Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/2001 - study sessionCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session January 23, 2001- 3:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Proctor, Glover, Bromberg, Mayor Adams Absent: None CURRENT BUSINESS 1. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. Regarding Agenda Item #10 (Planning Commission Agenda for January 18, 2001), Council Member Heffernan requested and received confirmation from City Attorney Burnham that having the Riverboat and the St. Clair Company projects on the Consent Calendar does not mean that Council waives any of its rights to contest Planning Commission approval. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway clarified that Council Members have a certain period of time in which they can pull an item for review. Mr. Burnham stated that there is a 14 day call up and appeal period, and that it would be too late if Council does not call up or appeal these matters within that timeframe. Planning Director Temple reported that the appeal and call up period for these projects will end on February 1. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway added that a Council Member can call up any action of the Planning Commission by calling the Planning Director. Council Member Heffernan indicated that he did not receive the report that included the findings and stated that he had hoped to see that before voting. Ms. Temple stated that normally the Commission minutes, which includes the findings and conditions of approval, are approved by the Commission first; however, in this case, the minutes will be provided to Council prior to the 14 day deadline due to the interest in the projects. Mayor Adams noted that he previously suggested that Council receive an oral report on Planning Commission activity at every Council meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission agendas will now be pulled to give Ms. Temple a few minutes to go over what took place at the last Planning Commission meeting. 2. REQUEST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). City Manager Bludau reported that Public Works Director Webb is the staff member responsible for coordinating and managing the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Further, he sends information to the departments for the preparation of the 2001 -2002 budget. He indicated that, since Council Members have sometimes submitted CIP projects, he thought Volume 54 - Page 40 INDEX Capital Improvement Program (40) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX it would be good to inform Council on how they can submit a project for budget consideration. Public Works Director Webb stated that this starts the Capital Improvement Program budget which Council adopts during its last meeting in June. He reported that the CIP budget includes a sheet for every project that is going to be included next year. He indicated that he provided Council with a project fund summary, project status report, and a CIP transmittal. He reported that the project fund summary shows that the total CIP for this year is $27 million and that next year's budget will probably be $6 million to $7 million lower because the $4.7 million oil spill project is included and since the water fund expenditures will probably not be as high. Mr. Webb stated that requests to submit projects were sent to all the departments in November and reported that the Public Works Department has about 250 project submittals, not counting the ones that Public Works will want considered. He indicated that the number of projects will probably be decreased to about 150. He noted that the project status report is complete as of this month and shows who is working on the project, where it stands, and what the estimate is for completion or to get the project out to bid. Regarding the CIP transmittal sheet, Mr. Webb stated that it is the introduction to the CIP budget and gives an idea of the funds, how they split up, and the types of projects that are put into each fund. He indicated that, with this type of information, staff is able to determine whether projects that Council would like done have been considered. Staff can then put together cost estimates, scopes of work, and evaluate the project to determine if it fits with some of the City's programs. Mr. Webb stated that, if a Council Member has a particular project that Public Works may not have considered, they should let them know so it could be added early in order to generate the backup data and so Council can review the entire list to see how it fits within the priorities that have been established. He indicated that input can be provided now or can be sent via a memo. He added that a standard CIP submittal form was also provided. Council Member Glover expressed concern relative to CenterLine, noting that she has read in the newspapers that most of OCTA's funds will be going toward CenterLine, and asked how this would impact City improvements. Mr. Webb reported that the Measure M program separates funding into a number of categories and that one of the categories is Mass Transit and Transportation Facilities. He indicated that the funding that would be put into that program is all part of Measure M, has been planned for, and does not take away from the highway and transportation projects that were submitted in the plan. He confirmed that those funds have been accumulating since Measure M came into play. Council Member Bromberg indicated that he faxed a memo yesterday to City Manager Bludau about issues of concern regarding piers on Balboa Island. Mr. Bludau indicated that he will forward the memo to Mr. Webb so he can assess the project. Volume 54 - Page 41 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 Mayor Adams noted that he mentioned the landscaping on Jamboree Road, north of MacArthur, at a previous meeting. Mr. Webb stated that the City has $100,000 budgeted this year for that, but reported that this would only pay for half of the project since the City has not been able to get a commitment from the City of Irvine for the other half. Mayor Adams indicated that he will be calling Mayor Agran this week to see if he can get them to contribute. He stated that, depending on the results of the phone call, the City may want to consider doing the landscaping itself. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the loss of Title 20A money will be permanent or temporary. Mr. Webb indicated that Kim Scherer of Southern California Edison believed that the loss would be temporary until they work out their finances. Regarding McFadden Square, he reported that Edison had the plans almost complete and the City sent a request to them to find out how much it would cost to complete them. He indicated that the City is offering to make up the difference so the plans would still be designed by the phone company and Comcast. He stated that, once the City has a complete set of plans, it will reevaluate Edison's situation. He noted that the next option will be to determine if the City will fund the entire project or request an assessment district on all the business owners in the area. At that time, he stated that an accurate cost estimate will be realized, estimating that the work will be about $2 million to $3 million. He added that the City also has the option of waiting. City Manager Bludau introduced the new Human Resources Director, Linn Livingston, to Council and the audience, and stated that she will be joining Council in Closed Session. 