Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed December 13, 2016 Written Comments December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(d-)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the November 22, 2016 and November 29, 2016 City Council Meetings 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 strikeout underline format. In my view, the aforementioned minutes are exceptionally poorly written, and I would suggest the Council seriously consider rejecting them in their current form. They contain numerous sentences so grammatically and semantically challenged that their intent cannot be discerned without reference to the video record. And review of the video record is shamefully and frustratingly difficult in Newport Beach because City staff has chosen to remove the option we once had to download the video files for ourselves for offline viewing in a proper player with frame preview and forward and reverse buttons. Instead, citizens who may wish to know what was actually said at a Council meeting are now required to either purchase a physical copy of the video on disk from the City Clerk or obtain access to a high-speed internet connection through which, even then, they are restricted to viewing the hours -long video segments in a browser window with only PLAY or PAUSE options. In this way public access to the true content of City Council meetings has been made notably more restrictive than access to Speak Up Newport, Wake Up! Newport or Pick -a -Pet — all of which the City continues to record (at taxpayer expense) and make available for free on demand download and off-line viewing. Having not had the foresight to purchase a disk, I have neither the time nor energy to try to locate each passage in the frustratingly PLAY/PAUSE-only online video, but as an example of what I suspect are numerous inaccuracies in the draft minutes, on page 149, of Council member Ed Selich it is said: "He rebutted that there were no long term environmental impacts and the short term impacts would be mitigated." To the extent I can unravel the tortured syntax, that is the exact opposite of what I recall Mr. Selich saying with regard to the Museum House. And on page 150, of Council member Keith Curry it is said "He stated the proponents of Measure Y needed to be heard, but it was a premier development that would enable far greater museum facilities." It is possible the video might reveal a slip of the tongue, but it seems clear to me it is the opponents of Measure Y that Mr. Curry thought needed to be heard (the proponents, in 2014, were the City Council). I leave it to the Council members to repair the archival written record of their own remarks, but I worry that comments by members of the public (who are unlikely to ever see the draft minutes), or City staff, are being misrepresented, as well. For example, on page 142: "Sally Sopkin reminded Council to retain sight of traffic, speed and accidents." It is hard to believe anyone, other than possibly a claims adjuster, would actually ask the Council to "retain accidents." December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 The above said, the following somewhat random corrections to the minutes as written are suggested: Page 133: last sentence before Item VI I: "Mayor Dixon indicated the necessary votes were not received after a show of hands indicated only Council Member Curry was the only Council Member in favor of furthering this item." Page 139: first paragraph of public hearing: "Jim Mosher believed it was irresponsible for the City to take action prior to considering the e#eG totality of planning in the area. He questiGne ' whether believed the City could take over the County's LCP, asked if the City's Newport Coast Advisory Committee provided its recommendation, and expressed concern about the proposed conversion of hotel rooms into residences." Page 146: paragraph 2, sentence 2: "He presented an image of the existing Newport Center Skyline skyline." [note: If this refers to the title of a PowerPoint slide, the capitalization may be appropriate. However, if it is a reference to the image with that title on page 244 of the November 29th staff report, that is an image of the proposed skyline, not the existing one.] Page 146: paragraph 1 under public hearing: "Cassie Taormina a^'^'A�.resse expressed support for the project due to Related California's sensitivity to the community and the need for the project." Page 147: middle paragraph, last sentence: "She noted the developer had agreed to establish a neighborhood ambassador,rp ohibit construction traffic would be prohibite on Jamboree and Santa Barbara, dedicate traffic enforcement to the project, and coordinate advanced notification with the Police Department and Harbor Cove." Page 148: paragraph 4: "Sharon Cook Koch indicated opposition to the project due to the height, view blockage, and location." Page 148: paragraph 3 before end of public hearing: 'Verdie Jar Brenner stated she believed in progress and beautifying the City, but believed improvements needed to be done in a manner consistent with the beachside city." Page 148: paragraph 1 after end of public hearing: "Community Development Director Brandt discussed the documentation from the Airport Land Use Commission staff indicating the intent of the condition had been met, explained that a vote was not required for the requested General Plan Amendment, and addressed the transfer and conversion to residential units of 79 unbuilt hotel units at the Marriot Marriott property in Newport Center." December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Item 3. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-20 Amending the Coastal Implementation Plan for the Lido House Hotel Floor Area Expansion, Located at 3300 Newport Boulevard and 475 32nd Street (PA2016-061) I do not recall anything similar to Section 3 (empowering City staff to correct "errors" without further review by the Council) in most other proposed ordinances, and its inclusion here seems wholly inappropriate. As I understand it, this ordinance (without itself making this entirely clear) is intended to change a single line in Table 21.20-2 of the City's adopted LCP Implementation Plan. City staff either got that new line right (as presented in Section 2 of the ordinance), or they didn't. If they didn't, the Council and the public deserve to know and understand what was wrong with it. Empowering staff to willy-nilly alter the Council's publicly -adopted actions is not good for anyone. And if Section 3 is to be understood more broadly, as giving staff license to make changes to other parts of the LCP-IP, that is even worse That said, the line being altered by the proposed ordinance contains a footnote "(4)". That footnote, apparently not being altered by the ordinance, says "(4) The specific floor area limitations for each coastal zoning district are identified on the Coastal Zoning Map." The existing limit of 98,725 sq. ft. is indicated in a Note No. 1 to "Detail A" on the Coastal Zoning Map adopted on November 22, 2016. It is not clear if the present ordinance is directing a change to that. If it is, I would think an image of the proposed map revision should be included with the ordinance. If it does not, it is an oversight in the drafting of the ordinance, plain and simple. And I do not believe adopting an ordinance that clearly says it does one thing, and then saying it was meant to do something more or different, can be regarded as the correction of a "typographical" or "scrivener's error." In addition, following up on the present ordinance's change to a single line in the LCP-IP, in going to the page on which footnote (4) is printed (page 21.20-8 of the adopted LCP-IP), I see to my horror and confusion that it says that in the "OG" (Office — General Commercial) zoning district, buildings to 55 or 60 feet height are now allowed without any discretionary approval within the Shoreline Height Limit Zone. This appears to be a poorly referenced and incomplete restatement of a portion of the complex height rules adopted for the old City Hall redevelopment — printed in the wrong column. In addition, I believe a footnote "(4)" was incorrectly drafted, and it was most likely intended to say "(4) The specific floor area limitations for each coastal zoning district are identified on the Coastal Zoning Map when they differ from these" (that is, when they differ from the limits specified in Table 21.20-2). When a single pair of pages contains so many errors, this strongly reinforces my impression that (like is alleged with the Congress and Obamacare) the Council has, based on assurances from their own staff, adopted something handed to them by Coastal Commission staff without knowing or studying what they've adopted. December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Nonetheless, because I don't believe the legislative responsibility of the Council can or should be delegated, I don't advocate allowing staff to further "correct" the 569 pages of the LCP-IP to what they think it should say without further review. The Council at least twice assured the public they had thoroughly reviewed the LCP-IP and knew what they were passing. Hence, any change to what has been publicly proclaimed with such certainty to be the law of the City needs to be thoroughly and publicly reviewed and, if wrong, re-enacted. Item 4. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-22 Adopting the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program Amendments for 191 Riverside Avenue (PA2016-127) As I said orally at the Council's November 22, 2016, meeting, I don't see the urgency of changing the zoning before a specific proposal to redevelop the property has been presented for evaluation. If pre -zoning in the absence of a proposal is desired, I agree with the two Planning Commissioners who felt that a "General Commercial" designation — consistent with the neighboring corners of this intersection — would be more appropriate. Item 5. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-23 Amending the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community Located at 850 and 856 San Clemente Drive and Ordinance No. 2016-24 Approving a Development Agreement for the Museum House Residential Project Located at 850 San Clemente Drive (PA2015-152) Since the Council's November 291h meeting, OCMA Urban Housing, LLC, has waged an unethical, and in part arguably illegal, campaign of deception against the citizens of Newport Beach — most recently attempting to scare residents into believing a perfectly legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to a referendum is an identity theft scam. It is, therefore, embarrassing that the City Council would even consider entering into a Development Agreement with that entity. The Council should be reminded these are purely discretionary decisions, and there is now no reason to think the entity requesting them is a good corporate citizen or will be a good neighbor. Should the