HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Direction on Various Issues�R� � �� i� 1 I�- n,� 1� ."fit �„ ' ®� l •� � �y �
Study Session Agenda Item No. SS3
April 12, 2011
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Dave Kiff, City Manager
949 - 644 -3000, dkiff @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Rob Houston, Assistant to the City Manager
APPROVED: fn 11n/
TITLE: Direction on Issues — Smoking in Parks, Corona del Mar Parking
Program, Plastic Bags, Business Licenses, Water Taxi
ABSTRACT:
Roughly once a quarter (starting now), the City Manager seeks the Council's direction
on policy approaches or issues that have been brought to the City by individuals,
committees, or other groups. This allows the City staff to better understand what's
important to the Council (and community) and can better target expenditures of time
and resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the City Manager on the following issues:
1. Smoking ban in parks.
2. Pilot parking program in Corona del Mar.
3. Ban on plastic bags.
4. Review of our business license regulations.
5. Water Taxi program.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
None at this time.
Direction on Issues — Smoking in Parks. Corona del Mar Parking Program, Plastic Bags,
Business Licenses, Water Taxi
April 12, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The following are issues or projects that City staff seeks additional direction from the
City Council:
1. Smoking ban in parks
Should the City consider a ban on smoking in parks and some open space areas,
as recommended by EQAC as follows:
"The City Council should consider a ban on smoking that would encompass
all municipal parks."
"The City Council should consider a ban on smoking in any area designated
as open space or nature preserves where public access is provided whether
by trails, sidewalks, bike paths, driveways or roadways. Smoking would be
banned on the access way and parking areas in addition to open space
areas. Examples include upper Buck Gully, the mouth of Big Canyon and
the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and Ecological Reserve."
2. Pilot parking program in Corona del Mar
Should the City implement a metered parking model in Corona Del Mar on PCH
between Heliotrope and Avocado? The first two residential blocks perpendicular
from PCH would not be metered, but would be enforced with two -hour parking
limitations. Residents would get two parking passes per home that would allow
them to park on the streets without limitation.
This is a request of the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) to
encourage more turnover of spaces (for customers) on PCH and to limit the
parking of employees of businesses to specific lots instead of on residential
streets. If the City were to pursue this further, it would work with the CDM
Residents' Association, the BID, Central Parking and the PD to examine the
neighborhood and business impacts as well as anticipated costs and revenues.
3. Ban on plastic bags
The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) has discussed but not
formally proposed a ban on retailers' use of plastic bags. This would follow in the
steps of cities like Palo Alto, Malibu, Fairfax, the City and County of San
Francisco, and Manhattan Beach. Other cities levy a surcharge on plastic bags,
including Washington DC's 5 -cent surcharge. The ban in Manhattan Beach is
"tied up in litigation" according to Heal the Bay. An attempt to ban plastic bags
Direction on Issues — Smoking in Parks, Corona del Mar Parking Program, Plastic Bags,
Business Licenses, Water Taxi
April 12, 2011
Page 3
statewide failed in 2010 (AB 1998, Cedillo, 2010). Does the City Council want
City staff or EQAC to pursue this further?
4. Review of our business license regulations
Should the City's business license practices be changed:
a. For temporary/one -time event businesses?
b. For certain limited liability corporations, including investment clubs?
5. Water Taxi program
In September 2009 a report was completed that reviewed the potential of a
Water Taxi service in Newport Harbor and it determined that it would not be
feasible without a significant subsidy from the City to offset operating costs.
Should a Water Taxi project move forward, assuming that the City will not grant
the water taxi program any subsidy?
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will
not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378)
of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it
has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or
indirectly.
NOTICING:
The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of
the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Additionally, I provided a
draft of this staff report to the chairs of each affected committee by e -mail on Friday,
March 4. 2011.
Submitted by:
d wmt
Rob Houston, Assistant to the City
Manager
AM '!can° "RE
WT y CE�!'r_ af_Ypq AGE ��Da ncl
April 12, 2011
The Honorable Michael F. Henn
Mayor, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Study Session Agenda Item #SS3 - April 12, 2011
Plastic Bags
Dear Mayor Henn:
It is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach City Council is considering whether to direct city staff
and/or the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) to pursue development of an ordinance to ban
plastic retail bags. By way of background, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is a national trade
association of manufacturing companies, including those domestic producers of fully recyclable retail plastic
bags.
