Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed April 9, 2024 Written Comments April 9, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosherno_yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS5. Discussion Regarding the Balboa Yacht Basin As always, it would be helpful to give the Council and public advance access to the information to be reviewed at the study session — in this case, apparently, "the results of the request for proposals for the redevelopment of the Balboa Yacht Basin buildings." Equally importantly, in this case there are two pending RFPs regarding the Balboa Yacht Basin — one (RFP 24-19) involving the buildings and the other (RFP 24-28) involving the marina. In response to the latter, staff had recommended awarding a contract for marina design as Item 8 on the Council's February 27, 2024, but the bid was rejected, apparently so it could be reconsidered in connection with plans for the buildings. Since the notice says "Discussion Regarding the Balboa Yacht Basin," will it truly be, as the subtitle suggests, about the building RFP alone? Or will it include its connection to the marina? Item 1. Minutes for the March 26, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in sh4keeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 68, Item XVI, paragraph 1: "Chris Benzen discussed what a mooring was, thought it was inappropriate for the Harbormaster and others to feeuse themselves from with conflicts of interest to participate in discussions, stated the proposed fee increase was unfair, and suggested amending Resolution No. 2015-10 to include moorings." [See video. Mr. Benzen was not objecting to recusals, but to the participation that occurred prior to them.] Page 68, Item XVI, paragraph 5: "Mike F4emming-Fleming suggested comparing what the yacht clubs are paying the City for moorings versus mooring holders." [note: Mike and Jessie Fleming were featured in a February 2, 2024, Daily Pilot story about the mooring rent increases, that used the spellings suggested here. Are there speaker cards indicating something different?]] Page 68, Item XVI, paragraph 6: "Jesse Jessie Fleming -Fleming asked for a fair approach to determining mooring fees and suggested that everyone pay the same amount and work together." Item 4. Resolution No. 2024-20: Accept State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Boating and Waterways Grant for the Marina Park Boating Program An impressive amount of staff effort appears to have gone into completing the 92-page grant agreement form, requiring answers to many questions. April 9, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 Item 6. 2021-2022 Tide Gate Improvement Project- Notice of Completion for Contract No. 7999-1 (19D03) As is customary in these notices of completion, the "Cost/Time Summary" indicates the work was completed within the allowed contract time. As is also normal, this seems a bit deceptive, since it includes extensions, which, since extensions seem to be liberally granted, almost guarantees there will be no overages. It would seem more meaningful to indicate how many working days were contracted for versus the number finally allowed (similar to "Award Amount" versus "Final Cost"), or the actual completion date compared to the originally expected completion date. In this case, it is not obvious if extra working days were allowed, but from the body of the report (page 6-2), the work expected to be completed by May 5, 2023, was not, after a summer break, actually completed until November 28. Item 7. Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with Aquatrax LLC for Web -based Customer Water Use Software It is also not evident from the report how much of the original $120,000 contract limit has been spent. It does suggest a substantial part of that was related to the development of custom software. If the software was intended for use by City staff, one would assume that once the completed software was delivered, annual maintenance costs would be minimal. Yet with approval of the recommended new contract limit of $370,000, tthe annual compensation to Aquatrax appears to be increasing from $120,000/2 = $60,000/yr for the initial two years to as much as $250,000/3 = $83,333/yr or more for the next three years (depending on how much of the initial $120,000 remains unspent). It is not apparent from the report what has been added to the "Amended Scope of Services" on pages 7-10 and 7-11 what new tasks Aquatrax would be asked to perform. For example, in the Schedule of Billing Rates on page 7-12, what is the $36,540 annual charge for? Is Aquatrax operating the software for the City? Or merely "maintaining" it (i.e., correcting errors and updating)? If the latter, why would maintenance cost so much? The last line of the discussion suggests that further promotion of the use -tracking capability to water customers is contingent on approval of the contract extension. Does that mean the capability would disappear without Aquatrax's continued involvement? As to the current state of that promotion, it might be noted that the existence of a water use -tracking capability currently appears to be mentioned on the City's website only on the Public Works Department's Water Conservation page (which provides an inoperative link'), and not (as best I can tell) under Water Services in the Utilities Department's area. ' The link provided is "www.nbca.gov/wateruse," but the "nb" has to be fully spelled out as "www.newportbeachcZov/wateruse" to work. April 9, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 Finally as to leak detection, that is certainly a useful feature, but the Council may wish to ask what is the smallest leak that has been detected compared to normal household or business usage? Also, are customers automatically informed of leaks, or do they have to actively sign up for those and other notifications (as the website implies they do)?. Item 10. General Plan Update Steering Committee (GPUSC) Bi-Monthly Update to the City Council After a six month lapse, it is good to see a resumption of these "bi-monthly" reports, which will, hopefully, generate some feedback in the future. As I indicated in non -agenda comments at the last Council meeting, the more immediate General Plan problem needing the