Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed December 12, 2017 Written Comment December 12, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the November 28, 2017 City Council Meetings The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in s*.�, gout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 402: Item SS1, last paragraph: "In response to Council Member Avery's questions regarding Item 4 (Proposed Specifications for Moorings in Newport Harbor), from which Mayor Pro Tem Duffield recused himself due to his business interests, Harbor Resources Manager Miller described..." Page 403: Item SS3, paragraph 1: "Utilities Manager Catron reported that the AMI for City water services would replace previous systems and utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the previous system,..." [without mentioning this is infrastructure of City water meters, much of what follows makes little sense] Page 403: Item SS3, next to last paragraph, sentence 2: "He asked if there was a water meter vendor that uses the same technology as the electric company to avoid a need for collectors, or the gas companies company in order to share the cneNeEter collectors." Page 405: next to last paragraph: "Terry WelSEh Welsh, President of the Banning Ranch Conservancy, stated he has prioritized the acquisition of Banning Ranch as an open space amenity for the past 18 years and asked Council to do the same." Page 406: paragraph 2: "Mike Mohler, Newport Banning Ranch, discussed the difficulty in determining the proper price for the property and noted that the Banning Ranch Conservancy has never discussed the value of the property or made an offer to purchase it." Page 408: bold paragraph toward top of page: "Council Member O'Neill recused himself due to real property interests; and Mayor Muldoon recused himself due to a potential membership in a club that is within 500 feet of the project." [As of the present writing, the link to the November 28 City Council video has been removed from the City's Granicus/Legistar agenda pages, but not yet added to its Laserfiche document archive. As a result, I cannot view the video to verify what was said, but the term "potential membership" used in the draft minutes makes little sense. One is normally a member, or not. Merely thinking about becoming member in the future would not normally create a conflict. Could it have been "potential conflict due to a membership."] Item 3. Newport Banning Ranch Repeal Ordinance Adoption When this ordinance was introduced on November 28, 2017, 1 submitted some written comments pointing out errors in the way the titles of two of the items being repealed are quoted in the ordinance being considered for adoption. I notice those errors have not been corrected, although the reason the City would not want this ordinance to reflect the correct titles eludes me. December 12, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 I would also like to note that the only effect of the repeal in Section 2 of the present ordinance of Resolution 2012-59 (amending the Circulation Element of the General Plan) is to restore to the General Plan a road, shown in Figure CE1 ("Master Plan of Streets and Highways"), that I think no one, even the most ardent development proponents, expects ever to be built. The thing deleted in 2012, and now being restored, is the curving dotted red line (meaning a to -be -built four -lane primary road) running under the words "Newport Shores" and connecting from "Bluff Road" (the north -south dotted red line) to Coast Highway at Cappy's. The resolution says the deletion by Resolution 2012-59 was contingent upon OCTA agreeing to make the same deletion from its Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Adoption of the present ordinance would apparently withdraw that request, but the background material for this item at this hearing (and the November 28 hearing) does not explain if the request was ever made to OCTA or granted. If it was, the City presumably now has to ask OCTA to restore this road. It is also curious that Figure CE1 of the City's General Plan continues to show the dotted red extension of 19th Street across the Santa Ana River to Huntington Beach (the "19th Street Bridge"). Many thought that, too, had been deleted by OCTA. But if that happened, it was apparently not considered part of the Banning Ranch approvals and is not here being restored? Item 4. Planning Commission Agenda for the December 7, 2017 Meeting Among the items being reported, Item 5 involved the approval of a residential redevelopment at 2607 Ocean Boulevard — the lot immediately adjacent to the top of the China Cove Ramp. To the best of my recollection, this was the first time the Commission had been asked to approve a Costal Development Permit under the City's recently -certified Local Coastal Program, which is especially important here because this project has a potential to cause major permanent and detrimental impacts to the views of the Cove the public currently enjoys from Ocean Boulevard and the ramp (as well as views of the Cove from the harbor). I believe allowing such permanent detrimental impacts is inconsistent with the LCP's strong and fundamental commitments to preserve, and where feasible enhance, precisely such views for the benefit not just of local residents, but for all people, pursuant to the Coastal Act. A resolution approving a somewhat reduced project (but still requiring variances from the City's Zoning Code and LCP — the latter of which it is questionable the City yet has the authority to grant) was adopted on a 4:2 vote (with one Commissioner absent), as should be evident from the December 7 video. To the best of my knowledge, the adopted resolution contained no findings demonstrating compliance with the view protection policies of our LCP (other than a statement that by restricting construction to the Ocean Boulevard curb height it would comply with a separate height limit in the Zoning Code and LCP Implementation Plan). In particular, no computer simulations were provided, or considered, showing how the completed construction would, in context, alter views from any public vantage point, "protected" or not. I believe it would be in the public interest for one of the Council members to exercise their right to "call up" this Planning Commission decision to the Council for further debate and consideration (see NBMC Sec. 20.64.020.D and 21.64.020.C).