Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed August 27, 2024 Written Comments August 27, 2024, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosherCLDyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item SS5. Development Impact Fees The report indicates the present study session is the result of direction given by the Council at a study session on May 11, 2021, more than three years ago, where (with no advance staff report) a presentation about impact fees was heard as Item SS4. In my view, study sessions should be for studying, not for voting. Yet the minutes indicate that although at least three Council members wanted to omit library and recreation fees, four of the Council members voted to study fees for "all areas," at an estimated cost of $13,000 for each fee studied. In connection with the latter, the second page of the staff report says "There is no fiscal impact related to this study session item," yet the abstract says "The City of Newport Beach contracted with Willdan Financial Services in late 2021" to conduct the study, and surely that cost something. In fact, the resulting contract C-8789-1, effective October 15, 2021, anticipated a not -to -exceed cost of $74,925 (magically, just under the $75,000 signing limit of department directors). The scope of work included proposals for impact fees in 10 categories at an estimated cost of $10,000 each. Despite the Council direction to study fees in "all areas," the categories staff seems to have decided to not pursue include Library impact fees, Legal fees, Homeless Services fees, Park In Lieu fees for rental units and the existing Fair Share Traffic fee.' As to the consultants recommendations, it is unclear why they took more than three years to prepare, and many of the details are hard to follow. For example, the "new development" projected through 2045 in Table 2-1 on page SS5-18 of the agenda packet, assumes "8,741" new housing units will be added, which it says is "based on total potential development capacity of dwelling units of housing need identified in the Housing Element Table 3-37, excluding projects in the pipeline." First, it is unclear why "projects in the pipeline" would be excluded. Although fees for them may already have been assessed, aren't they part of the expected growth? Second, the author seems to have started with a number of "8,714" units from which, at staff's direction, it says, they assumed 10% would develop as single-family and the remaining 90% as multi -family units. But the number in Housing Element Table 3-37 is 8,174 units, not "8,714" units, casting doubt on the care the consultant exercises in their work. Third, and most importantly, the projection says it is through a horizon year of 2045, but Table 3-37 represents planned -for growth only through the end of the 6th RHNA cycle on October 15, 2029. By 2045 there will be two more complete RHNA cycles. Doesn't the consultant expect any further growth associated with them? Finally, there would be many bonus units in addition to the 8,174 (or 8.714?) base units. It is unclear if they would have fees assessed, but wouldn't they be part of the population growth? I am similarly mystified by some of the specific fee calculations. The contract says updating the Fair Share Traffic fee, which has not been updated in decades, would be the work of subcontractor Kimley-Horn, and would be an additional cost, not included in the $74,925 limit. August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 9 For example, in the Police Facilities calculation on page SS5-27, the consultant assigns a weighting factor of 1.00 to a resident and 0.31 to a worker based on the ratio of a 40-hour work week to the 128 non -work hours in a 168-hour week being 40/128 = 0.31. Although many residents are also not present for the full 168 hours of a week, I might half understand treating workers as being present 40/168 = 0.24 of the week, but by the consultant's method, a person working the full 168 hours with 0 non -work hours would have infinite weight, which makes no sense. Also, doesn't the consultant need to make a distinction between workers who are residents and those that are not. Item 1. Minutes for the July 23, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in s`�,4 eou-t underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 140, full paragraph 2, sentence 2: "Councilmember Weigand expressed concerns related to helmet safety and Transportation Manager/City Traffic Engineer Sommers indicated that he was not familiar with thee -bike helmet technology and thought it was a good topic of conversation at the regional and State levels." Page 142, Item XIV, last paragraph: "Bill Kenney, representing the Promontory Bay Community Association, noted the impact on the community if modifications to the Balboa Yacht Basin occur, and expressed supperteel support for the exclusive negotiateel negotiating agreement with Burnham -Ward Properties with conditions (Item 15)." [or: "... and expfesseel supported #eF the ..."] Page 148, paragraph 11: "Mayor Pro Tern Stapleton noted his promise of keeping Newport "Newport, " thanked staff for their time and effort, relayed the options, expressed his frustrations, listed consequences of the Housing Element falling out of compliance, thought it coulef is all avoidable, and noted one acceptable choice." Item 4. Resolution No. 2024-60: Approving Side Letter Agreements with Labor Groups Representing City Employees, Approving an Amendment to the Key and Management Compensation Plan and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Amendment B to the Employment Agreement with the Fire Chief Since the author of the staff report seems