Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed May 28, 2019 Written Comments May 28, 2019, City 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 May 14, 2019 Special Joint Meeting with the Finance Committee and City Council Meeting The corrections suggested below in strikeout underline format are to the passages from the draft minutes shown in italics. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 96, end of paragraph 2: "Council Member Brenner expressed support for the request, believing police presence is a deterrent to bad behavior and this is a cost the City should bear to keep maintain its property taxes." [see video at 1:04:22. The exact statement was "This is just one of the costs you incur to keep those property taxes high" (the specific wish, presumably, being to keep property "values" rather than "taxes" high).] Page 103, bulleted names at top of page: • "Polly Hackathorn" [?? -- Is this based on a speaker's card? Polly's last name, as stated in the video at 3:14:50, does not sound at all like "Hackathorn" (or "Hacatoryan"?). It sounds to me more like "Ver-sah-ee-ee" (phonetic).] • "Denise Sc-hr-enbe Schoenberg" • "Carel Karol Hatch" Page 105, motion regarding 2019 Water Master Plan: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, seconded by Mayor Dixon, to a) ...; and b) re�� approve and adopt the 2019 Water Master Plan." [The actual motion (at 4:41:10 in the video) was "1 move staff's recommendation." Including the review of the plan as part of the motion does make sense, since the review had been completed before the motion was made. That could have been made clearer on the agenda by separating the recommendations requiring a vote from those not requiring a vote.] Page 106, motion regarding Grant Howald Park Rehabilitation Project: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Avery, to a) ...; b) reWew an approve the Conceptual Design and Project Budget, including moving forward with the undergrounding; and c) direct staff to proceed with the final park rehabilitation construction documents." [See note on previous item. As there, the motion (see video at 5:19:05) was "I move staff's recommendation." That was presumably understood to not include the review, which had, again, been completed before the motion was made.] May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 14 Item 3. Ordinance No. 2019-9: Introduction of an Ordinance Restricting Construction Related Noise on Saturday and Posting of a Project Information Sign for Construction Projects in High -Density Areas The introduction of ordinances on the Consent Calendar is always problematic unless their content has been thoroughly discussed before, or if the purpose is truly just to introduce a proposed text for discussion and debate at a later meeting (something I have never seen done). The present introduction of never -before -seen text and diagrams for approval on the Consent Calendar is particularly problematic because when the scope of this ordinance was last discussed at the Council's April 23, 2019, study session, the meeting ended with an understanding there were many loose ends that needed to be fleshed out with additional discussion, including a plan for increased parking enforcement, something staff seems to have deferred to a later day, if ever, even though addressing parking impacts was the originally intended purpose of the ordinance and the Mayor continued to identify enforcement as integral to the ordinance's success -- understanding that a pilot parking enforcement program reportedly resulted in more resident vehicles being ticketed than construction vehicles. Among the loose ends from April 23 was a decision as to the areas of the City that the new construction noise and signage regulations would apply to. Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, for example, thought no new City regulations were needed in areas where homeowners associations already set the rules for construction -related activities. Yet staff has come up with a map (staff report page 3-10) which, by its placement on the Consent Calendar, they expect the Council to adopt without any further discussion or debate, in direct contradiction to what the public was led to expect on April 23 How was this map produced? Is it the result of private conversations between individual Council members and City staff as to what areas should be in and out? Or did staff conduct some kind of public outreach, polling residents in various areas to see if they wanted a ban on Saturday construction and/or a requirement to post contact information on construction fences? Or is it based on some objective standard as to what constitutes "high density," and if so, what is that standard? And was it applied uniformly throughout the City? More importantly, however it was arrived at, what confidence do we have that the people in the various areas depicted on the map truly want "in" or "out" of these new programs? Among its many anomalies, the map includes Bayshores. That may seem logical since Council member Duffield mentioned the relief that resulted from his homeowners association's decision to ban Saturday construction. But by the Mayor Pro Tem's logic, that would make it an area that should not be on the map. And although Council member Duffield expressed hope the ordinance would give others in the City similar relief to what Bayshores homeowners had enjoyed, it is not clear he saw the need for an additional, new, redundant City regulation applied to his own community. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 14 And despite the Mayor Pro Tern's direction to not include gated communities, the map also includes the gated communities of Linda Isle and Harbor Island, despite their havig larger lots than areas not on the map, such as Beacon Bay and many other parts of the City (near and far from the Harbor) with homes of similar vintage to those Councilman Duffield was talking about in Bayshores. One has to wonder why the map was drawn as it was? One also has to wonder why staff thinks a single map should apply to the two separate and distinct issues the Council asked them to address (contact signage and Saturday construction)? To me, it seems a no-brainer that when the City codes require placement of a construction fence around a property there should be contact information on it relevant to the construction taking place behind it. This is no longer the burdensome requirement to prepare a parking management plan that may never be implemented. The proposed contact information sign is, in fact, so simple an idea that it would, I think, once explained, be almost universally accepted, and need no map at all. It could and should apply citywide. The decision about banning construction on Saturdays is trickier because, as the Council noted on April 23, the relief a ban provides from weekend noise and congestion has to be weighed against the delay it creates in the completion of projects. One can easily see that, if given a choice, different neighborhoods might vote differently on this — and not necessarily with the results portrayed on staffs "High Density Areas" map. I might note that this part of the ordinance seems to have moved, at least on paper, away from its original focus on the irritation caused by construction parking to a focus on the irritation caused by construction noise. For the ordinance as proposed does not ban Saturday construction or construction parking, but only construction activities that create "disturbing" amounts of noise, which staff (and the Council) seem to think will be most irritating in the densest areas of the City. If that is indeed the objective, an alternative approach might be to set a more definite limit on the decibels of noise that can be generated at a residential property line on Saturdays. That would not only apply a uniform standard throughout the City, but it would automatically make construction activity more difficult in areas with small lots than in areas with more widely -spaced structures — without the need for a map. It might also be noted that as originally presented by staff on February 26, the Saturday ban would have applied only during the summer, and even then, the CDD Director was authorized to override the ban for residential projects of three or more units. I don't recall either of those possible features being discussed then or on April 23. Assuming I am misreading the Council, and they are onboard with the idea of adopting staff's proposed ordinance without further discussion, I have these specific comments about it: 1. Preamble (staff report page 3-4): a. The last "Whereas" contains no longer relevant legacy language from staff's first attempt (as Item 15 on February 26, 2019) to introduce a construction parking May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 14 ordinance. Since the ordinance no longer involves or creates any special rules for construction sites in close proximity to others, I believe it should be revised to read: "WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that new construction in close proximity to ether new construction in high-density areas effects the public health, safety and welfare by interfering with limited on -street parking as well as the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants." (I also suspect the word "new" could be deleted) b. The "Whereases" would normally include not just the above statement of the problem being addressed, but also a statement of the intended purpose of the new language being added to the code. The rationales for the specific modifications made by the present ordinance might include findings that: A ban on loud Saturday construction will provide relief from noise and reduce weekend parking demand. ii. The posting of contact information will improve enforcement of existing noise and parking regulations. 