ACC members support efforts to reduce bag litter and disposal and it is for that reason we have been working
to promote and enhance the recycling of not only plastic bags but other plastic packaging as well. ACC is in
full agreement with the intent of this discussion but feel an outright prohibition on these recyclable products is
unnecessary. In many cases, suggestions to ban recyclable plastic bags often overlook important, yet
unintended environmental impacts. Furthermore, these ordinances have the potential to impact consumers
economically, especially for those employees who work at bag manufacturing facilities in California.
As you and your colleagues discuss this issue, ACC respectfully requests that you consider the following policy
issues and potential alternative approaches.
A common misconception is that plastic bags are not recyclable. California law requires all large grocery
stores and pharmacies to provide a recycling bin for plastic bags. These bins provide a local consumer
infrastructure that can capture not only recyclable plastic grocery bags but newspaper, dry cleaning, toiletry,
and other bags and film as well (e.g., product wraps for cases of soda, paper towels, etc.). Nationally, plastic
bag and film recovery has increased by 31 percent since 2005. This recovery growth is more than nine times
greater than the 3.4 percent increase in recovery of all municipal solid waste from 2005 to 2009 according to
EPA data. Recovery of postconsumer film (which includes plastic bags and product wraps) grew to an
estimated 854,377,000 pounds in 2009.
In many communities around the country, ACC has worked in partnership with retailers, public agencies and
other stakeholders to promote the recycling of plastic bags and wraps.
In addition to the recycling opportunities, we believe that other policy and legal issues should also be explored,
including:
Whether such an ordinance would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
thus an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be completed before final adoption of the
ordinance.
americanchemistry.com° 1121 L Street, Suite 609 1 Sacramento, CA 1 (916) 448 -2581 4 °td
o If a fee is proposed on alternative products such as paper bags (in an effort to reduce the
environmental impacts of those products), would such a fee be subject to the provisions of Proposition
26?
m Whether an analysis has been conducted as to the potential consumer cost impact for residents that
may now be forced to pay for paper bags, especially those that may be struggling to make ends meet?
o Whether such an ordinance would require city expenditures to implement, monitor and audit the
program, especially as it relates to a city mandated per bag charge?
In our view, bag litter and disposal can be reduced by encouraging consumers to use reusable bags and to
recycle their plastic bags. These activities can be undertaken through partnerships between industry, retailers,
local governments, recyclers and environmental organizations all without the burden of additional regulation,
unintended environmental impacts, or negative economic impacts on consumers.
Thank you in advance for the opportunity to provide these comments and we would welcome the opportunity to
discuss potential recycling opportunities in Newport Beach. If you or your colleagues have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916- 448 -2581 or via email at
roan kennv(@americanchemistrv.com
Sincere)
Ryan Kenny
Manager, State Affairs
American Chemistry Council
cc: Members, Newport Beach City Council; City Clerk
americanchemistry.Como 1121 L Street, Suite 609 1 Sacramento, CA 1 (916) 448 -2581 d(i
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS
"RECEIVEQ��GENGR
April 12, 2011 PRINTED."
Via Email only
Michael F. Henn, Mayor
Members of the City Council
c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport BI% d.
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Comments on April 12, 2011 Study Session Agenda Item No. 3: Direction ou Issues
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
As you know, I have served on the Economic Development Committee ( "EDC ") for several
years. With the sunsetting of EDC, several items were left incomplete including the work of the
Business License Subcommittee. This subcommittee focused on several problems in Title 5 including
recommendations on the following items:
deleting provisions no longer appropriate, e.g. the definition of "gross receipts" since the
City no longer uses gross receipts to calculate the tax:
revising the exemptions;
revising the resolution which established the tax (attached); and
revising the caps and the nature of the tax.
These items and others still require action. I encourage you to provide direction to staff to
continue working on these and other changes to Title 5.