3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MEASURE S GUIDELINES AND REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY (contd. from 1/9/01). City Attorney Burnham indicated that Greenlight (Measure S) encourages Council to adopt guidelines to implement the purpose and intent of the Measure. He indicated that the stated purpose of Measure S is "...to give voters the power to prevent Newport Beach from becoming a traffic - congested city, by requiring their approval for any change to the City's General Plan that may significantly increase allowed traffic..." Regarding peak hour trips and whether to use the average peak hour rate of the land use or the average rate of the adjacent street, Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway suggested using the wording, "average peak hour rate of land use or average rate of adjacent street, whichever is higher." Mayor Adams stated that, by definition, the peak hour of the land use is higher since it is the greatest rate that would be realized from any land use. He noted that it may or may not be the same as the peak hour of adjacent streets. Phil Arst, Greenlight proponent, thanked Council and staff for putting this together and stated that the fundamental, overall objective of Measure S was protection from traffic, density, and intensity. Regarding the peak hour trips, he indicated that they were mainly concerned with rush hours during the weekdays, noting that a hotel was used as an example since it would not have peak traffic during the rush hour but would load the streets. He added Volume 54 - Page 42 INDEX Measure S Guidelines (68) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX that they felt that, if a hotel is not going to impact the commute time, there should not be a barrier in front of it if it was good for the City and maintained the character of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that Mayor Adams suggested using the average peak hour rate of land use and indicated that this would put a larger burden on the applicant. Rather than use a hotel as an example, he pointed out that a coffee shop could have 120 average daily trips (ADT) per day, a fast food restaurant could have 700 ADT per day, and a service station could have 240 ADT per day. He emphasized the importance of land uses and stated that he would be happy to adopt their recommendation to use Option B (trip rate of adjacent peak hour traffic) since Option A is tougher. He reiterated that Greenlight is opting for Option B, but noted that, by definition, this is lower than the adjacent uses that are proposed. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway reported that he received correspondence from Barry Eaton who recommends that the time period be analyzed by using a combination of the site - generated traffic and adjacent street traffic at its maximum. This is from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. Regarding using trip rate of land use or adjacent street traffic, Mr. Arst reiterated that they prefer Option B (the average rate of adjacent street). He noted that their concern deals with weekday peak traffic and recommends restricting the period of measurement to that time period. He indicated that they are trying to peg the time when the project's traffic was measured to match when the problem is worse during peak hours. Regarding the maximum traffic that allowed uses could generate, Mr. Arst reported that they prefer Option B (highest rate of any permitted use in the category, unless only specific uses are authorized) because they believe that the definition of any General Plan Amendment (GPA) should be specific in describing the project and that the vote should be taken on the project's maximum permitted use as allowed under the GPA. He believed that this would give someone who does not use all of their entitlement an opportunity not to be judged by the voters on the very high numbers. He stated that they should be judged on the project itself and the amount of square footage or traffic impact it produces. Mayor Adams asked about a project, like Conexant, in which it proposes certain work hour schedules as part of the development agreement. He noted that this becomes part of the entitlement and asked if the trip generation analysis would take into account the specificity of the entitlement. Mr. Arst believed that it would cover those types of situations. He noted that they were concerned about the Conexant project and looked at that as the first application of the new Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). He indicated that the shift of about 1,100 cars was recommended to be before the peak hour, but this was not enforceable. Mayor Adams stated that this illustrates his suggestion from the last study session. He reported that, if the test was the generator peak hour, those issues would be mute because an applicant suggesting flex time to get around the TPO or to minimize their impact on peak hour traffic would avoid a vote. Volume 54 - Page 43 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if a project would come back for another vote if it had a flex schedule and changed it five years later. Mayor Adams stated that a project would be subject to Greenlight again if the City used the peak hour of adjacent street traffic and the guideline is proposal - speck in which the land use is granted based on shifted work hours. Mr. Burnham noted that one of the choices is to use the peak hour of the land use, so the type of land use that is permitted would have to be specific. He noted that peak hour is from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., and that the City would need to consider the rate in the ITE Manual for either the land use or adjacent street traffic. Further, the City also needs to determine if it has sufficiently identified the land use in the GPA so that a particular ITE category can be identified. Mayor Adams added that this is part of the matrix in which the City decides whether to use the highest trip generation that is allowable under the entitlement. City Manager Bludau stated that the City also needs to keep in mind that anything over 40,000 square feet, regardless of what the definition of trip generation is, will require a vote. He added that he is hearing a disincentive for businesses to stagger work hours. Council Member Glover stated that she and Council Member Heffernan were in a meeting yesterday and that it was brought to their attention that there is no such term as "trip reduction" and believed that this should not be used from now on. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that the terms "pass by" and "captured pass by" are used and that the ITE Manual gives credit for commercial projects. Mayor Adams stated that trip generation is an art, not a science, but this Measure assumes it is a science with answers for every land use. He believed that the City needs to either make a policy decision to ignore all the subtleties and take the average rate, or take the subtleties into account and make a determination on trip rates for every land use and then place them in a table. Mayor Adams stated that he only suggested using the peak hour of the generator because the language of the Measure supports that more than it does the use of the adjacent street traffic. Mr. Burnham added that the Mayor's point at the last meeting was that the Measure discussed the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses could generate. Mayor Adams added that this is mentioned regardless of the hour of day or whatever day of the week it occurs. If interpreted this way, he believed it is a completely different interpretation than what Mr. Arst is talking about. He noted that churches would then be subject to the Measure since they generate high volumes of traffic on Sundays. Mr. Arst stated that they specifically exempted churches by referring to the peak traffic during weekdays. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that Mr. Eaton's correspondence refers to peak hour and expresses concern relative to the fringe peak hour that starts a little before and after the peak hour. He reiterated Mr. Eaton's suggestion that the time period to be analyzed should be the time period in which a combination of site - generated traffic use and adjacent street traffic is at its maximum. Mayor Adams stated that this is technically how traffic impact studies are supposed to be done, but he has never seen one done that way in his 20 years of experience because it is too data intensive. Further, he believed it does not apply to this Measure. He stated that this is about a test for whether something needs to go to a vote, and does not need to become a Volume 54 - Page 44 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX theoretical exercise. He indicated that the City needs some policy that allows the test to be given in as simple a manner as possible. Mr. Arst asked if the analysis would be done as part of the TPO traffic analysis. Mayor Adams stated that this is done in theory since many things are covered to meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. He emphasized that the City needs to try to make a differentiation between the traffic work that is done for the test and the traffic work that is done to assess the environmental impacts of the project, noting that they do not need to be the same. He added that, if this is simplified, it needs to be acknowledged by everyone that this is what the City is doing and that it is not attempting to make these estimates using all the tools and accuracy available. Mayor Adams stated that he suggested using a table of trip rates to help resolve the average trip rate issue; however, this is something that the City does not have to do since the