Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1999 - Study Session0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session February 22, 1999 - 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Adams, Glover, Thomson, Debay, Ridgeway, Noyes, Mayor O'Neil Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Item 4, Audit Service Contract, Council Member Ridgeway asked how the fee for the next audit is negotiated. Acting City Manager Danner clarified that it is in the contract and that there is no increase in the proposed fee. Regarding Item 7, Backbay Drive Roadway and. Bridge Approaches Repairs (C- 3180), Council Member Ridgeway asked when Backbay Drive will be • opened. Public Works Director Webb stated that the construction project is complete; however, the delay is that there is water draining across the roadway which is not part of the contract. The City has not been able to get permission from either the Fish and Game Department or the Fish and Wildlife Service to clean out the drainage ditches so that there will be a road that will not have slippery water across it that may potentially cause the City a lawsuit. Regarding Item 9, Legislative Advocacy Contract with Ken Emanuels, Council Member Glover noted that Ken Emanuels also represents the Orange County League of Cities and asked how it is differentiated when the City is asking him to look at an airport issue. .Mr. Danner stated that it is his understanding that the City is his first priority and that he will only work on airport issues for the City. Regarding his pay, Mr. Danner stated that he receives a $3,000 a month retainer. He emphasized that the City is particularly anxious to use him to help with some of the bay and dredging issues. Council Member Glover believed that some of these contracts should be looked at on an "as needed" basis. Regarding Item 14, General Plan Amendment 99 -1, Council Member Glover noted that, in the Planning Commission minutes, 341 LaJolla Drive had been turned down by the Planning Commission and asked if Council votes on that location tonight. Assistant City Manager Wood confirmed that Council will still need to vote on that location since it is a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Regarding the Newport Center, Council Member Glover asked if there will automatically be an EIR. Ms. Wood stated that she expects that an EIR will occur with a project of this magnitude and that Council can indicate what types of issues they want considered as part of the project. City Attorney Burnham stated that he suspects that, if Council tried Volume 52 - Page 353 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 • to initiate the Amendment, Planning Director Temple would perform an initial study and, if the initial study suggests that there is substantial evidence that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, then an EIR will be performed unless the impact can be mitigated by changing the project. Mayor O'Neil agreed that a full environmental examination through an EIR would be appropriate on this particular matter. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's concern, Mayor O'Neil believed that the City cannot direct the applicant to prepare an EIR but that they would need to go through the various steps. Further, he believes Council cannot initiate the GPA contingent on the applicant doing an EIR. Mr. Burnham stated that he is unsure if Council can or cannot require that. However, he knows the CEQA process and, if an initial study is conducted and if the study revealed that there was no significant impact, he is not sure what the environmental document would address. Council Member Glover suggested recommending an EIR for the Newport Center project tonight. Council Member Debay noted that the Planning Commission also made two other recommendations that it be a comprehensive plan to include properties not owned by The Irvine Company and the interrelationship between Newport Center and the airport area. She asked if this was something Council needed to pull off to recommend tonight that the recommendations be included. Ms. Wood concurred that it can be recommended if that was Council's desire. Council Member Ridgeway stated that there were recommendations made by the Planning Commission and asked if Council is reviewing the application for initiation or if Council is • following their motion. Mayor O'Neil stated that Council has the opportunity to do whatever they want since those are just recommendations. 