Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed January 23, 2018 Written Comments January 23, 2018, 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 January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in s*'��, mut underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 417, Item SS1, first sentence: "Council Member Peotter believed that the entire wall should be removed (Item 4 - Request to Retain Existing Improvements within the Public Right - of -Way Adjacent to 900 Avocado Avenue) and announced that he wffl probab�y be pulling would like a staff report on Item 6 tonight (Amendment to Sound Media Fusion Sound Monitoring Services Agreement)." [sadly, no staff report was provided on Item 6] Page 418, Item SS4, paragraph 3: "Mayor Duffield thanked staff for attaining obtainin_p grants and assured everyone that the City will push to move the projects forward." Item 3. Annual Concrete Replacement Program - Award of Contract No. 7168-1 (18R06) The staff report appears to be missing a word on its second page (under "Discussion," paragraph 2, sentence 2: "The design process for this neighborhood concrete work included addin_p the planned concrete paving/tipping floor work effort at the City Utilities Yard laydown area to this project." As indicated there, a separate Capital Improvement Program project (18W14), unrelated to street repairs, is being folded into this contract. Although called the "Utilities Yard Spill Control Valve / Tipping Floor" project, I gather it is not intended to correct a tipping floor, but rather to create one, so spilled water -treatment chemicals can be more efficiently collected. Whatever its purpose, it is part of the City's (drinking) Water Enterprise operation and should be paid separately out that program's revenues. The staff report indicates $100,000 of the $270,000 budgeted for 18W14 is being transferred into the concrete repair project to participate in the present contract. One might ask if, to keep accounts straight, this item was separately bid and $100,000 is what Nobest said it will cost, as well as how the $50,000 budgeted for design of 18W14 was spent? It seems odd the bidding would have ended in such a round number. One might also wonder what the remainder of 18W14's $270,000 will be spent on, or if the "tipping floor" project will be completed significantly under the CIP's estimate? The staff report, on page 2, also indicates $50,000 is coming from the Park Renovation Fund, but I am unable to see anything about that in the recommended action, nor any transfer of funds from it to the concrete repair project in the budget amendments of Attachment B. January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 4. Amendment of Professional Services Agreement with Psomas DBA Bon Terra Psomas for Environmental Services for the Proposed Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) In the staff report, on page 2, it may be noticed that the August 2016 EIR Scoping Meeting was held before the original IS/MND contract was amended to include an EIR, in September. And while I doubt an extra "e" really adds value, since EIR's are about careful attention to detail, it may also be interesting to note that in the title lines to the contractor's exhibits, both old and new (staff report pages 4-9, 13, 19, 26 and 28), "Harbor Pointe" is misspelled "Harbor Point." Item 5. Agreement for Refuse Container Collection Services with Robert's Waste & Recycling, Inc. I suspect the last sentence at the bottom of page 2 was intended to read "The hauler noted that many traditional waste haulers are interested in this work due to the large amount of labor involved for collection of a relatively small amount of waste." As indicated at the January 9 City Council, I don't believe Robert's provides particularly good service to the Mariners Library, where per No.59 on staff report page 5-24, they are supposed to empty five containers five times a week during the summer and three times a week the rest of the year. Robert's is also supposed to provide liners per staff report page 5-22. In addition to the two lined containers on either side of the entry, Mariners has three domestic - type 30 -gal (or so) wheeled containers, which are frequently filled to overflowing with trash not only from the library but also from the immediately adjacent Jorgensen Community Room. Those "extra" containers are actually the main ones serviced by Robert's and they have no liners. When asked about this at last week's Board of Library Trustees meeting, library staff thought that was because the trash collected inside by the overnight cleaning crews already came out in bags. However, as library staff is aware, not only do the bags not always fit in the containers, but patrons and others put their own trash in them, and since Robert's removes only the cleaning crew bags, this results in an accumulating layer of putrefying detritus at the bottom of the cans that rarely, if ever, gets dumped. Robert's likewise does not seem to regard it as part of their contract to clean up the scattered debris that frequently accumulates around the overflowing containers. In addition, in a recent observation, Robert's small compactor collection truck, by the time it got to Mariners, appeared to be very nearly filled to capacity, which did not inspire the operator to be particularly diligent about trying to stuff still more in. Overall, their service of these three containers at Mariners Library (of which I am aware because they're adjacent to the bike racks) does not seem to me to have earned the overall "B" grade the Municipal Operations Director suggested Robert's deserved at the January 9 meeting. January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 This is not to say another operator could do it better or at lower cost, but it would seem that Robert's could do better. Item 6. Planning Commission Agenda for January 18, 2018 With five controversial items on the agenda, the January 18 Planning Commission meeting was one of the strangest I've seen in seven years of attending them all, and that strangeness is unlikely to be fully apparent from staff's "Action Report." With only six Commissioners present, Item 2, involving a gas station at the corner of Superior and Placentia Oust north of Hoag Hospital), initially ended in a deadlock, which would normally result in denial of the application. However, the vote was continued until the seventh Commissioner arrived later in the meeting, which seemed highly improper since that Commissioner had not heard the public testimony which is a major reason for holding a public hearing. Item 3 involved a request to add beer and wine service to a small eatery facing the Newport Pier parking lot. The request was unanimously approved despite staff urging its denial based on the existing over -saturation of permits and alcohol-related problems in the area. Items 4 and 5 were continued or taken off calendar as needing "more work" without any explanation of what kind of extra work was needed. Item 4 involved a request to confirm "staff approval" of a major reduction in the code -required setbacks for development on a hillside lot at 358 Dahlia Place, facing the south side of Bayside Drive between Begonia Park/Carnation and the Fernleaf Ramp. My guess is staff may have recognized this needs to be processed (and justified) as a "variance" to the code requirements, but I don't know. Normally even a 10% encroachment into the code -required setbacks requires approval of something called a "modification permit" (NBMC Sec. 20.52.050.B.2) and the scrutiny of the need for variances (NBMC Sec. 20.52.090) is supposed to be much higher still. Item 5 was to be approval of the long-awaited renovation of the Balboa Theater building, the present plans for which involve increasing the height to add major new roof -top activity features unrelated to the building's historic use. Such changes were made possible in the Zoning Code by special rules applicable only to "landmark buildings" adopted by the Council in 2003 (Ordinances No. 2003-4 and 2003-21), when the City (as landlord) probably viewed itself as more directly a partner (with the now -defunct Balboa Theater Foundation) in the plans. Like most legislation that tries to appear grounded in general policy, but is really meant to benefit a single property, the 2003 "landmark buildings" legislation was awkwardly crafted and its intent remains difficult to deduce. In any event, the unquestioned "right" to expand these few buildings to 55 feet in height in the Zoning Code does not exist in our Local Coastal Program, where the only exceptions granted, so far, to the stated 35 foot limit in the Shoreline Area around the harbor have been special carve -outs for the Marina Park "Lighthouse" and the Lido House Hotel (CLUP Policy 4.4.2-1). January 9, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 My guess is City staff is now waiting to see if the Coastal Commission will accept a pending major amendment to our Local Coastal Program (submitted via Council Resolution No. 2017- 56) that would add a "landmark buildings" carve -out to the LCP comparable to that in the local Zoning Code. There are also potential conflicts that the reopening of a long -shuttered use might cause with summertime parking in the Balboa Pier lot. But I understand that both of those have been denied as reasons for the delay Item 6, the Planning Commission's first hearing of the Koll Center Residences proposal, ended in mid -presentation when a question arose as whether the Vice Chair could hear the item, or not, due to a possible conflict of interest. The large crowd that had come to listen and speak left in disappointment. All in all, it was a strange meeting.