published numerical average can be used. Mr. Arst stated that they are recommending Option A (using the higher of the morning or evening weekday rate) for the morning or evening weekday rate. Further, they recommend Option A (guidelines include trip rate table for most land uses) for the table of trip rates but request that the table of trip rates be furnished for public review as part of the final approval procedure before inclusion in the guidelines. Regarding the floor area, Mr. Arst stated that they are recommending both options and believed that this issue should be divided into two parts. He suggested using Option A (using one of four ITE Manual definitions) to compute trips and Option B (using the Newport Beach Municipal Code definition of gross floor area) for the voting requirement test. Mayor Adams indicated that not all land use classifications in the ITE Manual use net floor area. He asked who will make the decision of which data to use from the ITE Manual if there is not a published table for each land use designation. Mr. Arst stated that this would be part of the implementation procedure and part of staffs analysis when presenting the facts to the applicant and to Council. Mayor Adams stated that the policy should be as complete as possible for fairness to property owners. Mr. Burnham believed that it is the Mayor's desire to have the guidelines specify at least the rate or criteria from the ITE Manual so that anyone who wants to know the trip rate for a particular land use can go to a resource and find it, whether it is in the guidelines or ITE Manual. He indicated that they can achieve that. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that some cities do not use the ITE Manual but use either recommendations that are prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) or use their own recommendations, like San Diego. He noted that SCAG's measurements may be more accurate. Mayor Adams agreed, but pointed out that this is just a test for whether a project will go to a vote and will not necessarily need to provide a completely accurate forecast of the trips for a land use. Further, he noted that San Diego's data has been incorporated in the ITE Manual. Mr. Burnham clarified that the reason staff focused on the ITE Manual is because the fourth finding in the Measure states that the "peak hour trip generation rates shall be calculated using the most recent version Volume 54 - Page 45 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX of the "Drip Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers" and, therefore, directs them to use the ITE Manual for trip generation rate calculations. Council Member Heffernan stated that the City needs to be specific because an applicant or land owner is entitled to know if they are subject to Greenlight. Further, at the point the person is before Council, the applicant could have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, if there is a random staff - directed guideline, the land owner is more likely not to do anything and then be restrained on his right to use his property because he does not know if he falls within Greenlight. Mr. Arst concurred and pointed out that one of staffs recommendations is to not do the analysis of whether the project will fall under Greenlight until after Council votes. He indicated that they recommend that the applicant be given an initial opinion as to where the project falls. He believed that specificity would help in that determination. Mr. Arst stated that they believe that the floor area is not relevant (Option A) with regard to residential uses. However, in terms of parking structures, they recommend counting parking structures into the floor area (Option B) and noted that the current zoning code includes parking structures with a deductible in the floor area ratio calculation in many zones. He indicated that part of the objective of Greenlight is to preserve the character of the City and give the voters a choice on density and intensity. He expressed the opinion that some of the parking structures are unsightly and block views. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he reads the initiative as being a traffic issue only and can be attacked if it has more than one issue. He pointed out that the minute they make guidelines for intensity and density a clear path is being established to attack the single- action nature of the initiative. In response to Council Member Bromberg's questions of whether he disagrees with Mr. Burnham's opening comment that the stated purpose of Measure S is to prevent a traffic congested city, Mr. Arst stated that this is the primary stated purpose, but the other attributes are fall -outs to that. Mr. Arst then agreed that parking structures do not create traffic by themselves. Council Member Bromberg stated that it would be consistent and logical to not include parking structures as part of the guidelines unless the proponents are going into a second or third stated purpose, which he does not find. Council Member Glover asked if it was appropriate to discuss this since parking structures may not become part of the guidelines if it is determined that the main emphasis is traffic. Mr. Burnham continued that this is appropriate to discuss since this goes back to the definition of "floor area," noting that the Measure uses floor area as a criteria for voter approval. He added that it is staffs opinion that parking structures typically are not referred to in terms of floor area, do not generate traffic, and is not included in the definition of "gross floor area" for purposes of calculating traffic impacts for projects. He clarified to Mr. Arst that the NBMC gross floor area definition was just used for purposes of traffic calculations, not net floor area, and that the gross floor area definition has been used for years to evaluate traffic impacts. He added that this term does not include parking Volume 54 - Page 46 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX structures. He reported that there is also reference in the Measure relative to using the ITE Manual definitions and noted that its definitions do not include parking structures. He confirmed for Council Member Glover that parking structures, however, should not be a category in the matrix. Mr. Arst stated that they recommend Options A and C for the look back period (start either December 15, 2000 or July 30, 1999) and expressed the opinion that there is little difference between the dates. Council Member Heffernan stated that he looked at the initiative and believed that this recommendation runs contrary to the text. He expressed the opinion that "look back" means to look back from the time the project came before the Council that approved it. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway concurred, stating that the text of the Measure is very clear. Mr. Arst stated that they recommend Option B (credit for reduction in peak hour trips) for trip decreases; Option A (guidelines include the General Plan Entitlement Table from Measure S) for the general plan data; and added an Option C for the pending vote in order to add verbiage to Mr. Burnham's wording to prevent piecemeal changes while preserving fairness to the applicant. He stated that this is needed to supplement Option A (does not count when vote is pending) to only exclude CPAs that are waiting for a required vote, are submitted by the same or associated entities, and do not apply to the same or adjacent properties. Mr. Burnham recalled that at the last meeting, if any GPA is pending a vote, it is not going to count for purposes of the look back provision since it will either get passed or rejected, and will not count either way. Mr. Arst indicated that this was not a major point with them. Mr. Arst believed that Council should adopt a procedure to approve GPAs in order, for each statistical area, so there is a clear path of how they are processed and to determine which ones will need a vote. Council Member Glover asked Mr. Burnham what the cumulative affect would be if there were eight lots that were owned by the same person. Mr. Burnham reported that all subsequent amendments would require a vote if there is more than 50,000 square feet in any statistical area. Mr. Arst stated that, if two of the projects had been developed without needing a vote, the applicant could put the remaining six lots on the ballot with an explanation of the plan so that only one vote is made on the properties. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked Mr. Burnham if a vote would be needed if someone was entitled to 60,000 square feet, the person wanted to change the land use to some type of multi - family use with an excess of 10 units, but the change generates less traffic than the entitlement. Mr. Burnham indicated that this would not require a vote if the traffic increase of the 10 units generated 100 or less new peak hour trips. He noted that a vote would be required if there were 101 units, even if less traffic was generated, since a vote is required if more than 100 dwelling units are to be built. Mr. Arst stated that they recommend Options A and B for applicant information because they believe that the applicant should get as specific an Volume 54 - Page 47 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 III4 option as possible from staff before and after their application is Mr. Arst noted that they are suggesting three recommendations that were not included in the matrix. Regarding shortcutting required City procedures, they believe that Measure S goes into effect only after Council approves a GPA. Further, all existing City procedures under CEQA, EIR traffic studies, and public hearings must be followed prior to Council voting on a GPA. Mayor Adams believed that this is beyond what the provision of the Charter allows and would require its own Charter amendment. Mr. Burnham concurred, explaining that the Measure does not take away the Council's power relative to other provisions of the Charter, State law, or the Constitution to put measures on a ballot. Mr. Arst indicated that the second recommendation deals with enforcement of allowed uses. He expressed concern regarding the 500 Superior Street project and added that the will of the voters may be bypassed by classifying a project at a lower level of traffic generation, i.e. research and development (R &D), and then not following that classification. He stated that a strong enforcement procedure needs to be defined, adding that the Planning Commission has taken a good step in that direction by placing conditions on 500 Superior. He expressed the opinion that progress on the enforcement procedure needs to be reported through a regular annual review by Council and the general public, or some other procedure that Council adopts. In response to Mayor Adams' question of whether this would mean an annual review of all GPAs, Mr. Arst stated that this should be done only when there is an enforcement issue. Mayor Adams indicated that this may also be beyond the scope of Greenlight and emphasized that Greenlight, by definition, is for the maximum use associated with the land use; therefore, this recommendation is not necessary. He indicated that, if the use is to be changed, the applicant would need a GPA and would then be subject to Greenlight scrutiny. Mr. Bludau emphasized that any GPA has conditions attached to it, so there is enforcement with every project. Council Member Heffernan expressed his concern regarding the 500 Superior project since there is an R &D classification, which could easily turn into an office use. Mr. Burnham stated that, in the future, the City needs to be specific in terms of the permitted uses and include provisions that limit the uses in the planning documents, development agreement, or resolution approving the project, and that any changes would require an amendment to the General Plan. Council Member Heffernan expressed concern that, if the 500 Superior project is now being used for offices without updating the GPA, getting a GPA could simply upgrade the building to an office use just because it migrated into it when it is actually only approved for R &D. Mr. Burnham indicated that Greenlight only deals with amendments that change the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses can generate. He stated that the problem that Council Member Heffernan pointed out is that there is a fairly broad spectrum of allowed uses in the commercial designation of the General Plan. He believed that it would be a good idea to narrow the uses through the approval process and make sure that someone is not allowed to get a GPA that can be converted into one that generates more traffic in the future. Mr. Arst believed that this applies under Greenlight when someone tries to avoid a vote by indicating that it Volume 54 - Page 48 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX for a specified use and then violates that use. Mr. Arst indicated that they are just asking for an annual report that says the City is enforcing and conforming to what it says it is going to do. Mr. Burnham indicated that this recommendation may fit in Greenlight discussions regarding the maximum traffic that allowed uses could generate and looking at all uses, unless the City specifically designates certain uses. He believed that the policy can provide that the City monitor those restrictions so that, in dealing with future CPAs, it makes sure that there is no change in use from the one that was approved. Mayor Adams agreed, but added that this only makes sense if this is done as part of the GPA process. If this is done as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), he indicated that it does not fall under Greenlight. He stated that he is having a problem with using the 500 Superior project as an example. He stated that he could see having a policy that addresses whether a GPA came before Council, the maximum use were determined based on a condition of the project, and it skirted Greenlight because a decision was made to enter into an agreement for a lower intensity use. However, if it starts out as a CUP, he does not see the connection. Mayor Adams stated that Mr. Burnham could put language in the maximum use section of the guidelines that deal with monitoring. Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Drive, stated that it is fortunate that the Mayor has plunged into this and taken a very proactive role in getting the Measure guidelines adopted and clarified, and expressed that this is heartwarming. He also expressed the proponents appreciation. He reported that he provided Council with a number of technical problems concerning Council Policy A -18, like the 80% look back provision. Mr. Burnham clarified that the staff report does not include some of Mr. Beek's corrections; however, they will be incorporated when the guidelines are presented because they are accurate. Regarding shortcuts that would place a project directly to a vote rather than go through CEQA, EQAC, etc., Mr. Beek suggested that a policy be made so this does not happen. He explained that a Council policy does not restrict Council's abilities since they can change or violate its own policies. Further, since both sides agree that shortcuts should not be done, there should be a policy stating this. Mr. Beek indicated that the City has all sorts of enforcement problems, but now it has been made more critical because Greenlight introduces more enforcement problems due to evasions. Regarding his correspondence, Mr. Beek stated that the language in the Measure does not talk about the peak hour of the project, but the peak hour of traffic on the streets. He noted that this interpretation makes it easier on the applicant. He added that two different "area" definitions were mentioned, but they prefer that the floor area be broken up into two different parts. Mr. Beek stated that Greenlight's single purpose is to control the method by which GPAs are adopted and to set up some criteria for controlling what has to be voted on by the people. He indicated that the three cornerstones for Volume 54 - Page 49 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX the criteria are dwelling units for residential areas, intensity for corporate buildings, and traffic for every area. He noted that these are all important and are part of the process. He added that the intensity of parking structures is relevant and should be included, but not for trip generation calculations. Regarding credit for negatives, Mr. Beek stated that the staff report only mentions credit for negative trips; however, Mr. Arst mentions in his correspondence that credit should apply to negative trips or floor area. He added that credit could actually apply to negative trips, floor area, and dwelling units. He expressed the opinion that this is one of the most trivial items since this problem will probably never arise. Mr. Beek believed that Council and the Planning Commission should know what they are dealing with from the beginning and that every GPA staff report should identify the floor area, the peak hour trips, and dwelling units both before and after the amendment. Further, it would be reasonable to show the 80% accumulation for the prior amendment so the applicant knows whether the