to know what "The City Council wishes," this sounds like something the Council may have discussed in closed session. Burying the public aspects of this in the consent calendar, where it will be adopted without discussion of where or why the decisions were made, does not seem appropriate to me. August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 9 Item 5. Resolution No. 2024-61: Waiving Council Policy B-8, and Section A.1 of Council Policy B-13 to Permit an Annual Charity Volleyball Tournament and To Allow for Alcoholic Beverages on a City Beach In Item 18 (Planning Commission Agenda Report for August 22, 2024) on the current agenda, the Council will see that the Commission denied a requested permit for off -premises alcohol sales in the McFadden Square area, largely because it was close to the beach, where alcohol consumption is prohibited out of fear of the problems it can create. Indeed, the beach the store is close to is the same as the one where the subject volleyball tournament would be held. In Item 3, the Council is asked to accept a state grant to help our Police Department improve alcohol enforcement. The requested action to allow alcohol where it is currently not allowed seems squarely at odds with these. It defies the principle of leading by example. Instead, it feeds the view that we live in a world where privileged elites are free to do what the average person cannot. Item 13. Lease Agreement with Balboa Angling Club for Use of the Real Property and Tidelands at 200 A Street 1. A club that requires endorsement by an existing member to join does not seem entirely "open to the public" to me. 2. The Discussion (page 13-2) says the Property includes three parking spaces as illustrated on page 13-49, but the parking spaces do not appear to be part of the Leased Area shown on page 13-46. Are they being rented or not? 3. Does the below -market rent proposal for the tidelands need to be reviewed by the State Lands Commission? 4. Does some fraction of the proposed $1 per year need to go into the Tidelands Fund? 5. The proposed $1 rent and two 5-year extensions are not mentioned in the Abstract. Item 14. Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow Instructions with Bobby Hanada and Linda Hanada, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants for the Purchase of Real Property at 301 East Balboa Boulevard Is staff sure the Housing Crisis Act (or the Coastal Act if the existing tenants are low income?) does not require just the tenants to be relocated, but the removed housing to be rebuilt elsewhere? August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 9 Item 20. Response to the Recommendations of the Orange County Grand Jury Report "Talking Trash: Recyclables and Organic Waste" Considering the City claims we have a very active program to inform the public about the state's waste diversion goals, it is surprising to see this item buried in the consent calendar, where it is likely to be received without mention, let alone discussion. As to the report, although entitled "Recyclables and Organic Waste," the Findings and Recommendations seem solely about the residential organic waste requirements of SB 1383 (2016) and its implementation by CalRecycle, including the goal of diverting 75% of organic material from landfills by January 1, 2025. As to the City's proposed responses, on page 20-40, the last paragraph of the response to Finding F5 is very difficult to decipher. Based on comparison with the response to Recommendation R5 on page 20-42, the statements that "The source -separated organic tonnage collected in 2022 averaged 296.88 tons" and "In 2024 (January to May) 518.54 tons has been collected" both appear to refer to the average tonnage of green container organics collected per month (as opposed to totals for 2022 or for January to May 2024). The meaning of the statement that "Source -separated recycling has maintained a 65% diversion rate" is completely unclear. Based on the staff presentation at the February 3, 2024, Council Planning Session (see below), this appears to be a claim about the diversion of non -organic recyclable waste. On page 20-41, the response to Finding F9, that "In 2023, the City's residential organic diversion rate was 90.6%, and as of the end of June 2024, its residential diversion rate was approximately 91 %" — making it appear the City has already far surpassed the state goal to divert 75% of organic waste by 2025 — is more than misleading. This, again, seems to be a repeat of a similar claim made in Slide 46 of the staff presentation at the Council's February 3, 2024, Planning Session: REFUSE ENFORCEMENT State Law requirements: • 75% diversion of organics by January 1, 2025 -100% implementation of 3-container system Where we are currend Residential, 100% Implemented Residential Organic. 91% Diversion Residential Recycling. 65% Diversion ornrmercial. 