Thank you for your consideration. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
C. HAWK-INS
By: Robert C. Hawkins
RCH/k%N
Enclosures as indicated
110 Ncwpori Canter Drive, tiuite 200
Ncwpurt Mach, Calilurnia 9 2660
(949) 650 -5550
Fu: (449) 650.1 181
ANNUAL BUSINESS TAX RATES PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 5.08 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the Charter of the City of Newport
® Beach authorizes the imposition of a business tax; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 5.08.010, 5.08.020 and
5.08.022 provide that the business tax rates shall be established
by Resolution of the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach as follows:
1. The annual business tax rate to be paid by out of town
based businesses pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.08.010 shall
be $150.00.
2. The annual business tax rate to be paid by residentially
based businesses pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.08.020 shall
be $95.00.
3. The annual business tax rate to be paid by commercially
based businesses pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.08.022 shall
be $100.00 plus $5.00 per employee, to a maximum of $500.00
annually, for businesses possessing a sales tax registration with
the California State Board of Equalization listing a Newport Beach
address, or;
$100.00 plus $10.00 per employee, to a maximum of $1,000.00
annually, for businesses not possessing a sales tax registration
with the California. State Board of Equalization listing a Newport
Beach address.
ADOPTED, this 24th day of May, 1993, effective June 24, 1993.
- `kAYOR
ATTEST:
Brown, Leilani
From: Houston, Rob
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: Study Session- Smoke -free parks
Here is an email for the Council Study Session report I am presenting this afternoon. For the record.
0"
From: Magpie.Acuna(@cancer.org rmailto :Maggie.Acuna(a)cancer.orgl
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Houston, Rob
Subject: Study Session- Smoke -free parks
The American Cancer Society supports the City of Newport Beach's efforts to protect their residents from the
harmful effects of tobacco. Secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 and 40,000 deaths from heart disease every
year. 3,000 otherwise healthy nonsmokers will die of lung cancer annually because of their exposure to
secondhand smoke. These deaths occur because tobacco users are not the only ones who breathe smoke —all the
people around them inhale it too. The 2006 Surgeon General Reports has concluded that there is no safe level of
secondhand smoke. The California Air Resources Board of 2006 has classified secondhand smoke as a toxic air
contaminant, placing it in the same category as automotive and industrial pollutants.
We urge you to pursue consideration of smoke -free parks in Newport Beach. Having smoke -free parks in Newport
Beach would go a long way in protecting residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, especially
young children who play at these parks.
We commend you for taking this first step in protecting residents of the City of Newport Beach, and look forward
to working with you to ensure that all can be protected from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
The American Cancer Society is dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by saving lives,
diminishing suffering and preventing cancer through research, education, advocacy, and service.
Maggie Acuna I Field Advocacy Director
California I American Cancer Society, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Ave. Suite 100 Santa Ana CA 92705 1 cancer.org
949.567.0624 1 mobile: 949.923.8934 1 fax: 949.261.9419
® THE OFFICIAL SPONSOR OF BIRTHDAYS:'
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CITY SMOKING ORDINANCES
Please enter into the Public Record and distribute for City Council
Study Session of April 12,2011
April 9, 2011
Mayor Henn and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach CA 92661
Mayor Henn and Council Members:
In 2010, the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee(EQAC)
Considered the impacts of smoking in public areas, especially the impact of second and
third -hand smoke on public health. EQAC met with representatives of the American
Cancer Society and reviewed ordinances from other cities. Discussion included
prospective consideration of the impact of smoking outside of commercial venues near
public areas, such as: bars and restaurants, and near piers,plazas and marinas where
people frequently congregate outside to smoke. As a result of this, visitors and residents
frequenting public areas and venues are exposed to significant smoke. EQAC
recommended that Council consider an amendment of the City's existing Smoking
ordinances, to extend the current ordinance(which prohibits smoking on beaches,
boardwalks and adjoining walkways) to include no smoking in parks. The Council is now
considering whether to continue or sunset this issue.
We request that the City continue to prioritize this issue, and extend its Smoking
ordinances to include Public places and open areas adjoining them, defined as:
Sidewalks; roads and alleys; parking lots; docks; plazas; patios and other spaces; and
open areas adjoining them. Additionally, 25 ft. radius from outdoor eating ,health care,
schools , day care,and seniors facilities.
