Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed October 11, 2016 Written Comments October 11, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosherOvahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) item T. Minutes for the August 9, 2016 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are ones from draft minutes with suggested corrections of obvious errors shown in striken-it underline format. Page 102: Item X, main paragraph: "Dorothy Larson, Chair of the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation, Susan Groux, Newport Beach Library Foundation Programming Director, and Library Services Director Netherton presented a $ 985, 000 check from the Newport Beach Public Library Foundation, announcing a major component of the -gift would be for the opening day collection at the new Corona del Mar library branch." [The suggested correction is necessary to accurately reflect what Director Netherton said. According to the request to the Library Foundation, approved as Item 9 at the Board of Library Trustee's May 16, 2016, meeting, not all, but only $70,000 of the Foundation gift is dedicated toward CdM opening day book purchases. Other major components of the gift included $40,000 for a -book related costs and $20,000 for digitizing the library's Daily Pilot microfilm collection (the Daily Pilot having long been the City's newspaper of record for publishing legal notices). One minor technical observation: although the BLT approved staff asking for the donation in May, I am unable to find the meeting at which the BLT formally recommended the Council accept the gift subsequently offered by the Foundation, as might be expected under City Charter Section 708(f), and which may or may not have been in the amount requested.] Page 102: Item XII, paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He reported he toured the Delta region and discussed the Governor's proposal regarding water supply protection." Page 103: paragraph 3 from end: "City Attorney Harp added the denial of the public records request was appropriate." [The video recording indicates the minutes correctly record this statement. However, the statement seems out of place since there is nothing preceding this about a Public Records Act request having been made. The City Attorney's response would make more sense if the comment it is responding to were included in the minutes.] Page 104: paragraph 3: "Mayor Dixon announced that the ballots will be counted at this time and the results will be announced once the tabulations have been completed. City Clerk Brown announced that based on the tabulations for the ballots received for Assessment District No. 194, 38.6% of the ballots were submitted in favor ..." [The minutes make it appear the results of the balloting were announced immediately after the Mayor's announcement. That is, that the Council and public waited for the count to be completed. This is misleading: the items reported on page 104, between the Mayor's announcement and Item XIII, actually occurred at a later point in the meeting. It is not clear why the items in the minutes are not being reported in their true sequence, or at least with an indication of what that sequence was.] Page 108: paragraph 1: "Dennis Baker stated he was a member of the Corona del Mar ae6i a ,t Residents Association Board and 8614 1 r-GteGt4ng Our- Newpe44SPON(Stop Polluting Our NewportJ, but was speaking as an individual. He expressed concern with Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon's statement regarding controlling groups, noting A r#ae AirFair was a PAC and had a relationship with SPON." [note: as captured in the video, Mr. Baker October 11, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 simply said "SPON" without explaining what it stands for. If the minutes require spelling it out, my understanding is organization's registered name remains "Stop Polluting Our Newport" although "Still Protecting Our Newport" was introduced in 2014 as one of several alternative ways of reading the initials.] Item 3. Vin Scully Day The request for this item at the last City Council meeting gave the impression there was some urgency about this because cities throughout Southern California were coordinating to declare October 11th "Vin Scully Day." I have been unable to locate any independent corroboration of such an effort, or any particular significance of October 11 to Mr. Scully's life or career — nor does the proposed resolution provide any. Normally matters of this sort are handled through Mayoral proclamations issued without clear authorization by the remainder of the Council. It is good to see the full Council being asked to consent to this recognition, but I have to wonder why some future date of greater significance was not selected. As it is, being honored by a little noticed resolution on a city council consent calendar (of which he may not even be aware) seems like a rather limited honor. And as proposed, Mr. Scully will have less than a full day: his day will begin when the consent calendar is approved and end at midnight, a "day" of less than 5 hours. In view of the fact that the passage of items on the Consent Calendar can't be assumed in advance, I don't know if Mr. Scully has been invited to the October 11 th meeting. But wouldn't it make more sense to choose some future date (such as his birthday - November 291h) for "Vin Scully Day"? That would allow the honoree to know he was going to have a day in his honor before it was over, and even give him the opportunity to show up or otherwise accept the City's congratulations? Additionally, however well deserved the honor and however well known the honoree, this item raises the obvious question of whether the Council pians to adopt resolutions recognizing milestones in the lives of other persons, including ones, like Mr. Scully, with no obvious direct connection to Newport Beach — or even Orange County. If so, it would seem that could mean a great many resolutions. Item 4. Traffic Signal Modernization Project - Phase S Notice of Completion for Contract C-6079 (Project No. 15TH) Normally these project completion reports contain a recap of the proposed and actual project schedule (such as in the staff report for the following item). It is not clear why that is missing here as it seems particularly important in understanding the liquidated damages charge. The charge of $2,000 at a rate of $500 per