28% Diversion Commercial, 280% Implemented Based on my familiarity with the much longer running and better -publicized organics diversion program of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, which services Newport Beach residents in Santa Ana Heights, I was very skeptical of this claim. So, I put in a Public Records Act request for the August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 9 City's residential waste composition studies (which are required by CalRecycle's implementation of SB 1383, and for which there seem to have been just two in 2023). The information provided indicated the "91 V number being quoted is not the diversion rate, but rather than "purity" of the material in the residential green carts. In other words, 91 % of the weight is indeed organics, while the remaining 9% is non -organic contaminants. But this is not a diversion rate, since it says nothing about the quantity of organics misplaced into the other carts and going to the landfill. Further analysis of the two studies provided the pounds collected on the routes in the MSW (= Black, Mixed Solid Waste), RCY (Blue, Recyclables) and ORG (Green, Organics) carts and the percentages of organics found in a small sample from each, from which following results for 2023 could be estimated: Totals MSW RCY ORG 58,960 28,440 11,140 19,380 Ifs collected 19% Bib 90% % organics in that type cart 23,737 5,4D4 891 17.442 estimated Ibs organics collected 23% 4% 73% <- % of all organics In other words, only 73% of the organics were being placed in the Green carts, while at least 23% was being misplaced in the Black carts and going to the landfill (contrary to the state goal). Even if the 4% misplaced in the Blue carts was being completely successfully recovered and diverted from the landfill, the overall organics diversion rate would be just 77% — much lower than the 91 % claimed in the response to the Grand Jury. Even 77% diversion of residential organics seems remarkable considering the short duration of the program and the very low-key promotion to residents. For comparison, Item C.6 at the CMSD Board's May 14, 2024, Study Session includes, as an attachment a summary of their eight 2023 composition studies, as well as the first two for 2024. CMSD has had a two -cart (Green for organics and Black for mixed waste) system since June 2015, and their tonnage reports indicate the green carts contain about one -quarter of the annual total weight of residential waste collected. Their composition studies are performed on the Black carts, in which they find, on average, about 20% of the weight is misplaced organics. In other words, when a CMSD resident puts out 100 Ibs of waste, about 75 Ibs will be in the Black cart, of which something like 15 Ibs will be misplaced organics, and another 25 Ibs of organics will put out in the Green carts. If none of the misplaced 15 Ibs of organics were recovered, this would be only a 25/40 = 62.5% diversion rate. At present, some of the 15 Ibs of Black cart organics is recovered at the CR&R Materials Recovery Facility, so their diversion is a bit higher, but CMSD is in the process of converting Santa Ana Heights and the rest of their district to the same three -cart system as Newport Beach (with the exception that their organics will continue to go to an anaerobic digester rather than going to the composting facility used by the City). With the misplaced organics in the black carts going directly to the landfill without sorting, CMSD will clearly be struggling to meet the 75% August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 9 goal. The bottom line is it is very difficult to get residents to thoroughly source -separate their organic waste, and It seems remarkable the City would claim to be achieving "91 %" diversion. While the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report appear focused solely on organics diversion, the title and body of the report also touch on recycling of non -organic waste. An analysis of Newport Beach's two 2023 residential waste studies, using the percentage of recyclables found in small samples from the three types of carts (similar to that for organics shown above), yields the following: Totals MSW RCY ORG 58,960 28,440 11,140 19,380 Ibs collected 19 62% 13% % recyclables in that type cart 14,830 5,404 6,907 2,519 estimated Ibs recyclables collected 36% 47% 17 — % of all recyclables This shows that less than half the materials identified as non -organic recyclables end up in the Blue cart, so an equally energetic education campaign for recyclables seems necessary. Yet, it is my observation that is not happening and residents are very uncertain how to divide non -organic materials between the (new to most) Blue (Recyclables) and Black (landfill) containers. Even those who try are uncertain what the rules are. For example, as Item SS2 at the March 12, 2024, meeting, the Council recognized the efforts of the "Blue Bin Group" at Sage Hill School. But at least two of their promotions featured at the meeting recommended questionable practices, namely (as Newport Beach residents are invited to do by the embossed directions on the carts2) putting lumber scraps in the Green cart and putting shoes and textiles in the Blue cart: 2 My Blue cart has what the Grand Jury says are the" incorrect" embossed directions shown in Figure 3 of the report (page 20-12 of the current agenda packet) as well as the "incorrect" sticker shown in Figure 4 (page 20-13). The invitation to use it for lumber is embossed on the lid of my Green cart. August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 9 The Grand Jury believes these are both no-no's, although they admit different haulers may have different rules. Similarly, the lists of what goes in what carts on the City website and the CR&R website are neither complete, consistent, nor based on easily discernible rules, leaving residents in a quandary as to what goes where.' As I have advocated in the past, a list of commonly misplaced items would be helpful, but does not seem available. And if the lists of what is being accepted for recycling changes, the lists should be kept up-to-date. Additionally, there seems to be a complete absence of information on such basics, in comparison with other jurisdictions, of whether containers need to be cleaned or labels removed. Item 21. Response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report "E-Bikes: Friend or Foe" The City's response seems generally well -reasoned. I