Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed September 24, 2019 Consent Calendar Comments September 24, 2019, 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 September 4, 2019 Special City Council Meeting and September 10, 2019 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in c4r°mutunderline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 64. Page 172, Item II, paragraph 2: "The Invocation was provided by Council Member Herdman and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Muldoon." [It is not at all clear to me that a government official acting in their official capacity to lead the public gathered for a secular purpose in a religious observance is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Town of Greeley nor with the California Constitution, particularly since prayer at public meetings does not seem to have a long history in Newport Beach — and, in this case, of there being no advance warning on the agenda.] Page 174, paragraph 2 from end: "Nancy Engle Vanotten Van Otten asked where the homeless will go when enforcement begins at the Transportation Center..." [or "Vanotten" — but not "Vanotton"] Page 174, last paragraph: "Mo Farha, Board of Directors President of Pelican Ridge Community Association ..." ["Farah"??] Page 175, paragraph 4: "Gay VanDei"-alker Vandewalker believed..." Page 175, paragraph 9: "John Jon Schisler, Starboard Realty Partners, expressed opposition Page 176, line 1: "In response to comments, Assistant City Manager Jac -0 Jacobs indicated Page 177, note preceding Item III heading: "Without objection, Mayor Dixon requested to re- open Item 1." [The unexpected re -opening of Item 1 after 60 minutes of closed session discussion seems a bit improper since nearly all the members of the public who had come to observe or comment on Item 1 had long -since left the Council Chambers. In addition, it creates a strong impression that the Council had discussed these matters (use of the Corporation Yard and sharing with the City of Costa Mesa's homeless shelter) during the closed session even though those matters had not been noticed as topics for the closed session and, in the case of the Corporation Yard, would not have qualified for closed session discussion even if noticed , since its use would not require any real estate negotiation. It would probably have been more graceful to handle this not as a re -opening but as a request for future agenda items, which the Brown Act allows the Council to vote on without prior announcement and is Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 what this actually seemed to be (even though this simple procedure conflicts with the Council's more convoluted process for agendizing matters proclaimed in Policy A-1).] Page 178, Item SS3, paragraph 1: "Amy Hunt, President of the Newport Beach Friends of the Library, and Wendy Franc -o Frankel, Book Store Manager, presented a check for $185, 000 to the City, ..." Page 179, paragraph 4 from end: "Jim Mosher believed SB 330 states the City would not be able to impose design standards after January 2020 unless they are objective, but does not completely restrict the City's authority, discussed shear sheer walls and..." Page 181, paragraph 1: "Hoiyin Ip displayed a slide to encourage the City to adopt an ordinance to ban all single -use plastic products, noting the City has the weakest ordinance." Page 181, Item XII (CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES): [Note: it is very difficult to compare the minutes of the Council member comments with what was said because (in an apparent effort to sort the comments into uniform categories such as "Displayed," "Attended," "Met with" and "Announced") the minutes list the sub -items in a completely different order from the way they were presented (most likely, chronological). In the sorting process, not only do some of the items become garbled, but the minutes also appear to be incomplete: for example, at 2:30:55 in the video, Council Member Brenner described a trip to she took with Council Member Herdman to the CR&R Anerobic Digestion Facility in Perris, California, but there is no mention of that I can find in the draft minutes.] Council Member Avery: First bullet: "Attended a Newport Beach Historical Society event at the Muth Interpretive Center regarding the Back Bay, an Aviation Committee meeting, a Housing Task Force meeting, and a Housing Task Force subcommittee meeting." [This was clearly a reference to the Homeless Task Force.] Page 182: Council Member Brenner: First bullet: "Displayed slides to announce a Short -Term Lodging Stakeholder meeting on September 16 ..., and her visit to the Fountain Valley Waste Water Recovery Center with Charles Klobe and Nancy Narborough Scarbrou_ph." Second bullet: "Attended a roundtable on mental health organized by Congressman Harley Rouda along with Council Member Herdman and Homeless Task Force Members Jean Wegener and Terry Moore, three meetings of the an Education and Outreach Subcommittee 11eeti^^, of the Homeless Task Force subGommittee meetings the Corona del Mar Residents Association (CdMRA) meeting with Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill and Council Member Herdman, a public scoping meetings meetin_g at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 about their Facilities Master Plan with CdMRA President Debbie Stevens and City Enginee.