project will face a vote or not. Regarding the definition of maximum, Mr. Beek discussed his correspondence and explained the example in which a project could be 64,000 square feet. Mayor Adams agreed that the entitlement numbers need to be used even if the size of the project is less than the entitlement. Barry Eaton, 727 Bellis Street, stated that the peak hour is more an issue for the TPO than the threshold issue. He reported that there are two churches that have filed for GPAs and noted that they are modest requests that would not require a Greenlight vote unless the peak hour of the use is specified and Sunday mornings are included. He stated that, if this were the case, then both projects would need a vote. He expressed the opinion that this was probably not the intent of the Greenlight proponents and hoped that weekday peak hours are specified if peak hour of the generator or of the street is used. Mayor Adams noted that Mr. Arst made a statement earlier that the Measure specified weekdays; however, in reviewing the Measure, he cannot find this provision. Mr. Burnham confirmed that weekdays are not specified in the Measure. Mr. Eaton believed that Mr. Arst was referring to his letter. Regarding the look back provision, Mr. Eaton believed that the Greenlight proponents' intent was to prevent piecemeal applications and added that it is reasonable to go with the City Attorney's definition. Regarding the 500 Superior project, Mr. Eaton stated that this is a case in which a project is in an industrial zone and the applicant is tearing down all the manufacturing buildings and replacing them with office buildings without applying for a GPA. He believed that there is some overlap in this case. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Burnham indicated that he believed it is legally permissible to include a definition that would make the provisions apply to weekdays only, even though it is not mentioned Volume 54 - Page 50 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 in the initiative. INDEX Doug Stuckey, representing the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce, indicated that they feel the language in the initiative regarding the look back period should go back 10 years and that this is what the people voted for. Additionally, they feel that the Greenlight initiative is not about today but about what will happen to the City in 20 years. He stated that, when this goes through, the City will be at its maximum whether the look back provision is now or in ten years from now. He asked what will happen then, believing that elections will be occurring all the time. He wondered why the City should be put through that pain in 20 years when it can be stopped sooner. In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Mr. Stuckey confirmed that the Chamber is advocating a 10 year look back even though it would have the most negative impact on property owners today. He explained that, whether the City is at its maximum now or in 20 years, they want the people to see that there are problems with the initiative as soon as possible. Nancy Skinner clarified that, when there is a project that goes for a vote, it does not count towards the cumulative count and this is why there will not be a lot of votes on smaller projects. However, if the look back is considered 10 years back from now, there would be a few unnecessary elections. She added that it does not make sense that the Chamber wants this to happen. Ms. Skinner believed that the initiative should start when it was passed, noting that the only date referenced in the initiative is the July 1999 date. She expressed the opinion that the December 2000 or the July 1999 date is what she believed the people felt was the initiative start date. She added that their literature also referenced the Planning Center's report (Douglas Report) which used a clean -slate start. Council Member Glover stated that she will support starting the look back period on December 15, 2000 since the City Attorney feels it is appropriate and plus it will help the businesses on Mariner's Mile. However, she noted that most of the Greenlight literature discussed looking at projects 10 years back. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway requested that Ms. Skinner provide him with copies of Greenlight literature. In response to Council questions regarding setting guidelines as it relates to the look back period, Mr. Burnham confirmed that Council should proceed as if they were a courtroom determining legislative intent. He added that he does not believe a court would consider the statements of the proponents or people that supported the Measure with regard to their intent or what they sought to accomplish with the Measure. However, a court would look to the actual wording of the Measure. He expressed the opinion that, in this regard, the precise phrasing of the language dealing with the look back provision would be considered. He added that a court would also look at the finding section and try to discern what it was that this Measure was trying to accomplish in terms of including the look back provision. He stated that this is why he concluded that Council can, consistent with the Measure, go back 10 years prior to the date on which an amendment was approved, or look at the provision as though its real intent is to prevent piecemealing and Volume 54 - Page 51 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX this arose only when the Measure became effective. He believed that a court would uphold either interpretation by the City Council. Mr. Burnham indicated that literature that was used in disseminating the initiative would generally not be looked at to determine or discern the intent. However, courts have looked at the ballot arguments because they can assume that voters have seen them since they are a part of the materials that voters receive. He believed that the court does not really look at what proponents or opponents said because they do not know to what extent the voter incorporated those comments or thoughts into their decision to vote. Council Member Bromberg also requested Greenlight literature from Ms. Skinner. Council Member Bromberg asked if this is really legislative intent since a court would be interpreting legislative intent by reading the documents. Mr. Burnham stated that it is in this situation since there is a Measure which has two parts (a change to the Charter and a purpose and findings). He reiterated that a court would look to the purpose and findings section because those are what all voters saw since they were published along with the ballot materials. He reported that the second purpose of the Measure is "to make sure that major changes do not escape scrutiny by being presented piecemeal as a succession of small changes." Further, he believed that the look back provision in the findings was designed to deal solely with piecemealing, and not be a way to try to correct, rectify, or punish a vote that was taken 10 years preceding the date a particular amendment was considered by Council. When reviewing the Douglas Report, Mr. Burnham stated that it was noted that approvals in the 1990s did not increase peak hour trips; in fact, the CPAs reduced them. He believed that this was something the voters could be aware of based on the publicity. He added that amendments varied from statistical area to statistical area, adding that the look back period for some areas would require voter approval on any amendment, while applying it to other areas would not require a vote. Council Member Heffernan stated that adopting guidelines is part of the implementation portion of the initiative but could be attacked if the City were found to have adopted the wrong guidelines. Mr. Burnham confirmed that the look back period could be attacked in the future without invalidating the initiative. Regarding the look back period, Bob Caustin, 471 Old Newport Boulevard, expressed the opinion that either July 30, 1999 or December 15, 2000 is keeping with what the initiative says and doubts that a court would overturn it. Mr. Caustin stated that he does not believe that parking structures do not create more traffic. Further, he believed that parking structures allow a developer or commercial entity to build more square footage without being accountable for what they are putting on a property. He added that, by providing parking, the City is actually discouraging people from carpooling or using mass transit. He urged Council to include the square footage of parking structures. Volume 54 - Page 52 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to schedule a straw vote of the issues identified in the matrix for the February 13 study session and direct staff to prepare guidelines for Council review /approval at the February 27 Council meeting. 4. SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR (SJR) CONVERSION AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. Deputy City Manager Kiff stated that the reason for the staff report is to receive public comment on the Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) mid - December certification of a mitigated negative declaration for the conversion of the San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR). He indicated that the staff report includes a history of the issue, correspondence from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) and IRWD, and the last action that was taken by Council. He reported that Defend the Bay has filed a lawsuit against IRWD via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), alleging that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate. He stated that he has not seen the lawsuit, but understands that the City is named as a responsible agency. He noted that the suggested recommendation is to direct staff to work on operating protocol associated with SJR. In response Mayor Adams' question regarding the amount of discussion that would be appropriate since the City is potentially named in a lawsuit, City Attorney Burnham reported that the litigation is going to be resolved on the basis of the administrative record that was closed as of the date IRWD adopted the mitigated negative declaration. Clint Hoose, President of the Harbor Ridge Homeowners Association, expressed his and the Association's support of the project and noted that they are one of the most affected areas in the City by the unsightly reservoir. He stated that they look forward to working with the City and IRWD in moving this forward. In response to Council Member Heffernan's questions, Mr. Hoose explained that they want this project because they are currently looking into an empty concrete hole and since it will provide a storage facility for reclaimed water. He reported that the Association's Board of Directors believes that there could be a shortage of potable water, noting that they use 100 million to 130 million gallons of potable water on their greenbelts and would like to convert that to a reclaimed water use. He added that, in the event of a severe drought or water shortage, the reclaimed water would save that much potable water for home use. He reported that a study was conducted by Pace Engineering that compiled several mitigating measures on how to deal with the reservoir so that nothing would get into the water and affect the Association. Further, IRWD assured them that they would work closely with the City and the homeowners to make sure there are no odors and does not become a mosquito infested facility. He added that they are confident that, between the City and IRWD, they could reach an agreement that will allow the reservoir to operate effectively. Mr. Hoose reported that there is no agreement between the Association and IRWD, but they are waiting for the project to move forward to negotiate with the City to purchase the reclaimed water from the City who will be buying it from IRWD. He added that, since Volume 54 - Page 53 INDEX San Joaquin Reservoir (89) City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX they abut the reservoir, it is easier for them to receive the reclaimed water. Council Member Bromberg asked if the Association discussed the issue of whether the City should enter into a contract or agreement with IRWD to not discharge reclaimed water into the Bay. Mr. Hoose indicated that this has never been a concern for the Association since SJR probably will not discharge water into the Bay since it is a solid concrete reservoir that does not have overflow or discharges water into the creek or Bay. He expressed the opinion that this is the issue that is upsetting Defend the Bay and that they want to hold IRWD hostage on this issue in order to get them to sign some type of agreement. He added that the water that comes from the San Diego Creek is runoff water and SJR is not going to generate runoff water like the Sand Canyon Reservoir. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, reported that EQAC has done quite a bit of work on this project and the draft mitigated negative declaration. Regarding the second bullet in the executive summary, he read a portion of the October 24 minutes that indicates that language could be added to this action that allows Council review and approval of the environmental document. He stated that this would give Council the opportunity to be more comfortable about the adequacy of the environmental document, but if this does not happen, Council can direct staff to take another action other than to "execute all documents necessary to consummate the sale of the City's ownership interests in SJR." Regarding the memo submitted by EQAC (Attachment B), Mr. Hawkins stated that IRWD's master plan for the reclaimed water system is twofold and includes the acquisition of SJR and the expansion of the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP). He indicated that, if Council objects to the expansion of MWRP, EQAC believes that the City should object early and often since it may be too late if it waits until they try to expand MWRP. He added that this project will also increase the amount of growth within IRWD's service area. He noted that this would impact the City since the SJR and Sand Canyon Reservoir capacities will be utilized. He believed that the entire reclaimed water system will suffer greater demands and, therefore, there will be an increase in the amount of discharge from the Sand Canyon Reservoir. He added that, even though the draft mitigated negative declaration includes a mitigation monitoring plan and a non - potable water storage study to address the seepage issues and maintenance issues, the environmental documents do not address the impacts or provide the necessary mitigation measures. Regarding the cumulative impacts, Mr. Hawkins stated that they are unanalyzed in the environmental document when the CEQA document is supposed to be explanatory. He pointed out that pages 15 and 16 of the staff report have other minor, yet significant, concerns regarding the project. In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Mr. Hawkins indicated that water availability affects growth and is not a sole limiter to growth. He stated that they may not have factual information to support this; however, Water Code Section 10910 requires that there be some determination made about water availability before a development can be expanded or approved. He reported Volume 54 - Page 54 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX that the theory behind this is so a land use approving agency cannot approve a substantial development and then try to find water for it. Mr. Hawkins believed that there will be a difference if the entitled development in the service area is completed since freeing -up groundwater supplies will affect IRWD's water availability since their imported supplies are limited. Mayor Adams noted that this is an entitled development that does not need any environmental documentation and asked if the Irvine City Council is going to determine whether water can be provided to the homes and businesses before they grant approval. Mr. Hawkins believed that, under Water Code Section 10910 and the Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project case, there has to be a water availability determination. Mayor Adams asked, if the reservoir is not used for reclaimed water, will there be a likelihood that the finding will be that water is a problem in those entitlements. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that a final mitigated negative declaration only brings up issues that citizens feel might cause concerns and that it is interesting that IRWD decided to do a mitigated negative declaration instead of an environmental impact report (EIR). He expressed the opinion that Defend the Bay will probably be successful in their lawsuit because he believed that this is an issue that has not been adequately addressed. He noted that, if there is no mitigation, the only way to have an overriding consideration is with an EIR. He indicated that the irony of the lawsuit and comments tonight is that it will ultimately benefit IRWD because they may have to make an overriding consideration finding. He emphasized that the burden of proof is not on the people, but on IRWD. Council Member O'Neil reported that the Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project case, a companion case (Santiago), and Water Code Section 10910 deal with water source and not its availability. He indicated that the Stanislaus case dealt with a resort that had a build -out over a 20 year period but the EIR reported that, after five years, the source of water was gone. He noted that this is distinguishable from capacity and availability. Mr. Hawkins stated that the mitigated negative declaration claims that IRWD does not function in land use decisions and that growth is controlled by the cities. He emphasized that IRWD plays a role and that the Water Code Section and the Stanislaus case support the fact that water availability affects land use decisions. Council Member O'Neil agreed with that; however, indicated that decision makers only need to identify the source and do not need to get into availability or capacity when deciding on whether to certify an EIR in connection with a project. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that an entire housing development in the Newhall area has been stopped for lack of water capacity, even though they identified the water source. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway noted that EQAC brought up many issues and that Council respects the amount of work that was done. He stated that the City is concerned about the capacity of reclaimed water in SJR; however, the growth inducing impacts are minimally important to the City and is the reason Council chose not to initiate a lawsuit during closed session. He expressed the opinion that a reclaimed water system is necessary for storage and that this will mitigate the need for IRWD to discharge reclaimed water into the Bay. Mr. Hawkins stated that the function of EQAC is to identify the impacts and to propose the necessary mitigation. Regarding the staff Volume 54 - Page 55 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 IIell) W11 report, he believed that Council constrained itself and indicated that staff was directed to execute all necessary documents if Council is comfortable with the environmental documents and all the impacts are mitigated to Council satisfaction. He indicated that he is not sure if the City is at that point yet. Council Member Glover stated that she recalls that, when this issue was before Council previously, someone from IRWD publicly stated that there had been seepage from SJR. Mr. Kiff announced that Mike Hoolihan and Greg Heiertz from IRWD are in the audience to answer any questions and that they addressed the seepage issue in the mitigated negative declaration that was approved on December 18, 2000. Kevin Johnson stated that he is representing Defend the Bay and thanked Council for holding a study session. He further thanked the City Attorney and Deputy City Manager for previously spending an hour and a half with him and his client. He believed that, if the City gave up its controlling interest in the reservoir, it would be taking one small step towards the deregulation of the water industry in the region. He stated that IRWD has a tremendous amount of control and power right now in this area in terms of what will happen with growth and expansion in the economy. He indicated that the City has a unique window of opportunity right now to get some things from IRWD that cannot be gotten in any other way. He stated that the issue is not just whether the document is adequate, but whether the City wants to make that an issue or priority. He stated that the idea of "growth inducement" is broad and does not resonate into the City's short term priorities; however, Defend the Bay hopes that the City looks at this in terms of what it means relative to the ongoing pollution in Newport Bay. He emphasized that, if IRWD expands its reclaimed water capacity, there will be a continuing need to discharge. He agreed that, in the short term, if they expand into San Joaquin, they will have more places to put their water in a storm; however, he believed that they will inevitably fill up the system after they start supplying more people. He noted that there is no reason to believe that their reclaimed water system is not going to continue to expand, considering the value of water in the area. He believed that their next step is to expand MWRP and then another reservoir after that, and discharge as needed. Mr. Johnson reported that Defend the Bay submitted a stack of documentation showing that there had been dozens of reclaimed water releases into San Diego Creek from the Sand Canyon Reservoir over the years, reportedly under the restrictions set by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit (Order 94 -22). He stated that Defend the Bay's position is that IRWD should not be discharging any water. He indicated that, if Council does not debate the environmental documents, IRWD should come up with an answer and show that they will not continue to discharge. He stated that Defend the Bay has no problem with getting the project online right away; however, they want the City to tell them that they have to stop discharging. He also urged Council not to sign the Joint Statement of Objectives because it binds the City indefinitely to the standards that are set under the current NPDES Permit and does not allow the City to argue for higher standards. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Volume 54 - Page 56 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX the City has increasing responsibility to clean the Bay since the water quality is terrible, adding that reclaimed water is a pollutant to the Bay. He further recommended that the City ask IRWD for more time and information so that they can sit down with all interested parties to work this out. Council Member Glover stated that the citizens of Newport Beach do not want reclaimed water to end up in the Bay. She noted that the City fulfilled all of its responsibilities on the Green Acres project and, within that document, there is supposed to be an agreement that prohibits IRWD from discharging. She added that the City Attorney has approached IRWD but they are unwilling to sign anything more. Mr. Johnson reiterated that the City has leverage over IRWD right now because the City has an ownership interest that IRWD has to have. Regarding the quality of water in the Bay, Council Member O'Neil stated that the Bay is classified as an impaired body under the Clean Water Act; however, the City has put various mitigation measures in place and does satisfy the total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements to a point that the Water Quality Control Board has singled out this body of water as the model of how to protect these types of bodies. Mr. Johnson agreed that the Bay has been improved but added that they have to continue to strive to protect it. Mayor Pro Tern Ridgeway stated that he does not disagree with Mr. Johnson's goal. He indicated that City staff has had some discussions with IRWD who is in agreement to an operation and maintenance protocol for SJR. He stated that, when the City sells its 1.18% interest, it will be exacting as much as it can for a no discharge scenario. He noted that the City does watch over the Bay, but having no discharge falls under Order 94- 22 which is enforced by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board. He added that Order 94 -22 is technically terminated and needs to be renewed. He reported that the City has a Basic Integrated Re -Use Project Agreement (BIRPA) that creates a no discharge scenario until 2011 and that the City believes there will be a greater, not less, demand for reclaimed water. He stated that he is satisfied that the City has a reasonable deal, and will condition it as best it can. Regarding any discussions, Mr. Johnson noted that they are required, by statute, to meet with IRWD to try to look for common ground to resolve the litigation. He indicated that they are not trying to stop the project but are wanting a real no discharge scenario without having to rely on the regional board to enforce it. Mr. Burnham stated that he and Mr. Kiff had a good meeting with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Caustin, and are in agreement regarding the goal of no discharge of reclaimed water. He indicated that there is disagreement as to whether litigation over the mitigated negative declaration and the consequent delay of bringing SJR online as a reclaimed water storage facility is something that is good in short or long terms. He noted that he, Mr. Kiff, and Council believe that getting that reservoir online as soon as possible is one of the best ways to ensure that there is no