2. ANIMAL CONTROL. Captain Henisey utilized a PowerPoint presentation and stated that the City has been contracting with Dover Shores Pet Care Center, operated by Dr. Bauersfeld, for animal shelter operations for over 7 years and that it is categorized as a "pro- humane shelter" (all animals suitable for adoption are adopted). He reported that there has been certain circumstances in which euthanasia has occurred and that there are no "no kill shelters" that are operated by a municipality in Orange County. Captain Henisey felt that using the Dover Shores Pet Care Center has been cost effective for the City and that the City has received minimal complaints. He stated that Dr. Bauersfeld initiated a house program years ago in which he takes care of, provides medical care to, and keeps the animals that have gone through the shelter process until they are adopted by a family. Captain Henisey showed the Dover Shores facility, its amenities, and the direct costs for the shelter program ($290,000). He indicated that there are indirect costs because the animal control operation runs through the Police Department and the Administrative Services Department. He reported that there are almost 5,000 dog licenses in the City and that they last for 3 years. Further, there were almost 700 animals placed in the shelter in 1998; of • which, 314 were returned to the owner, 246 were adopted through the shelter, 38 were adopted through the PAL program, and 79 either died in the shelter or were euthanized because they were either too ill, too injured, wild, or too violent. He reported that the shelter houses an average of 21 animals Volume 52 - Page 354 INDEX Animal Control (70) City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 per night throughout the year; there are 3 animal control officers and 1 supervisor; and the animal control officers handled almost 5,000 radio calls, 1,400 observation activities, and issued 900 citations. Captain Henisey showed the Irvine Animal Shelter. He stated that the shelter is operated by the community services department; was built for $3 million; and described the staffing and field operations. He reported that shelter operations total over $600,000, the animal control officers cost $300,000, and their revenue is $236,000. They lodged over 2,000 animals; of which, 500 were returned to their owners, 1,500 were adopted, and 242 were euthanized or died in the shelter. He stated that their euthanasia percentage is 11.1, compared to the City's 11.4. Captain Henisey showed the Mission Viejo Animal Shelter, which also has an urgent care facility, a fenced area, and a park so that the dogs can be released. He reported that the outside dog housing area is kept heated by heating the concrete underneath the animal. Further, they have canvas awnings that will extend out and over the outside of the building for shade /covering. Cat housing is located within an office with roll -away cages, but they are planning to move the cats into the new outdoor pavilion. He stated that the shelter was built for $2.3 million; they provide service to Laguna Niguel; they plan to expand the cat facility for $300,000; operation costs are over $600,000; revenues are $300,000; and they had over 2,000 animals, of which 739 were returned to their owners, 1,100 were adopted, • and 134 were euthanized. Captain Henisey stated that some cities will not deal with feral (wild) cats, but indicated Newport Beach does. Feral cats pose a problem but some can be domesticated and put up for adoption. Captain Henisey stated that Costa Mesa contracts with the Orange County Humane Society; has 2 full-time and 2 part -time animal control officers; and costs about $173,000. They placed 800 animals in the shelter; issued 300 citations; have over 6,000 dog licenses issued; and do not have a speck figure for euthanasia, but estimated approximately 10 percent for dogs and 30 percent for cats. Captain Henisey stated that one of the options would be to build and operate a City shelter at an estimated cost of $1 million for a modest shelter (housing an average of 21 animals a night and is expandable). This shelter requires a manager; the estimated operational cost would add $250,000 a year to the current expenses; and the City would receive additional revenues (more impounding and boarding fees) of approximately $100,000. He believed that there are outside sources for funding like the Tailwaggers Adoption Group Services (TAGS) and the Duffield Foundation. He emphasized that the focus should be on getting the animals adopted and that the City has been very pleased with Dr. Bauersfeld's success. He • reported that the Duffield Foundation has seed money of $200 million to provide funding to municipalities and other groups to establish no kill shelters. Volume 52 - Page 355 `I i�O-11 �►7 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 • Captain Henisey reported that another option could be that the shelter could be built and operated by a non - profit group and the City can contract for services from that group. Or the shelter could be built by a non -profit group, in partnership with a private venture like a veterinarian office that can provide the staffing, and the City can contract with the group without having to go into the extensive capital costs. Captain Henisey indicated that another option could be to build and operate a shelter with another jurisdiction. He stated that the only jurisdiction that could be a potential partner would be Costa Mesa who is currently analyzing their own animal services operations and have sent out RFPs for their shelter services and animal control operations. He noted that they have no desire to increase their cost or amount of personnel they are responsible for. Captain Henisey reported that the option of contracting with the City of Irvine was examined