WHY EXPAND THE CITY'S SMOKING ORDINANCE:
1. Compelling Public Health Interest- The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that
second hand smoke is highly carcinogenic, perhaps even more so than first hand
smoke. Involuntary inhalation of smoke is hazardous to the public, in particular
children, seniors, pregnant women, and those with respiratory problems. The State
of California prohibits smoking in and within 20 feet of public buildings and school
property.
2. Restriction just including "Parks" Inadequate to Remove Adverse Impacts —
a. Currently, smokers tend to linger and congregate in public areas adjacent to
the boundaries of the beach and boardwalk; along streets, alleys and
walkways in retail, residential and commercial areas; and around schools,
churches, restaurants and markets, and eating /drinking and recreational
establishments. Those seeking to frequent, patronize or access activities in
these areas are involuntarily exposed to smoke, litter and cigarette butts on a
regular basis.
b. Coastal neighborhood impacts are particularly intense for both visitors and
local residents and merchants.
c. These health and nuisance elements, generally accompanied by people
loitering, create an unpleasant environment which is a deterrent to patrons
and visitors of commercial and recreational areas. This creates a significant
impairment to successful economic revitalization.
MANY CITIES HAVE SUCCESSFULLY ENACTED, AND BENEFIT FROM,
COMPREHENSIVE SMOKING ORDINANCES
Many notable cities have enacted expanded No Smoking ordinances in response to
the concerns cited, above. Cities across the board have indicated that their enforcement
of the ordinances has resulted in reduced transiency; increased family and visitor use and
patronage of areas previously being avoided; and enhanced economic vitality in
redeveloped areas. Several examples of successful ordinances:
- Beverly Hills: Smoking not permitted in public places, or open public and private
patios
- Santa Monica: Smoking not permitted on public sidewalks and places
New York: Smoking not permitted in public parks, beaches, streets or places
All of these ordinances and those in other cities remain standing and are actively
supported by business and civic communities.
Smokers have plenty of places where they can smoke as they choose without adversely
impacting others —their homes, cars, smoking permitted establishments.
COMMITMENT TO ENFORCEMENT REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE BENEFITS
The proposed ordinance can yield significant health, environmental quality and
aesthetic, marketability and economic benefits with nominal or no additional City
expense, assuming commitment to vigorous enforcement. The City has proven the
success of this strategy with its recent approach to scavengers and trash pickers.
A successful program need simply include:
- Publication of the City's commitment and position as a world class destination
- Direction to local police to administer regular enforcement, including patrol of problem
areas, and characterization of ordinance violation as an infraction, to allow citations and
fines.
- Graphics based signage for No Smoking, consistent with signage practices used
worldwide.
We also suggest that the City consider health and appropriateness of uses which create
Concentrations of smokers in its Use planning and permitting process.
The City of Newport can restore and promote its brand as a leading attractive, healthy
place to live, work and visit —and further successful revitalization - -- by implementing the
proposed Smoking ordinances now.
Thank you for your consideration .
Respectfully,
Dr. Michael Brant- Zawadski
Laura Curran
Denys Oberman
Brown, Leilani
From:
Denys Oberman [ d .oberman @obermanassociates.com]
Sent:
Monday, April 11, 2011 4:19 PM
To:
Mike Henn; Gardner, Nancy; Curry, Keith; Rosansky, Steven; Daigle, Leslie; Hill, Rush
Cc:
Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; m brant - zawadzki; Laura Curran; Denys Oberman; Louise
Fundenberg; Laura Keane; Craig M; Grace Dove; Hugh Helm; Willis Longyear; Cindy Koller
Subject:
Request to Mayor and City Council- Amendment to Smoking Ordinances
Attachments:
City- Request to City Council -Amend Smoking Ordinances 4- 11- 11.doc
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
PLEASE ENTER THIS CORRESPONDENCE AND ATTACHMENT INTO PUBLIC RECORD AND DISTRIBUTE AT APRIL
12,2011
COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AND COUNCIL MEETING.
To Honorable Mayor Henn and Council Members:
We appreciate your review and consideration of our request, attached at the April 12,2011 Study Session and Council
Meeting.
Thank you .
To Community Association Board Members:
Please review and endorse the attached request, on behalf of our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Denys Oberman
Tel (949) 476 -0790
Cell (949) 230 -5868
Fax (949) 752 -8935
Email: d .oberman(o)obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 9491476.0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of
the document(s) to us.