would only question the phrasing of the first two paragraphs of the response to Finding F3 on page 21-36. They imply that if you follows the link to the City's Bicycle Safety page, and in particular to the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, one will find solutions to a -bike safety. However, one of the takeaways from the July 23, 2024, Item SS3 study session on the plan was that it was written before a -bikes became popular and may need to be revised to include them. They are currently referenced in a single paragraph added as a kind of afterthought to Section 4.1 (Types of Bicyclists) on page 39: "Recent technology, such as electric bicycles, has encouraged less capable bicycle riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling. At times, this has also allowed bicyclists to utilize facilities such as on -street bike lanes that they may not normally feel able to ride in safely and comfortably." Additionally, the Bicycle Safety page linked to in the response may not have been updated since that time. Although the City may have "adopted the three E's (Engineering, Education and Enforcement)," that page contains nothing I can find to educate specifically about e-bike safety (including such things as whether there are special helmets available). Item 22. Ordinance No. 2024-18 and Resolution Nos. 2024-62 and 2024-63: Approving the Residences at 1600 Dove Street Project, and Resolution No. 2024-64: Overriding Orange County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination of Inconsistency (PA2022-0297) Doesn't the Council have to override the ALUC determination of inconsistency before it can take the other land use actions, rather than "lastly' as the staff report recommends? 3 For example, neither list says where to put something as basic as wood scraps. August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 8 of 9 That said, this proposal would seem to face less severe airport noise problems than others recently approved closer to the runway. However, I don't believe the actual noise levels at this site have ever been measured, or the modeled noise contour positions verified. The proposal does illustrate the infeasibility of the City's promise in the 6th Cycle Housing element to produce 2,707 residential units affordable to moderate and below income tenants by entitling 8.174 units of whatever affordability the developer may desire. Even in this one small area of the City with a 15% inclusionary requirement, the applicant is proposing 28 of the 282 total units to be affordable to very low income households. Setting aside that such schemes don't provide any low- or moderate -income units, at the rate of 10% affordable," it would take more than 27,000 new units to provide the 2,707 affordable ones required. In other comments: 1. The Charter Section 423 analysis on page 22-6 in unusual in that mentions there was a prior project approved in the same statistical area within the last 10 years, which would affect the Greenlight thresholds, but does not say what it was or how it affected them. It also is lacking the table normally provided. It also refers to the statistical area as "L1" when it is in fact "14" (and the current "Tracking Table" shows no prior amendments). 2. The report says at the bottom of page 22-7 that "the Council has the discretion to approve, deny or modify' the requested partial waiver of the park in -lieu fee. Since parks in the Airport Area are much needed, why would the Council reduce the fee? Item 24. Homeless Outreach Services Biannual Update "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France (The Red Lily, 1894, ch. 7) The agenda title for this item seems a little deceptive, since it suggests this is a simple "receive and file" item for a routine report, when the staff recommendation includes two significant action items: renewal of a contract and major changes to the City's anti -camping laws. As to the latter, the extensive redlining of Attachment B certainly makes it appear these are more than "minor modifications," as they are referred to at the bottom of page 24-5. With regard to those: On page 24-24, in the definition of "Unattended," is "Personal property left outside of a building or shelter at a public park or on the sandy/rocky portion of any beach ..." intended to read "Personal property left outside of a building at a public park or shelter at a public park or on the sandy/rocky portion of any beach ..."? Without that qualification, the plain reading is that the exception that follows, allowing 1-hour of non-attendance, would apply to items left outside any building, not just a building in a park. 2. On page 24-25, the existing title of Section 10.08.010 no longer seems correct, since the added provisions govern more than "public rights -of -way." August 27, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 9 of 9 3. Also on page 24-25, in subsection "D," I have difficulty picturing how a person can sleep or lay down on a bike rack. That sounds exceedingly uncomfortable, at least on any bike rack I've seen. 4. On page 24-27, in the proposed extremely lengthy definition of the verb "camp," the inclusion of references to "damaged recreational equipment" and "recyclables, rubbish, or other garbage" do not seem to define "camp," but rather the kind of camper the City disapproves of. Anatole France would have been impressed by its proposed application to rich and poor alike. I presume this allows those well enough off to own a car to leave it on public property. I am less sure about bicycles. But the regulations do seem densely enough written to bamboozle any homeless person trying to challenge an alleged violation of them.