in 1993 and that Irvine estimated their cost to the City to be $72,000 plus the cost of a staff member which could run about $50,000 to $60,000. He indicated that distance is a major factor as it could require up to 1.5 hours roundtrip for the City's animal control officers and will also be inconvenient for the community. Currently, Irvine will not be able to provide services because they rent out a portion of their facility to a wildlife rescue service and do not have the space to take on additional duties. Captain Henisey stated that the City should continue service with the Dover 40 Shores Pet Care Center since it is cost effective, efficient, and has currently met the needs of the community, but noted that there are areas that can be improved and will be looked at. He believed that license costs and items like impound fees can also be looked at since they have not been increased for several years and especially in light of Senate Bill 1755 that becomes effective July 1. The City will also need to determine what impacts annexing Newport Coast may have on shelter operations. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions, Captain Henisey stated that the "no kill shelter" refers to all adoptable animals. He believed this mostly deals with large cities in which their euthanasia rates are very high to make an effort for all animals that go into those shelters to be adopted. That policy is in effect for shelters like Mission Viejo and Irvine, and is part of Dr. Bauersfeld's policy. Regarding the Duffield Foundation, an article he found specifically talks about developing a no kill shelter in which one of the goals would be to find each adoptable animal a home through several means and not euthanize adoptable animals solely for lack of space. Regarding space, Captain Henisey stated that the total capacity of Dr. Bauersfeld's facility for cats and dogs is about 100 cages/housing units. They have not reached that point and noted that Dr. Bauersfeld uses some of the housing units as storage facilities. He indicated that the assistants at Dover Shores will take the animals on a leash and walk them in the parking lot and the grass area but that there is no fenced area they can let dogs roam on their own. He assured that, for the 7 years the City has utilized their • services, they have not had to euthanize an animal for lack of space. Regarding revenue from issuing citations, Captain Henisey indicated that fines and forfeitures are not broken out to specific violations; however, he estimates the revenue to be about $40,000. He stated that the City has the Volume 52 - Page 356 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 liuOs►� • same net cost as Mission Viejo even though they are able to own their own facility because the City has a high level of calls for service and a portion of the revenue goes to Dr. Bauersfeld to maintain the facility. Council Member Ridgeway wondered what the need was, as a city, for its own shelter if it only houses a few animals a night. In response to Council Member Noyes' questions, Captain Henisey explained that with SB 1785, shelter records would be made available to the public for a period of 3 years. The current contract only requires these records to be available to City staff. Dr. Bauersfeld's records, as part of his own private business, are not available unless he wants to make them available. Regarding the recommendations, Captain Henisey stated that he is not comfortable recommending that the City pay $1 million for a shelter, so the recommendations reflect some of the things that have to be looked at. He suggested providing direction to the groups to come up with a proposal or something concrete that the City can accept, like exploring the possibility of applying for a grant from the Duffield Foundation. This may require some assistance from the Police and Administrative Services Departments. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's question, Captain Henisey stated that the Mission Viejo shelter's administrative building is about 4,000 square feet and the outside dog area is about 4,000 square feet. Dr. Bauersfeld's operation is about 3,000 square feet. • In response to Council Member Adams' questions, Captain Henisey explained that the land for the Mission Viejo shelter was donated and that their cost is only for the building and facilities. Regarding the $1 million estimate for a City shelter, he stated that this does not include the cost of the land. He indicated that prior to using the Dover Shores facility the City contracted with the Newport Harbor Animal Hospice. In response to Council Member Glover's questions, Captain Henisey discussed how this issue came about. Council Member Glover suggested looking at the Orange County facility if the groups are unhappy with the current situation. Captain Henisey stated that part of the City's issue is that it needs something that is geographically acceptable as there are many animals that get transported. Council Member Glover noted that she has never encountered a complaint and is trying to identify the problem. Captain Henisey assured that there is no problem with Dr. Bauersfeld, but