reclaimed water discharge. He added that there is also a disagreement as to whether that reservoir will lead to the expansion of MWRP since there is disagreement as to whether new users will come online with or without SJR. He indicated that it is their Volume 54 - Page 57 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX opinion that the users will be there whether the reservoir is converted or not. He reported that the reservoir just gives IRWD another supply source for reclaimed water during the summer when they would otherwise only be able to either expand MWRP or use potable groundwater. Therefore, by allowing the maximum amount of storage in SJR, the City gives IRWD an incentive not to expand MWRP. Mayor Adams asked how filing a lawsuit in order to get a full environmental document relates to Defend the Bay's goal of no discharge. Mr. Johnson explained that an EIR would require looking at all the issues and coming up with realistic scenarios on how to deal with them, and added that the EIR could also study future expansion plans and how they relate to discharges. He noted that they are concerned about seepage because there is a huge amount of reclaimed water that will be seeping into the ground in that area, as well as the nuisance problems the neighbors are going to have. He stated that it is common that, by the time the litigation and the project start, some adjustments and improvements will happen. Mr. Bludau asked if it is Defend the Bay's position that there should never be a discharge even in a 100 year storm. Mr. Johnson stated that a 100 year storm would clearly warrant a discharge; however, he is talking more about discharges for a 25 year storm over a seven day period. He agreed that he does not literally mean "no" discharge. Bob Caustin, Defend the Bay, reported that the Bay has been impaired to the point that shellfish harvesting has been banned and fish cannot be eaten on a regular basis. He noted that Defend the Bay filed a lawsuit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish and improve TMDLs; however, they are still 15 to 20 years away. Mr. Caustin stated that IRWD should put it in writing if they believe this will solve the problem. He noted that IRWD stated, in 1996, that they only needed to get rid of 5 million gallons a day in order to move forward with its wetland water supply project and also indicated that they would never ask for an increase. The City then put together the Green Acres project in which IRWD got rid of 7.8 million gallons a day. After that, IRWD had to then discharge an additional 3 million gallons a day into the Bay. He emphasized that this is more than 10 million gallons a day more than they initially promised. Regarding Order 94 -22, Mr. Caustin indicated that it states that IRWD is going to have to expand the plant in the future to 28 million to 30 million gallons a day to take care of the people moving into Irvine. He added that IRWD is also supposed to put together a desalter to help clean up what is flowing into the Bay from El Toro airport. He asked if this has been dragging because it will add another 5 million gallons a day into the system, which means that IRWD will output 20 million gallons a day. He reiterated that IRWD will not put in writing that they will take care of their water. Regarding SJR, Mr. Caustin pointed out that IRWD initially had an agreement in which they were requiring the City to diligently pursue alternative uses for reclaimed water in the watershed, believing that this Volume 54 - Page 58 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 INDEX would minimize the need to find additional discharge points to the San Diego Creek. He asked why the City would have to diligently pursue solving someone else's problem. Further, he asked if "diligent" means spending City money and assigning staff to it when it is not the City's problem. He emphasized that this gives IRWD a loophole with regard to discharges into the Bay. Mr. Caustin stated that Defend the Bay stood with the City in 1996 against IRWD and noted that Defend the Bay has already litigated against them before and won. He reported that IRWD's permit was tossed out because the City and Defend the Bay were correct in stating that the discharge contained contaminants that were pollutants to the Bay. Mr. Caustin urged Council to make IRWD sign an agreement and put it in writing. He noted that IRWD's need to discharge is so great that, after a State Superior Court judge declared that their discharge was not appropriate and stopped their wetlands water supply project permit, their immediate response was to generate a new project whose only improvement was that it came from the opposite side of the creek. Mayor Adams reported that, on October 24, Council adopted an action to authorize the City Manager and the City Attorney to execute all documents necessary to consummate the sale of the City's ownership interest when the environmental documentation for the project have been certified and the City had complied with its obligations as a responsible agency pursuant to CEQA. Mr. Burnham confirmed that the documentation has been certified and the City has complied with its obligations. However, staff is now proposing that Council direct staff to discuss operating protocol and other conditions with IRWD and then bring back an agreement to Council. Council Member Bromberg stated that he cannot imagine signing an agreement without having one from IRWD that states they will not discharge reclaimed water except in intense storms. Mayor Adams noted that staff is working with IRWD to get some operating language that does tighten things up a little and that staff will be bringing that agreement back to Council. He added that Council will have discretion prior to its approval. He stated that this may be the proper forum to continue these discussions. Greg Heiertz, Director of Engineering and Planning for the Irvine Ranch Water District, stated that they have been working successfully with City staff for some time on issues surrounding SJR. He believed that SJR is a water conservation project that benefits the environment, all the clients of IRWD, and the citizens of Newport Beach. Further, they believe they have addressed all the environmental impacts and incorporated features that mitigate any possible significant impacts. He stated that they are puzzled by Defend the Bay's opposition to their project because they believe it resolves the need for a potential discharge of reclaimed water into the Bay by providing storage for reclaimed water for summertime use. He added that their opposition to this project appears to run counter to their stated goals. He expressed the opinion that the lawsuit is based on invalid assumptions and misinterpretations of the facts, noting that they have support from the residents overlooking the reservoir. Mr. Heiertz stated that their highest priority in making these decisions is to always be a good neighbor to the community. He indicated that they are willing to work directly with City Volume 54 - Page 59 City of Newport Beach Study Session Minutes January 23, 2001 staff to develop and adopt a reservoir adopted by the Board of Directors to declaration, reservoir operation study carried forward and implemented. operations plan, and have that plan ensure that their mitigated negative and mitigation monitoring plan are Council Member Heffernan asked Mr. Heiertz about entering into an agreement that prohibits discharging in the future except under extreme storms. Mr. Heiertz stated that the issue raised tonight deals with discharges from the Sand Canyon Reservoir which are subject to the NPDES Permit, but reported that IRWD has the ability to discharge from this reservoir during large storms. He pointed out that the Sand Canyon Reservoir is not part of the project and is a permitted use under Order 94 -22. He stated that IRWD is not willing to cease all discharges from that facility since they have a permit that was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control. Mr. Heiertz added that IRWD does not have a permit to discharge from MWRP. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway expressed the opinion that the City is overstepping itself by trying to control the Sand Canyon Reservoir through the sale of SJR. Council Member Glover expressed the opinion that this is the only negotiating chip the City has. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT - 6:10 p.m. The agenda for the Study Session was posted on January 17, 2001, at 3:55 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. City Clerk Recording Secretary Mayor Volume 54 - Page 60 INDEX