� Engineer Sinacori, ..." Third bullet: "Met with u,, ele s Tall. -Gr-Ge nne.,,►,erc jean Wegener- and Torr., Moore; Craig Smith, Lilly Mazieres and Bob Taylor of the Citizen' Climate Lobby regarding sea level rise; ..." [HTF meetings reported in second bullet] Council Member Herdman: Second bullet: "Met with constituents regarding sea level rise and pending legislation, ; twFe Aviation r,,.,,mittee members, and Board of Supervisor Steel regarding the Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the General Aviation Implementation Plan (GAIP) along with Mayor Dixon and two Aviation Committee members." Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill: First bullet: "Attended the CdMRA meeting, the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee meeting, the Fire Department badge pinning ceremony, Wake ,up Up! Newport where Fire Chief Boyles spoke, ..." Page 183: First bullet: "Announced the opening of the SAP Innovation Center, which includes the HanaHouse coffee shop and community workspace, the "Newport Beach: GAMps Glimpses of the Past" exhibit of the from Sherman Gardens at the Central Library until November 1, ..." Page 183, Item XIV, paragraph 5: "Shang Conzelman believed the issues associated the with hedge heights on Lido Isle deal with line of sight versus privacy, ..." Page 183, Item XIV, paragraph 8: "In response to Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill's questions, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the initiation intends to focus more on strata strada, not front setback, and confirmed enforcement would be through the City." Page 187, motion: "Motion by Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill, seconded by Council Member Herdman, to approve the Consent Calendar; and noting the recusals by Mayor Dixon on Item 5, Council Member Muldoon on Item 7, Council Member Brenner on Item 12, and Council Member Herdman on Item 19; the "no" vote by Council Member Muldoon on Item 8; and amendments to Items Item 1." Page 188, paragraph 1: "Denys Oberman noted she provided written comments, disputed a previous staff comment regarding side setback standards, discussed of the City's fire and safety standards, and requested the City enforce its regulations." Page 188, last paragraph before Item XVIII: "Ron Meskea Meskis discussed scholarship impacts to female Newport Aquatic Center (NAC) rowers ..." Page 188, after "The following ex parte communication occurred:" Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 • "Council Member Avery spoke on the phone with the Carolyn Reed, Ed Selich, and Gus Azadian • Council Member Duffield spoke on the phone with the Carolyn Reed and Ed Selich • Council Member Muldoon met with the Carolyn Reed and their neighbor • Council Member Brenner met with Carolyn Reed, Shawna Shaffner, Ed Selich, and Gus and Fawzia Azadian • Council Member Herdman met with Carolyn Reed, Shawna Shaffner, Ed Selich, and neighbors from both sides of the project • Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill met with the Carolyn Reed, Shawna Shaffner, Ed Selich, and Gus and Fawzia Azadian" Page 189, paragraph 3: "Bruce Bartram, President of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON)/appellant, believed the project does not meet California law, the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) or Supreme Court guidelines for needing a variance, pointed out that the variance is only for 353 square feet of the 10, 803 square foot project, ~e'�ed asked that a finding be included in the documentation that the square footage is necessary for the variance if the variance was approved, noted the project has created dissention dissension and conflict in the neighborhood, highlighted the findings of SPON's attorney, Michelle Black of Chatten- Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP, requested Council not set precedence precedent, and believed the remainder of the structure can be built without the variance and the variance is inconsistent." [note: "precedence" refers to the order in which things are done; "precedent" refers to a past action becoming the justification for similar actions in the future. They are different words.] Page 189, public hearing, paragraph 1: "Fawzia Azadian; provided a handout, noted she is the next door neighbor, expressed concerns relative to her family's privacy, safety, view rights, decreased property value, and stability of the bluff, believed this would set a bad precedence precedent, ..." Page 189, paragraph 2 from end: "Jim Navai indicated he lives two houses from the project, stated he previously was told he would be granted a variance if he did not block the neighbors' views, believed this would begin a massing ^re�enee precedent, expressed issues with sewer backups, and suggested that this project be required to install its own sewer system." Page 190, paragraph 2: "Nick Kovacevich expressed support for the Planning Commission's decision..." Page 191, paragraph 3 from end: "Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill explained the reason variances are requested, reiterated Council is required to focus only on the variance, not public views, how large the project will be, or if the neighborhood is harmonious. He reported SB 330 will prohibit the City from placing a moratorium on construction or making any zoning changes that would cause a house like this not to be built, expressed concern that Line in the Sand, an Internal Revenue Code g^„� 501(c)(4) organization, got involved and suggested they get involved in SB 330; believed this does not create rec-epenee precedent since variances are specific to the