that there are concerns that there is a private veterinarian who is making decisions about the well-being of the animals that would stay in the shelter beyond the time period in which the City is responsible for them. Gregory Ruzicka, 1620 Kings Road, Attorney for TAGS, thanked Captain Henisey for his efforts in preparing the animal shelter report. He believed that everyone is in concurrence that the shelter is adequate but there is clearly room for improvement. He realized that fiscal restraint is the significant barrier to obtaining their ultimate objective. Mr. Ruzicka noted • that TAGS gathered 2,961 signatures in support: of their endeavor and even has Marian Bergeson's support. He reported that the Duffield Foundation grant application process will be commencing ins few weeks and requested a commitment from the City to furnish whatever support TAGS needs to Volume 52 - Page 357 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 INDEX . represent to the Duffield Foundation. He expressed the opinion that this is a very unique window of opportunity that should not be missed and reported that it is TAGS' intention to bare a substantive onus of perfecting the grant application and try to minimize the City's efforts. He requested that Council agree to calendar this issue on a recurring basis so that they can keep Council updated on the grant process; that Council agree to establish a no kill shelter if TAGS is able to come up with some of the funding; and that Council agree to find the land as he disagreed with the staff report stating that there is an unavailability of City land at this time. Mr. Ruzicka also requested that Council establish some type of citizen committee to work in conjunction with Council to refine the details. In response to Council Member Ridgeway's questions, Mr. Ruzicka stated that the grant application is still not available but they have made inquiries and are on the top of the list when the application is out. He indicated that, if it is a 501.C.3 situation, he has had the paperwork ready to commence this process for the last 2 months. The applicant would be either TAGS, as an unincorporated association, or himself, under corporate, non - profit status. He believed that it would behoove their application to have at least a letter of support from the Mayor as he feels their group meets all the criteria. In response to Council Member Noyes' question, Mr. Ruzicka stated that he is aware of the recommendations in the staff report and believed that they • should pursue obtaining the Duffield Foundation grant. Sharon Cody, 27472 Capricho, Mission Viejo, former Mayor of Mission Viejo, believed that there are serious problems with the current shelter contract, particularly that the animals are being sedated for barking. She stated that he is doing that because his facility is not built to be a shelter, it is built to be a veterinary office. She reported that animals cannot be adopted before the 5 day period any way and, therefore, the animals mostly become part of the PAL program. Dr. Bauersfeld is then able to charge $260 for a puppy. The new Senate Bill indicates that no one can charge more than what is the standard charge at most shelters. Further, Dr. Bauersfeld's record keeping is a mess and people who are kind enough to adopt through the shelter should not be penalized by paying for every health problem due to neglect by the previous owner. Ms. Cody believed that the City needs a non - profit organization to conduct the fundraising so that the community can know where the funds go. She stated she would be willing to assist in any way she can, believing she can increase the revenue 3 times its current amount. She also noted that Mission Viejo's budget is less than Newport Beach's and that they pay less for their service. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to continue the existing contract for animal shelter services with Dover Shores Flat Care Center; direct staff to: 1) continue to work with interested persons and community groups, as staffing permits, to address and improve existing shelter operations, 2) explore long -term strategies regarding the future of shelter operations, • 3) work to improve adoption and care of animals housed in the City's shelter; and 4) review existing licensing, impound, and adoption fees and recommend revisions as appropriate; and encourage interested community groups to consider forming a non - profit entity, which could raise funds and potentially Volume 52 - Page 358 Volume 52 - Page 359 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 INDEX • build and operate a shelter facility, thereby becoming eligible for the City contract. Council Member Adams suggested adding language to the motion relative to assisting with the Duffield Foundation grant application process. Council Member Ridgeway agreed to add authorizing the Mayor to draft a letter to facilitate a grant application to the Duffield Foundation as part of the motion. Dianne Pfaff - Martin, 2001 Port Albans Cir., The Community Animal Network of Newport Mesa, stated that she publishes The Community Animal Report and has sent everyone a copy. She discussed