Council choose to proceed with this, despite the now thoroughly proven bad character of the party the Council is being asked to contract with, I believe City staff is well aware of the citizens' referendum effort against the General Plan Amendment adopted by the Council at its November 29th meeting. For the benefit of both the Council and the public, it would be helpful for the City Attorney to clarify the legal status of the two approvals requested in this agenda item should the petition drive be successful and either the Council decides to rescind its approval of the GPA in response to the petition, or the people, through the requested election on the issue, force its rescission. The Development Agreement, in particular, does not appear to address the former possibility. December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Regarding the proposed Planned Community text, I continue to believe the height limits it enacts are inconsistent with the height restrictions for residential development imposed by the City's Zoning Code. Regarding the proposed Development Agreement, not only do I feel it is shameful to enter into an agreement with such a sleazy company, but I remain puzzled why on page 26 (page 5-70 of the agenda packet), of the five exhibits listed (A through E), only A and B are incorporated by reference. I also remain curious if Clause 4 on page 5-82 of the agenda packet means that the donation of the 0.9 acre parcel will not go forward if the City is unable to obtain a waiver from the Irvine Company of all their future rights to the property, including their right to restrict it to cultural uses. Finally, I find it disturbing that the public did know the Council would be debating whether to include in the Development Agreement ordinance the list of public benefits on agenda packet page 5-53 until after public comment on the item had been closed. Item 9. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Project V - Community -Based Transit/Circulators Cooperative Agreement C-6- 1480 for Balboa Peninsula Shuttle/Trolley Project (17T13) Since it does not seem to be clearly disclosed in the staff report, the Council should be reminded that this contract is not without additional financial risk to the City should the success of the program be less than expected. Per page 9-12 of the staff report, a portion of the OCTA grant appears to still be limited to $9 per boarding. If the number of riders is small, the fraction of the operating costs borne by the City may be more than 12%. Item 10. Request to Construct Private Improvements within the Public Right -of -Way at 2200 Cliff Drive The staff report mentions a new sidewalk to be constructed along Irvine Avenue. It does not make clear if the property owner will be asked to contribute financially toward that in return for their continued encroachments onto public land along Cliff Drive, or how large the additional right of way along Irvine Avenue will be after the private encroachments other than an apparently short "retaining wall return" at the corner are removed. Also, the proposed Encroachment Agreement (of staff recommendation "c") does not appear to be attached. Item 11. Request to Retain Existing Private Improvements Within the Public Right -of -Way at 432 Holmwood Drive As with Item 10, the proposed Encroachment Agreement (of staff recommendation "c") does not appear to be attached. Presumably it will retain the public's right to reclaim its land. December 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 12. Newport Heights Alley Replacement (Phase 1) - Reject all Bids - Contract No. 7028-3 (15R18) The confusion in the bids seems very understandable, since I have difficulty understanding the description of the error in the staff report. In particular, I have trouble understanding how it is possible to move a meter "box" without moving the meter that is in the box. But that seems to be what staff says they intended to ask the contractor to do. Who, then, is responsible for moving the meter (which presumably has to be done at the same time as the contractor is moving the box)? Item 13. MetaSource, LLC Document Archiving Services Contract Amendment and Related Budget Amendment There is a slight discrepancy between the staff report and the contract amendment. The staff report suggests the increase in compensation is needed to cover scanning both of documents related to new development applications and County documents related to past approvals in Newport Coast. The contract amendment (Clause E) on agenda packet page 13-4, attributes the need entirely to the County work. Also, the Abstract suggests the contract is for scanning oversized documents only, but I am unable to find anything in the Discussion confirming that. The report also begs the question of whether the County may already have electronic copies of its documents, perhaps in some other format, and if converting them electronically might be cheaper than scanning them again. And the "Funding Requirements" section implies that all this work, including the County catch-up work, is being paid for by a fee assessed on new applicants. If that is correct, it is not clear to me why new applicants should be bearing the cost of archiving past City approvals. If the costs can't be properly traced back to their source, shouldn't that be a cost shared by all taxpayers through the General Fund? Finally, it might have been helpful to indicate what the County documents relate to, and how many of them there are.