property and the ones around it, and does not extend to all the homes in the neighborhood, Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 stated that, even if the Planning Commission decision is overturned, the City should never bypass the Zoning Administrator process and go directly to the Planning Commission; and indicated he is supportive of the Planning Commission decision." [note: the next -to -last part of this was in response to my comment that instead of himself approving a Zoning Clearance if a revised project for this site returned with no variances, the Planning Director should refer the decision to the Planning Commission. NBMC Sec. 20.52.100.D gives him that option. It does not, as currently written, provide an option to refer Zoning Clearances to the Zoning Administrator.] Item 3. Ordinance No. 2019-15: Amending Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 6.04 - Garbage, Refuse and Cuttings and Adding Chapter 6.06 - State Mandated Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Programs I commented on a small portion of this ordinance when it was introduced at first reading (Item 23 on September 10, 2019), with almost no effect (one typo in an ordinance cross-reference is all that seems to have been corrected). Based on page 23-40 of the September 10 staff report, I continue to suspect proposed Section 6.04.010 ("Purpose and Intent," staff report page 3-7), was intended to include a second paragraph reading something like: "B. The provisions of this chapter shall regulate all municipal solid waste not covered by Chapter 6.06." Whether that was important, or not, is hard to say, but since it was left out of the first reading it looks like it will not become part of the adopted code. I continue to have been unable to find time to thoughtfully consider the remaining 20 pages of code, so I don't know what, if any, anomalies or errors it might contain. I do wish to question proposed Section 6.04.220 ("Burying of Solid Waste or Recyclable Material Prohibited," page 3-17), since I have for decades buried all the organic waste generated in and around my home, using what is sometimes called "trench composting." With very little effort it turns the most intractable clay soil into a most beautiful loam, and involves no vehicle miles at all. So it seems a very environmentally responsible thing to do — although I fear feeding the worms may also produce methane. Will this practice now be forever banned in Newport Beach or do the convoluted nuances of the definitions of "solid waste" and 11recyclables" mean it's still OK? Item 4. Resolution No. 2019-82: Authorization to Submit an Application for the Housing and Community Development SB 2 Planning Grants Program It might have been helpful to indicate what "SB 2" this refers to. It seems to be California Senate Bill 2 from 2017 (the "Building Homes and Jobs Act"), which is different from the SB 2 of 2007 which required the City to designate locations suitable for emergency shelters (most all of which we seem to have later decided are actually unsuitable). Sept. 24, 2019, City Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Item 14. Contract with Former City Employee, Michelle Caldwell I believe staff is correct in interpreting Policy F-14 as requiring them to bring this contract to the Council for public approval. I also believe Policy F-14 needs some further work to make it clear why it compels that result for this employment contract but not for many others. As currently written, the "l. Contracts with Former Council Members and City Employees" section (page 8) attempts to address a number of distinct concerns, including the perceived nepotism of current employees making direct or indirect outside contracts with former colleagues and (as seems to be the case here) the public perception that a retiree who is re- hired to do the same task while continuing to collect a pension for it is being paid double the normal rate. As the staff report indicates, Ms. Caldwell's new contract is being brought to the Council because she has been employed by the City in the last five years. But I believe staff signs many contracts to hire people who have been employed by the City in the last five years without bringing them to Council (for example, re -hiring temporary or seasonal employees, such as lifeguards, or independent contract employees, such as contract planners). The distinction here would seem to be not so much that Ms. Caldwell has worked for the City in the last five years, but that she is a retiree collecting a Newport Beach -funded pension. However, the words referring to "retiring" (in the former Policy F-20) were deleted as part of Item 6 (see page 81 of that) at the Council's February 12, 2019, meeting. Unless the Council wants to approve all re -hirings of people who have worked for the City in the past five years, it looks like it should revisit the wording of this part of Policy F-14. Aside from the Policy F-14 question, it would be helpful to clarify what seems to be CalPERS rule cited repeatedly in the proposed contract: reminding annuitants that to receive their retirement benefits while continuing to work they must work nor more than 960 hours per year "for all employers." Does that truly mean "alf' employers? Or just public sector ones? Or possibly just CaIPERSable ones? In other words, if a Newport Beach safety employee retiring at age 50 takes a full-time post-retirement private -sector job (no matter how low the pay), does that suspend their pension payments?