2. Section 1 (staff report page 3-4): a. The proposed Subsection "B" is a continuation of "A," stating the exception to the general rule that disturbing levels of construction noise are prohibited at all times. There is no obvious reason to format it as a separate subsection, with one subsection, then, confusingly, overriding the other. Words could be saved and clarity improved by merging the two, as follows: "A. No person shall, ...disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, unless authorized to do ce in accordance uiith ubseGtren Q. except in one of the following circumstances: 1. Work Performed on any weekday, which is not a federal holiday, between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m." b. The last clause, above, contains an extraneous comma between the words "weekday" and "which" that should also be deleted as indicated. The next clause, at the top of staff report page 3-5, contains a dangling modifier that should be corrected as follows, both for clarity and for parallelism with clause 1: "2. Work performed on a Saturday, between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m., in any area of the City that is not designated as a high-density area, between the hours of eight a m and civ p.m." May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 14 d. Regarding subsection E (on page 3-5), it is not exactly clear how staff expects the map (Exhibit A) to appear in the printed or online code. The map is also not in a format that reproduces well in black and white, since both the water and land areas are similarly shaded. That might be corrected by indicating the water with dots rather than shading. But in either event, referring to a legend on the map identifying the designated areas would probably be better than a reference in the code to "shaded areas." 3. Section 2 (staff report page 3-4): a. The proposed correction to NBMC Subsection 10.28.045(E)(1) is a code cleanup that has nothing to do with the purpose of the present ordinance. b. While code clean-up is a good thing, it is unclear why this particular correction has been singled out while other potential cleanups to this and other subsections are being ignored. For example, in the revisions to Subsection 10.28.040, the clause about violations is being corrected to include "or any successor section, of this Code." But the same correction is not being proposed to the identical clause in Subsection 10.28.045. Similarly, later in the ordinance, in Sections 3 and 4, definitions are being added to NBMC Section 15.16.010, but no attempt is being made to correct the many obsolete definitions in that section (see staff report pages 3-14 through 3-16, which, according to the online annotations represent code last revised in 1964). The definitions needing revision include, at minimum, "Building Official," "Uniform Building Code," and "U.B.C. Standards." 4. Section 5 (staff report page 3-6): a. Revising existing codes is tricky. Regarding existing provisions that may have to be overridden to make possible what is desired, it might be noted that there are additional sign regulations in Title 20 of our Municipal Code, among which is Subsection 20.42.090.8.3 stating that a temporary "Sign shall not be attached to temporary structures, except restaurant menu signs, which may be attached to easel -like structures, and A -frame signs." Unless modified, that, too, would seem to preclude placing signs on temporary construction fencing, as is desired here. b. There is also a separate sign permit requirement that would, unless modified, appear to apply to the desired new project information signs. That is promulgated in NBMC Section 20.42.020.0 and elaborated in Section 20.42.100. Although (and despite the self-defeating Subsection 20.42.090.B.3) there is an exception for "Construction Project Signs" in Subsection 20.42.100.B.1.d, that seems to refer to something slightly different -- presumably an advertisement for the project's builder or architect. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 14 It would appear that provisions for the new "Temporary Project Information Signs" would need to be woven into the text and tables of Title 20, as well as those of Title 15. Among the issues remaining to be resolved is how, or if, the Council wants the new requirement for a Temporary Project Information Sign to affect the number of "Construction Project Signs" allowed on a site (currently limited, in Table 3-18 of Title 20, to a total of two). 5. Section 6 (staff report page 3-6): a. The opening sentence of the proposed new Section 15.60.030 (at the top of page 3-7) contains another dangling modifier which could be corrected as follows: "When a property in a designated high-density area, as defined in Section 15.16.010, is required to be fenced in accordance with Section 15.60.020, a temporary project information sign that can be readily viewed by the public shall be affixed to the fence that Gail he readily viewed by the . ubli.. " b. It would be helpful for the required sign content -- items "a)" through "g)" -- to be listed in the same order that they appear in the required sign format shown at the bottom of the page. i. In that connection, the text requires an email for the contact person, but the sign template appears to ask for an email for the contractor. c. From the sample shown, it appears that the words "PROJECT INFORMATION" are expected to be printed in a larger font than the rest, but the required size is not specified (and, indeed, use of a larger type seems to be prohibited by the preceding requirement for a fixed 72 -point font). d. It is similarly unclear if there is