her operation and stated that since they have few animals in their shelter, they have expanded to include Costa Mesa. She stated that there is confusion that there is no Newport Beach shelter since it is in Costa Mesa and that The Community Animal Report has been able to give visibility to the Newport Beach shelter to help with adoptions. She agreed that the possibility of a no kill shelter that is funded by a non -profit group should be looked at; however, she believed that the focus should be on increasing adoptions in the current shelter and working on a strong volunteer program that allows people adopting the animals to understand what kind of animal they are actually adopting. • Council Member Ridgeway suggested that the group lobby Comcast to have a one night a week, half hour program that shows the adoptable animals in the facility. Christienne Morgan, 216 Via Eboci, thanked Council for their support of TAGS' endeavors as it will make it easier to approach the Duffield Foundation for funds. In response to Council Member Debay's question, Ms. Morgan stated that she is not sure how much the Duffield Foundation will grant, but that it has been published throughout the country that they will initially donate a hefty amount and increase it if proven that every adoptable animal can be adopted. Mayor O'Neil clarified that Council cannot commit the City to providing funds, land, a building, and staff without knowing what would be involved; however, the City can submit a letter in support of the grant application. Ms. Morgan asked if staff can help find a location for the shelter in the meantime. Council Member Adams clarified that his vote is that the ultimate net operating cost to the City would be roughly equal to what the City is doing now. Without objection, the motion, as amended, carried by acclamation. • 3. MARINAPARK PARCEL - TIDELANDS BOUNDARY, Marinapark Parcel - Tidelands Boundary City Attorney Burnham reported that the tidelands boundary for most of the (40173) area abutting the lower bay were adjudicated in 12 superior court cases filed Volume 52 - Page 359 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 • in the late 1920's. However, those cases did not resolve the tidelands boundaries for City -owned parcels; therefore, the Bay Club parcel, the City /County dock parcel, and the Marinapark parcel were not subject to those cases. To date tidelands boundaries that have not been adjudicated are determined by reviewing old surveys. In 1996, the City retained Bud Uzes to conduct a tidelands boundary survey (attached to the staff report) of the Marinapark parcel. Mr. Burnham indicated that Mr. Uzes was not happy with the accuracy of any of the surveys. However, Mr. Uzes believed that the Finley survey was the most representative of the line of mean high tide, known as the U.S. Government Meander Line, and that, to some extent, there is some support for Mr. Uzes' conclusion that the Meander Line represents the best approximation of the mean high tide line. Mr. Burnham stated that the Marinapark lessees conducted their own research, believing that Mr. Uzes' report is not the definitive report and that there is evidence that suggests the park is uplands. He noted that one of their key points is that the boundary on the adjacent parcels was established, noting that the line of mean high tide was determined for the east side of the Marinapark parcel (Orange County Superior Court Case 23679 and 23682) and for the west side (with different cases). Mr. Burnham stated that it is fair to say that there is some evidence that the parcel is uplands and there is some evidence that a majority of the parcel is tidelands. He indicated that it would be in the City's best interest if the • parcel was designated uplands to give Council greater flexibility in protective use of the parcel. Any revenues derived from the parcel would then go into the General Fund. In response to Mayor O'Neil's question, Mr. Burnham stated that he believes that the State Lands Commission has substantially all the information. Mayor O'Neil clarified that Council will not be making a determination tonight on whether the parcel is uplands or tidelands as that is up to the State Lands Commission. He stated that Council can suggest sending a delegation to Sacramento or instruct the City Attorney to write a letter indicating that Council supports the position that the parcel is uplands. Council Member Ridgeway noted that he resides on Parcel 12 (east of the property) but that he does not feel there is a conflict of interest since that parcel was adjudicated in the 1920'x. Council Member Noyes stated that he remembered when this issue came up and believed there were at least 3 Council. Members that were not comfortable with the recommendation that it was tidelands. He indicated that some type of ordinance was going to be introduced to state it was tidelands and that he and Mayor Pro Tom Thomson supported the parcel being uplands because of the value to the City. Council Member Ridgeway stated that he requested that this be brought up. • He indicated that he supports Council recommending to the State Lands Commission that this