calendar day (per Attachments A & B to the report) suggests that contractor errors delayed the project by just 4 days, but the Project Summary October 11, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 indicates completion was 49 (working?) days beyond the date expected after all approved extensions. It is not obvious how the 4 and 49 reconcile. In addition, Attachment B suggests that in an effort to expedite the project the City accepted a request from the contractor to substitute a different fiber optic cable. Did taxpayers wind up with a product inferior to the one specified in the contract? Finally, the report does not make clear how Pro Tech's poor performance on this contract will affect their status in bidding on future City contracts. Item B. Grand Canal Dredging Project - Phase 7 of 3 Planned Permitted Projects - Award of Contract No. 8179-1 (16H12) The staff report indicates the single responsive bid was "higher than expected;" but I am unable to tell by how much. It also indicates multiple phases (apparently three, from the item title) will be required to complete the work, but as best I can tell gives no estimate of the total cost. The GIP budget approved in June announced a total estimated cost to complete Grand Canal dredging of $361,000. But it now appears this single phase may cost up to $444,000. Even though this portion of the project is the main one beneficial to Mr. McCaffrey (at 1410 South Bay Front), a guesstimate of the total project cost would seem important in deciding if this segment should be awarded as bid. And it might be noted that underestimating the cost of Grand Canal dredging is not without historical precedent. In 195213, the City Engineer estimated $2,400 for dredging the entire canal, and was astounded when the single responsive bid came in at $5,500. However, by 1954 he was able to get it down to $4,700. Even after correcting for inflation and improved equipment this suggests there might still be some room for savings. Item 7. Grant of Easement from Big Canyon Country Club for Big Canyon Creek Bypass Pipe It seems generous of Big Canyon Country Club to offer the easement. The staff report could be a bit clearer about whether the high selenium seepage the project seeks to divert is occurring on BCCC property or City property, and also whether the groundwater causing the seepage is thought to originate from BCCC watering (such as on their golf course) or is leakage from the City reservoir. From Attachment B, the diversion appears to be on the City side of Jamboree, but the points where the seepage occurs are not clearly indicated. October 11, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 Item 8. Planning Commission Agenda for the October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting At its October 6th meeting, the Planning Commission took two highly questionable actions with regard to the Newport Coast annexation area (which was acquired by the City effective January 1, 2002). Item 6 involved the "affirmation" of staff s addition to 375,000 square feet of development capacity to the what the City General Plan calls "Anomaly 60" (the Pelican Hills/Marriott Suites resort parcels), as well as changes not mentioned in the agenda to "Anomaly 61" (the Crystal Cove Promenade shopping center area). This addition was purportedly required to "correct" the limits approved by Newport Beach voters (assuming City staffs can "correct" voters) in the General Plan update election of 2006 (and presented, again, to voters in Measure Y in 2014) — which previously approved limits were 2,150 hotel rooms in 2,660,000 square feet of development for Anomaly 60. Land use decisions in these areas are made by the County subject to a Coastal Commission certified Local Coastal Program. The correction to our General Plan seems to be supported by a recent County staff interpretation of a 2001 County transfer, but the numbers cited in that interpretation can be found in no County or Coastal Commission approved document. In fact, the LCP for Newport Coast is very clear that the maximum allowed development in what the City calls Anomaly 60 is 1,900 visitor accommodations in a maximum of 2,660,000 sf, plus another 75,000 sf allowed for day -use retail commercial facilities. The validity of those limits is affirmed in a 2004 County planning approval, three years after the 2001 County transfer which it is now clear did not exceed those limits, but rather increased the expected number of visitor accommodations in what the City calls Anomaly 60 from 1,600 to 1,850, but without increasing the square footage, because going above 2,660,000 is not allowed. In short, the numbers approved by voters in 2006 were inconsistent with the LCP (with too many hotel rooms and omitting the 75,000 sf of commercial potential), but the correction affirmed by the Planning Commission is even more inconsistent — essentially suggesting the landowners are due a gift of 300,000 sf not allowed in the LCP. The other troubling matter was Item 7 on the Planning Commission's agenda, which was a recommendation to extend for another 15 years The Irvine Company's original 15 year Development Agreement for the 2002 annexation area, including apparently locking in the additional fantasy development entitlements of Item 6, without any picture of how those "rights" might be used or what public benefit would derive from the extension. And this despite assurances from The Irvine Company in its Annual Monitoring Reports for the last several years that the 2015 build -out goals of the original Development Agreement had been achieved, or would be completed by then. Equally disturbing was the revelation at the Planning Commission meeting that two City Council members have apparently been privately negotiating the extension of the expanded new Development Agreement without any known authorization from the remainder of the Council. October 11, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 Item 9. Budget Amendment to Accept a Check in the Amount of $18,000 from the California State Library for Literacy Services (CLLS) and Appropriate Funds to the Library's Fiscal Year 201612017 Maintenance and Operation Budget can think of no reason why the City wouldn't want to accept this grant, but I am unable to recall the meeting at which the Board of Library Trustees made a recommendation regarding that acceptance, as might be expected from City Charter Section 708(f).