map change, he invited them to participate in the negotiations. He said he believes they could be very helpful in seeing the City of Newport Beach's goals come to fruition with • respect to all of the planning areas. Mr. Murphy explained that the City does not have any responsibility for Volume 51 - Page 247 1►L1 DR • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 1 X11 _D1 services in a sphere of influence if it continues to be a County unincorporated area. The County is responsible for services and planning activities in the area. The only area that could potentially exist for annexation would be Planning Area 26(A), since it is in the corporate boundaries of the City of Irvine. He suggested using the fiscal model used for Newport Coast to run a fiscal model for Area 26(A). He said the fiscal model has been used in the other areas. Mayor Debay requested that when this comes back to Council that staff include the responsibilities involved in sphere of influence, what powers and obligations the City will have, and information on the annexation of Area 26(A). Mayor Pro Tern Edwards pointed out that no action has been taken in regard to annexation. He clarified that the initial analyses of the downcoast annexation included 26(13) and (C), and there are some good reasons for using a two -step implementation of sphere of influence to annexation. Ms. Ducey clarified that the area has to come within the City's sphere of influence before it can be annexed. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards spoke in support of a short continuance, but noted that this has been kicked around for a couple of years, and if the City doesn't • get this into the sphere of influence, there may be some larger problems in the future. City Manager Murphy explained that it is not possible to do the financial analysis in two weeks, and it will likely take 45 -60 days. The Council discussed the intent of the substitute motion and it was clarified as follows: 1) to direct staff to send letters to the City of Irvine and LAFCO expressing City's position that the proposed sphere of influence boundary adjustments coinciding with the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor be delayed until the entire area including Area 26(A) can be studied; 2) to direct staff to continue to study Area 26(A) and pursue further discussions with the City of Irvine; 3) to direct staff to return with entitlement information, tract maps, and a fiscal impact analysis for Planning Area 26(A). Council Member Glover said that she believes the reason LAFCO is discussing this is because past City Councils indicated they wanted the areas to be within the City's sphere of influence. She said she wants to make sure Council Member Thomson is comfortable with all of this since it abuts his District and she also wants to see what the entitlements are. Mayor Pro Tern Edwards explained that all of the analyses with regard to 26(13) and (C) has been done as part of the downcoast. He said he doesn't believe the City will gain any leverage by delaying the issue of 26(A) and • taking it as one complete package. He said he is concerned that this will interfere with the ability to even open the negotiations on the downcoast annexation, therefore won't support the substitute motion. Volume 51 • Page 248 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 • Council Member Hedges reiterated that the Council goal has been that the area south of the corridor should logically be included in the City of Newport Beach, so it is important that it be considered in its entirety. He said that there isn't any reason to proceed on a sphere of influence change and no real time pressure pushing that change. The substitute motion, as clarified, carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Hedges, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: Edwards, Glover Absent: None Abstain: None 18. NEWPORT COAST ANNEXATION STATUS REPORT. Assistant to the City Manager Ducey reported that one of the Council's 1997 goals is to make a final determination whether to proceed with annexation of the Newport Coast. To that end staff has been finalizing a fiscal impact study that compares the costs of providing City services to the area as compared to the estimated revenues that the City would expect to derive from property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, as well as some other • revenues. The preliminary analyses indicates that the City would realize a net recurring surplus of revenue at build -out, which is scheduled for about 2015. However, before the fiscal impact analysis is finalized the City needs to reach an agreement with the County of Orange and the County Fire Authority as to how the property tax would actually be split. The recommendation is that staff be authorized to begin property tax negotiations with the County of Orange and the Orange County Fire Authority to determine what the property tax agreement would look like and how that would affect the potential revenues in the area. She said staff has also been receiving a number of phone calls from residents in the Newport Coast area asking questions about the possible annexation of the area and there has been some misunderstanding and misinformation as to how annexation might impact that area. Based on that staff is asking for Council authorization to begin meeting with area homeowner associations to provide general information on annexation issues and to get an idea of what their concerns or questions might be regarding the process. Philip Arst, 2601 Lighthouse Lane, Corona del Mar, said that the people in Harbor View are very concerned about the multiple projects that are being thrust upon them and he would like to see the planning process include all of these projects. He addressed traffic concerns related to Bonita Village, the downcoast properties, the Newport Center proposal, and the Corona del Mar Plaza. He said he thinks the City should take the same measured stance with the downcoast annexation that they have taken with putting the • information together on all the other projects, namely that there will be profit by 2015. He said no one has answered the question about who will pay the costs until 2015. He pointed out that the toll road is running 50% under Volume 51 - Page 249 INDEX Annexation Newport Coast (21) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 revenue in terms of its projections. He said if the City gets involved in the downcoast annexation and any of the revenue estimates are wrong, there will need to be a cushion built in before even starting on such a project. Rather than staff time being spent on downcoast annexation, he said he would prefer that the time be spent on addressing the issues with Bonita Village, Newport Center, and MacArthur Boulevard. He said the downcoast annexation is a negotiating card that should be included with all of the other projects and not something done one piece at a time. Motion by Council Member Hedges to direct staff to begin property tax negotiations with the County of Orange and the Orange County Fire Authority and to meet with the community associations to discuss the potential annexation of Newport Coast. Mayor Pro Tem Edwards explained that in order to look at all the impacts over which the City will have control or the ability to control, you have to start figuring out what the costs are. The sooner the City figures out what the costs are and potentially what the impacts are going to be, and therefore what kind of control the City can have on the impacts, we can then study downcoast and other multiple projects. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: • Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None 19. APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF A HOLISTIC HEALTH PRACTITIONER PERMIT FOR TOLAN 13RACION (contd. from 4/28/97). 20. APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF A MASSAGE OPERATOR PERMIT FOR SHIRLEY HENDERSON AND A HOLISTIC HEALTH PRACTITIONER PERMIT FOR SHONA BRAUN (contd. from 4/28/97). Motion by Council Member Hedges to consider Items 19 and 20 together. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None City Attorney Burnham explained that both of these items are appeals from a decision of a hearing officer, and the hearing officer has recommended that • the City Council sustain the actions of the Chief of Police revoking permits for Tolan Brackin and Shona Braun. He said he believes there is agreement on the Henderson matter to continue that item. Volume 51 - Page 250 lop 1 ' Holistic Health Permit/Brackin (27) Holistic Health Permit/Braun (27) Massage Operator Permit/Henderson (27) • City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 12, 1997 Council Member Hedges clarified that in this matter the City Attorney is acting as legal counsel for the Police Department, rather than as attorney for the City Council. He stated that he read the briefs prepared by Mr. Vodnoy regarding the appellants, Brackin and Braun, and he believes some substantive issues have been raised which the City should delve into further. Motion by Council Member Hedges to continue the matter on Henderson since she has stipulated to a negotiated settlement with the City and the discussions are continuing; and to remand the Braun and Brackin cases to a de novo hearing with a new hearing officer. Joseph Vodnoy, legal counsel for Brackin and Braun, stated that if that happens he would try to work out something with the City and agreed to toll the appeal period in order for the Council to schedule new hearings. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: O'Neil, Thomson, Edwards, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Debay Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None • MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None • 10:20 p.m. - Tues., May 27,1997- 5:00 p.m. (Closed Session) 7:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) The agenda for the Regular meeting was posted on May 7, 1997 at 3:20 p.m. and the supplemental agenda was posted on May 9, 1997 at 3:15 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. oia W1. Wa. Recording Secretary Gt Ma or City Clerk Volume 51 - Page 251 INDEX