intended to be any flexibility on the inflexibly - specified two by three foot dimensional requirement (which seems to have been dictated by the maximum size allowed for temporary "Construction Project Signs" in residential areas per Table 3-18 of Title 20). Finally, it must be noted there is some doubt as to the reliability of the redline version of the proposed revisions to the existing code as provided in Attachment B to the staff report. At the top of page 3-11, it shows the existing language being crossed out as ending with the words "on any Saturday except between the hours of eight a.m." The existing language actually ends with the words "between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m." The omission of "and six p.m." may seem a very minor matter to many, but it throws all the rest of the redlining into doubt. Likewise on page 3-17, whoever prepared the redline has revised the "Prior ordinance history" of NBMC Chapter 15.60. This change is not part of the ordinance being proposed to the Council, but if it were, it would represent a misunderstanding of what this line in the code means. It is an annotation inserted, not by Council ordinance, but by the City's contract codifying service provider, the Code Publishing Company. This particular line memorializes prior ordinances that enacted a chapter of the same name or similar provisions, but which are not included in the more detailed revision history listed at the end of each current code section. This would typically apply to ordinances that revised the entire chapter. It would not be May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 14 appropriate to add to this line the ordinances shown in the redline, since the sections added or modified by those ordinances are separately indicated in the sections affected by them. Item 4. Resolution No. 2019-45: Initiation of Planning and Zoning Code and LCP Amendments Related to Design Standards for Single -Family and Duplex in Multi -Family Residential Zoning Districts (PA2019-070) This item indirectly highlights a land use issue that has gained increasing prominence on recent California Coastal Commission agendas, and which may be troubling to some Newport Beach residents and landowners. By way of background, Newport Beach planning has long recognized a hierarchy of residential zoning districts, ranging from single -family -only at the "bottom" to multi -family -allowed at the "top." Within this hierarchy, each category has long been assumed, implicitly or explicitly, to carry with it a right to build anything allowed in a "lower" category. That is, a single family home is understood to be allowed on a lot zoned for two units per lot; a single- or two-family home is allowed on a lot zoned for three units per lot; and so on. The present proposal will, as I understand it, codify Council's wish that the design regulations applicable to a residential structure should be determined solely by the type of structure being built. That is, wherever a single family home is allowed, it would be subject to the same building standards irrespective of the zoning category of the lot on which it is being built; and likewise for duplexes. I suspect that is how the zoning was always intended to work, so I applaud the current Council for wanting to bring clarity to the code. The need for clarity is also timely (see Item 12, below). However, it should be noted that our Coastal Land Use Plan, as presented to the Coastal Commission, and certified by them most recently in 2009, takes a somewhat different approach to residential planning. For reasons not entirely clear to me, it breaks each General Plan land use category down into a series of subcategories, and for the ones assigned to each residential lot in the City, it specifies not only a maximum development density, but also a minimum, expressed in required dwelling units per acre. Although the even more recently certified Implementation Plan follows our Zoning Code in identifying one- and two-family homes as allowable uses in RM (multi -family) districts, and makes no reference to the different housing densities specified by the CLUP for different lots, the CLUP (much like the General Plan in relation to the Zoning Code) is the "constitution" for development in the Coastal Zone. So, the one- and two-family uses allowed by the IP in RM districts in general would be an acceptable use only if they produce housing densities within the range promised in the CLUP. And of all the RM subcategories, a single-family home or duplex meeting the required minimum density is likely possible only for a lot assigned "RM -A" (for which the minimum density is zero units per acre). Prompted by the statewide housing crisis, but also impelled by a longer -standing concern about the loss of affordable housing opportunities in the coastal zone, Coastal Commission staff has begun bringing issues similar to his in other jurisdictions to their Commission's attention. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 14 As Item 15a on the May 8, 2019, agenda, the CCC's Executive Director appealed the City of Los Angeles' approval of the conversion of a duplex to single-family use in an area of Venice designated for multi -family homes. The Commissioners unanimously found "substantial issue" regarding that decision's consistency with both LA's CLUP and the Coastal Act, the theory being that coastal housing is supposed to remain concentrated in the few areas designated for it, and to be of the types promised. The May 8 appeal will be the subject of a future hearing. Meanwhile, as Item 11 c on the June 12, 2019, agenda the Commission will be receiving a second appeal by their Executive Director, this time for the demolition of an existing duplex and its replacement with a single family home, again in a multi -family designated area of Venice. Although the situation in Venice is a bit different (they have no IP and their CLUP explicitly promises preservation of the multi -family districts, which are identified as an important affordable housing opportunity), there are also close parallels. So Newport Beach would seem well advised to consider whether its current indifference to the housing densities specified in the CLUP has, since certification, led to a loss of coastal housing opportunities: that is, have more properties in the coastal R-2 and RM categories been converted from multi -family to single-family use than vice versa? If the answer is yes, a policy of continued indifference to the promised densities may become hard to defend. In that case, within the Coastal Zone, and despite the present effort, there may be few RM lots on which the development of a new single-family home or duplex will be possible. However they are designed, they won't, likely, reach the housing densities promised in the CLUP. Item 5. Resolution No. 2019-46: Resolution of Intention to Renew the Corona del Mar Business Improvement District, Levy Assessments in FY 2019-20 and Fix Time and Place of Public Hearing; and Approve Funding Support for FY 2019-20 While I admire the dedication, sincerity and donation of personal time of those who serve on the City's two 1989 BID boards, I have to continue to question the appropriateness of the BIDs continued existence. To be clear, the CdM BID was created by ordinance. It will continue to exist until the Council adopts an ordinance dissolving it pursuant to the state's Streets and Highways Code. What is here being asked to be renewed is not the BID, but rather an assessment for the next fiscal year. The BID would exist with or without those new funds. More generally regarding the request for supplemental City "funding support," it should be recognized that in the words of that code, the California legislature made BIDs possible "to allow cities to fund property related improvements and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses which benefit from those improvements and activities" (S&H Code Sec. 36501) and that the purpose of the advisory board is to "make a recommendation to the city council on the expenditure of revenues derived from the levy of assessments pursuant to May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 14 this part, on the classification of businesses, as applicable, and on the method and basis of levying the assessments" (S&H Code Sec. 36530). That is, BIDs were envisioned as entities solely and separately funded by the persons that would benefit from them. The state did not empower city councils to create boards to disburse or recommend the disbursement of public funds collected from the taxpaying public in general for the personal benefit of appointed advisors. As such, the sense of entitlement to a $40,000 annual contribution from the general taxpaying public is difficult to fathom and not well explained in the staff report. As the Newport Beach City Council understands, and the staff report explains, the state provided two mechanisms for the creation of BIDs: one in which the assessment is forced by the Council on those purported to benefit from it (the 1989 BID), and one in which the assessment is actively requested by a majority of the potential assessees (the 1994 BID). The two BIDs on the present agenda are of the 1989 variety, but as the Council has noted, the evidence of assessee buy -in or recognition of benefits received by those being assessed is weak. That concern will be accentuated by an item that will be coming to the Council at its next meeting: the appointment of BID Directors for the coming year. According to the agenda of the BID Board's most recent meeting, on May 23, 2019, despite outreach to all 300+ current CdM BID assessees, no nominations were received for service on the Board by anyone other than the current Board members. To most, that would not indicate a particularly healthy organization, or one enjoying great interest or involvement on the part of those supposedly benefiting from its activities. As to changing to a 1994 BID, I agree with City staff's assessment (page 5-5) that the present BIDs are not empowered to use their financial resources to transition to a 1994 BID. I do not agree that they cannot publicly discuss the possibility, costs and benefits of the dissolving and recreating themselves in a different form that might be more effective and provide better value to the assessees. That seems a discussion very much within their purview. And speaking of public discussion, although the staff report mentions the distinction between 1989 and 1994 BIDs, it glosses over the discussion that took place when the Council, as Items 6 and 7 at its May 22, 2018, meeting, last considered the renewal of the 1989 assessment and the request for $40,000 (see minutes). Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, for one, stated that in his view the renewal of the assessment for FY2019, and the gift of $40,000 was contingent on the BID transitioning to the 1994 form (with buy -in from a majority of the assessees) within the year, and that the FY2019 $40,000 would need to be returned if the BID was not able to accomplish that. The lack of follow-through on that, and the absence of any mention in the staff report of these possible conditions on the previous "renewal," is disturbing to me. It is also disturbing to me that, as indicated on page 5-2 of the staff report, the FY2020 $40,000 is proposed to be expensed to budget line item 0120202- 841046, which the Council will, May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 10 of 14 without explanation, be asked to approve on June 11 (see the present agenda Item 13) in the amount of $425,000 as a "Special Department Expense Account" within the Economic Development Division of the City Manager's Office, Although the City Manager's Office is asking for Council permission to disburse this particular $40,000 from the account, the June 11 budget approval will apparently empower staff to disburse the remainder of the $425,000 in increments of up to $120,000 for unspecified purposes, without any further public or Council oversight. I, therefore, find this my only opportunity to object even more strongly to the annual $40,000 grant agreements that City staff has been expensing (presumably out of the same account) to the BVMA (aka "Balboa Village Merchants Association," C-8132-4) and "Balboa Island Marketing, Inc." (C-8133-4). Those are successor organizations to Council -created BIDS that once existed in Balboa Village and on Balboa Island. To the best of my knowledge they are run by self-appointed boards with no qualifications or obligations for membership, and no dues. Quite the opposite of being self-funded, they simply emerged and exist, as far as I know, to spend whatever taxpayers' money happens to be given to them by the City. And there is no taxpayer oversight, at all, of how that money is spent. One can argue that, despite the lack of oversight, such groups provide a benefit to the city in general, but one then has to wonder why the Council is not asking groups from other parts of the city to come forth and ask for a $40,000 annual handout to benefit their areas. Why not a McFadden Square Merchants Association? Or a Bristol Street Merchants? Or an Airport Area Businesses? Or ... Unfortunately, the list of potential grantees is much longer than the City has $40,000's to hand out, making it all the more mysterious why a couple of groups have been historically singled out to receive the City's largesse. In my view, all such booster organizations should be self-funded, and should not be empowered by the City to spend money collected from taxpayers. Item 6. Resolution No. 2019-47: Resolution of Intention to Renew the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District, Levy Assessments for the Fiscal Year 2019- 2020, and Fix the Time and Place of a Public Hearing on June 11, 2019; and Allocate City Funding Support in the Amount of $40,000 per Year Through FY 2020 Most of the comments made with regard to agenda Item 5, above, apply to this as well. But in contrast to the CdM BID, the NBRA BID does not purport to benefit a geographic area, but rather an industry. Just as I am not sure why the Council is not looking to create a Bristol Street BID, I am not sure why they would not see value to the City empowering an Auto Dealers BID or a Real Estate Brokers BID or a Medical Professionals BID or any other on the semi - infinite list of trade groups it might want to promote. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 11 of 14 In the present case, although about 60 of the 400+ NBRA BID assessees participate in Restaurant Week (for which they voluntarily pay extra), it is less clear what benefit many of the others receive. The BID's main activity, Dine Newport Beach, seems to exist as a confusing subset of the Visit Newport Beach website, surrounded by images, links and promotions irrelevant to it. And many of the NBRA BID's involuntary assessees receive no obvious benefit at all. For example, the Council will be asked (per staff report pages 6-6 and 6-20) to approve assessing each "grocery or market" in the City $500 (if they offer take-out food service). Assuming they are assessed, I am not aware of any benefit that Ralphs, Pavilions or Smart & Final receives for that fee. They do not even seem to be listed on the "Dine NB" website ("grocery or market" does not seem to be a selectable category), and the encouragement of dining out in restaurants would seem counterproductive to their primary sales. Evidence of engagement