Council's consideration is the handling of the separate update process implementing the recently -adopted Housing Element. According to page 3-137 of that Housing Element, "The Housing Element update lists sites that would be able to accommodate an additional 7,909 total units, well in excess of the remaining 2,707-unit RHNA need," which is entirely in the moderate income and below affordability categories. However, rather than adding just the 2,707 affordable units which the state requires (and which City Charter Section 423 arguably authorizes the Council to do without a Greenlight vote2), staff is currently recommending the Council call a Greenlight vote in November to amend the existing Land Use Element to add 8,274 new units (100 at the former Banning Ranch and 8,174 in five "focus areas"), all of which could be used to build above -moderate luxury units, accomplishing nothing toward meeting the RHNA mandate. That proposal will apparently be coming to the Planning Commission next week, and to the Council in May (where, like Items 11 and 12 on the current agenda, it will likely need to wait for an override of likely rejection by the County's Airport Land Use Commission). If approved by the Council and placed on the ballot in November, it will quite probably be rejected by voters, embroiling the City in lengthy and costly litigation. That does not seem like a wise path for the Council to choose. 2 "This section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the voters on the amendment." April 9, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Item 11. Ordinance Nos. 2024-8 and 2024-9 and Resolution Nos. 2024-22 and 2024-23: Approving the Residences at 1400 Bristol Street Project; and Resolution No. 2024-24: Overriding Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency (PA2022- 0296) The staff report indicates the last thing the Council needs to do to approve this development is to adopt a resolution overriding the Airport Land Use Commission's January 18, 2024, determination of inconsistency. Since it, alone, requires a two-thirds vote, I would think it should be the first thing. I continue to think the ALUC had valid concerns regarding noise and safety, and overriding them is unwise. The ALUC staff report from January 18 included representative flight tracks that don't seem to be included in the present report. They show a concentration of piston -powered planes departing southbound from the short runway (referred to as "Runway 20L") turning over the proposed development site: That they follow this path is largely at the request of the City which, in response to noise complaints from the Bayview community, asked for the planes to turn before reaching the 73 Freeway as indicated in JWA's noise abatement instructions to pilots (with Bayview being the April 9, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 orange "Noise Sensitive Area" and the red "X" marking the approximate location of 1400 Bristol): That the City would want to create and aggravate a new noise sensitive areas seems counterintuitive. I am also concerned about the liability issue. Both the ALUC and Caltrans have reminded the City that an override of the ALUC determination relieves the County of liability for future problems with the site. One has to assume that liability shifts to the City. As best I can tell, the City is relying on the boilerplate indemnification provisions of Condition of Approval No. 52 (staff report page 11-151) to shield it, too, from liability. I would want to know how effective it is, since by its own terms the indemnification is effective only "To the fullest extent permitted by law," and in these circumstances, I suspect that extent may be limited. It should also be noted that the ALUC's safety concerns are not necessarily overblown. Aircraft accidents may be rare, but a departing helicopter in Bayview as recently as 2018. And even if the Council discounts the ALUC's concerns, it is a bit disturbing the staff report acknowledges receipt of the Caltrans letter, but (as best as I can tell) offers no response to it. I also take issue with the statement at the bottom of page 11-5 of the staff report that "There have been no other General Plan amendments in this Statistical Area within the last 10 years." April 9, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 I don't know how many there may have been, but in 2020, 1 know the Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-84, amending the General Plan to create the Newport Airport Village; and more recently, amendments were made to the noise contours and development policies (some of which were needed to make the present project possible). Item 12. Ordinance Nos. 2024-10 and 2024-11 and Resolution Nos. 2024-25 and 2024-26: Approving the Residences at 1401 Quail Street Project; and Resolution No. 2024-27: Overriding Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency (PA2023- 0040) I have the same concerns as with Item 11 regarding the proposed override of the ALUC determination. I would also note that neither of these projects appears to advance our General Plan policies to create connected, walkable communities in the MU-H2 portions of the Airport Area that they wish to join. This one, for example, does nothing to encourage use of the existing, adjoining sidewalk as envisioned in Policy LU 6.15.18 ("Walkable Streets"): "Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers." Why are we not calming traffic and widening sidewalks? And is there a longer -range plan as to how these developments will connect to a larger village? Item 13. Sculpture Exhibition in Civic Center Park - Phase IX In addition to the financial concerns raised at the Council's January Planning Session, I believe the Arts Commission and staff could use refreshed direction as to the extent the Council desires public participation in the selection of pieces to display. The participation in the public poll by 239 voters out of a population in excess of 82,000 seems rather meager. And those participants' tastes appeared to differ significantly from those of the jury, consisting of the Arts Commissioners and two outside experts. As a result, some of the works dismissed by the jury, and not included in the poll, may well have proved popular favorites.