parcel be designated as uplands and stated that the land use issue will follow. Volume 52 - Page 360 INDEX City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 • Council Member Glover stated that it does not concern her whether the money goes into a tidelands fund at all and she would not be looking at this issue just so it goes into the General Fund since both funds are being used positively for the citizens. Mr. Burnham agreed, believing that the tideland expenditures are always for the public good and that the State Lands Commission has acknowledged that the City does an outstanding job administering tidelands. He clarified that his point in the staff report was that placing the funds in the General Fund gives the City more flexibility regarding land use issues and usage of revenue. Mayor O'Neil added that, if the State Lands Commission determines that the parcel is uplands, it would allow residential uses, such as a mobile home park. However, he emphasized that Council will not be taking any action on whether the City will be extending the lease of the Marinapark residents. A decision first needs to be made in Sacramento but Council seems to want to support a determination that the parcel is uplands. Council Member Glover expressed concern that homes in the Bayside Village will be expanding to second levels and requested that this be addressed. Mr. Burnham stated that, if the property were tidelands, that type of use would not be permitted. If it were uplands, in his opinion, the City could decide how properties can be used. However, he clarified that, if the property is owned by someone else, the City has no regulatory authority over the type of housing. • John Rettberg, 1770 W. Balboa Blvd., Marinapark resident, stated that he supports Council's efforts to show that the area is uplands. He stated that they thought that when the State Lands Commission was approached that, because the land to the east and west were not tidelands, it would be uplands. He noted that the residents over the last year have been gathering information and believes that the research in the staff report will show that Marinapark is not on tidelands. He thanked Council Member Ridgeway for spending time with the residents and for taking action when he saw that the research they pulled together is in the best interest to the City. Cary Lowe, 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Marinapark Attorney, stated that they put together quite a lot of material that has been submitted to the State Lands Commission staff. After several telephone discussions and one lengthy meeting, they were impressed with what was provided and are waiting for a final letter from him and his clients. He stated that they are holding out sending the letter to see how the discussion today came out, but was hoping to report to them that the City Council is in support of at least pursuing their position. Mr. Lowe stated that they are not advocating this because it is the expedient thing to do but because it seems to also be the right thing to do. He indicated that, legally, there is so much evidence amassed that supports that the site is uplands that it makes sense to ask the State to affirm that position. He pointed out that First American Title Insurance Company already issued a title policy insuring title in the property in the name of the City of Newport Beach without any qualification • for tidelands status. This is a strong indication of the strength of the information compiled. He requested that Council support their request and Mr. Burnham's recommendation. Volume 52 - Page 361 IILIIUs11 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 22, 1999 • Peter Anderson, 1610 W. Oceanfront, stated that, if the City moves forward and asks the State to make the parcel uplands, the City will be under tremendous pressure to maintain Marinapark. He hoped the entire area will be looked at in another context, believing that the area should be used by the entire City. He expressed the opinion that the community would vote to have the area used for the entire community if the option were brought forward. Mr. Anderson stated that the last lease indicated that the area would specifically be used for a recreational area and that the residents would be expected to leave after the lease expired. He added that there are people in the community who do not believe that this is the best use for the community. Council Member Noyes noted that the City will not need to come up with options once the lease expires, adding that there is already a lot of pressure to put other uses on that property. Motion by Council Member Ridgeway to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the State Lands Commission that supports a determination that the entire parcel is uplands. Without objection, the motion carried by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None is ADJOURNMENT - 5:47 p.m. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxwwwww The agenda for the Study Session was posted on February 17, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk • V, ;1U0 Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 52 - Page 362 INDEX