and interest by the involuntary "membership" is at least as lacking as in the previous Item 5. Per a report at the bottom of page 14 of the May 24, 2019, Newport Beach Independent, the NBRA BID was unable to muster a quorum at its May 22 Board meeting (see agenda), and is going to try again on May 29 (see new agenda). As with the CdM BID, a solicitation to all the assessees resulted in no nominations to serve on the Board other than by existing Board members. Item 10. Professional Surveying Services — Approval of On -Call Professional Services Agreements I have previously expressed concern about the proliferation of on-call contracts. This particular pair of agreements seems more in keeping with the on-call concept than most. That is, they seem intended for routine jobs too small to warrant a more job -specific procurement process. However, the continual increase in the allowable duration and hence the allowable total dollar amount of on-call agreements brings concerns even to these. The Council's approval of a dollar limit of $500,000, with no constraints as to how many dollars can be spent at a time, raises the possibility that very large amounts could be spent without the Council or public oversight expected in the City Charter. To restore transparency, and in the absence of clearer contracting rules, I would again suggest that any Letter Proposals written to disburse funds from these contracts for specific work be made part of the Clerk's contract archive. The one advantage of the longer-term on-call agreements is that they appear to lock in current service charges against inflationary increases for a longer time. In that connection, it might have been helpful to indicate how the new rates (which seem remarkably similar for the two proposers, apparently due to a prevailing wage requirement) compare to the ones in the existing three-year agreements with Coast (C-8056-1) and Guida (C-8120-1). May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 12 of 14 That said, the size of the contracts suggests the volume of work needed by the City might be sufficient to justify an on -staff surveyor, who might be able to provide the services at lower cost (the City not, I believe, being required to pay its own employees the prevailing industry wage). Item 11. Approval and Award of Agreement for Fee Study and Citywide Cost Allocation Plan Services to MGT of America Consulting, LLC Although not clearly explained in the staff report, the need for this contract appears to arise out of the Proposition 218 requirement that governmental fees charged for providing services, to not be regarded as taxes requiring voter approval, must not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Since Proposition 218's enactment in 1996, Newport Beach appears to have hired exactly two firms to analyze the cost of its services: KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, which conducted the initial study in 1996, and Public Resource Management LLC (later absorbed into MGT), hired in 2006 (under contract C-3890) to update the initial study and on a more continuing basis since then (under contract C-4518 for $159,000 and C-8257-1 for $48,100). I am not sure if I am reading the staff report correctly (bottom of page 11-2) to imply that a single person at MGT performs this work. If so, one has to wonder if, after 13 years, it might be useful (1) to put a new set of eyes on the task, and (2) whether someone on City staff could not be trained to do the work. It is also not obvious why staff is recommending the Council pay to restudy the fees every three years when the policy is to do it every five years (and staff once managed to go 10 years without engaging an outside consultant). Finally, since the subject is fees, it would have seemed good to disclose how MGT's new hourly rates and required hours to complete a study compare to those under the existing contract. Item 12. Planning Commission Agenda for the May 23, 2019 Meeting As indicated in the staff report, the Planning Commission approved the staff recommendations on three applications, but all of them had another side. The first application sought a waiver of Council policy (as the Council has recently allowed the PC to do) to allow the intrusion of a yard along Cliff Drive (in Newport Heights) into the public right of way. The primary justification was that the proposal matched what the neighboring properties had done, but it is unclear why any of the properties on this block have been allowed to extend their yards, bordered by planter walls, into what on the subdivision map was promised as public right of way. That practice gives the public realm a very private look, and provides no obvious benefit to the public. There also is apparently no continuing charge to the homeowners for extending the size of their private yards. At least they don't (yet) get credit for it toward buildable area. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 13 of 14 The second application was presented as being for relief from setback standards at 358 Dahlia Place. But this was also an instance of a duplex being proposed on an RM -designated lot, and in the Coastal Zone. The builder took expansive credit for not "maxing out" what could be built, but this claim was with respect to the maximum allowed with the relaxed setbacks and for the RM zoning. Staff did not mention Council's wish for duplexes in RM zones to adhere to duplex standards (see Item 4, above), nor say if this proposal did adhere to them. Nor did staff mention that the proposal for a duplex (and the permanent subdivision of the lot into two condominiums) would yield a housing density of only 15 dwelling units per acre on a lot for which the Coastal Land Use Plan requires 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre. Since the result is outside the promised housing density range, the finding of consistency with the CLUP was, at best, "difficult" to make, although that did not seem a concern to either staff or the Commission. The third application was for height variances for a massive new home proposed on the ocean - facing side of Kings Road. While public testimony focused on the loss of private views from homes on the inland side of Kings Road, and the eyesores created by "high-rise" development on the "low-rise" side of the road, an equally important issue is the impact on the coastal bluff down which the proposed home would cascade, and the resulting diminution of the bluff's value as a visual resource from the very public views along Pacific Coast Highway (which is recognized as a "coastal view road" in both our General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan). Somewhat sadly, although the Natural Resources Element (Policy NR 23.1) of the General Plan, in the presence of coastal bluffs, promises to "site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource," it assumed this would be implemented through revision to the Zoning Code. But when the revised Zoning Code was approved in 2010, nothing in it protected these bluffs. This has led to a not -unusual situation in what seems to be allowed by one portion of the City's regulations is restricted by some other section. In such cases of conflict, I'm not sure City staff fully appreciates the need to find a balance between the two. Planning staff, in particular, tends to focus solely on the Zoning Code, ignoring the protections promised in other elements of the General Plan. Hence we see the development around the corner on Dover Drive, where private homes have been allowed to cascade all the way down the historic (and theoretically "preserved") bluffs, and commercial development to cut into them from below, completely (or nearly completely) obliterating them. Item 14. John Wayne Airport General Aviation Improvement Program Update Staff's observation (on page 14-2) that at the May 7 Board of Supervisors meeting "Dozens of community members also provided public comment, but there wasn't a clear consensus behind one alternative or concept," reinforces the non -agenda comment I made at the last Council meeting that the City needs to develop and communicate a clear position not just to the Supervisors, but to the residents, so the residents can understand and back it. I believe it is incorrect to assume that everyone impacted by aircraft noise is involved in a community group or that those groups are communicating a uniform message to them. May 28, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 14 of 14 As previously indicated, I was deeply disappointed by the City's decision to cancel its May 13 Aviation Committee meeting, and I continue to hope that group will meet on June 10, as promised in the cancellation notice, or some other date. That seems necessary to create a unified (and universally understood) message for presentation to the County Supervisors on June 25. At least for me, many uncertainties remain as to the quantity of future development allowed under the various proposals, and what significance the numbers quoted from the EIR have in that regard. For example, the present report (page 14-4) says of Supervisor Do's proposal, "the proposal does call for seven more based turbo jets than Alternative 3 contains." But I am not sure Alternative 3 ever "contained" any definite number of based jets. My impression is the number quoted from the EIR was simply a projection, with no binding significance, and the actual number of based jets (and other kinds of aircraft) would be determined by market demand at the discretion of the private lessee controlling the storage areas. As also previously indicated, as part of this process I believe the Council needs to rethink its Policy A-17 (which is something the Aviation Committee is specifically supposed to assist with). City staff reads Policy A-17 as backing a fixed mix of general aviation aircraft types, but it doesn't really distinguish between GA jets and other kinds of GA aircraft. As a result, in the EIR County staff could have found a complete transition of all GA aircraft from propeller to jet as consistent with the City policy, provided only that the total number of aircraft remained constant. Since propeller operations currently vastly outnumber jet operations (and for the most part don't fly over residential areas of Newport Beach), I don't think anyone wants that.