Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed October 22, 2024 Written Comments October 22, 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 1. Minutes for the October 8, 2024 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in s ikeeu underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 181, Item SS3, paragraph 2: "Larry Ryan, RJM, utilized a presentation to show a virtual simulation that included the main access, pick up and drop off areas, 50-meter pool, parking lot, splash spray area, therapy pool, cabanas, hand launch area, water and aFiel aerial views, multipurpose area, warming kitchen, and deck area." Page 182, paragraph 6 from end: "Keith senisen Dawson supported the aquarium project." Page 183, paragraph 8: "Adam Leverenz asked for presentation materials to be made available for public review prior to the meeting, supported placing a pool in a more accessible location, suggested revenue opportunities from school €iele hop field trips, noted the importance o_providing adequate restrooms, suggested having a small marina or fishing facilities, and thought the property was supposed to be used for water -dependent recreation pursuant to the Local Coastal Plan." Page 185, Councilmember Grant, first bullet: "Attended the Library Leadership Donor Appreciation Reception, CdM Sandcastle Contest, the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce's Economic Forecast, the OASIS Senior Center's Rummage Sale, the Lido Theater Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, Fire Service Day, the opening of this year's F-IAfAf FYN Program, and the Sunset Bridge Ribbon Cutting" [Since I can't find the program advertised on the City website anymore, I'm not sure how it is being advertised; but it can be found described on the site of what I believe is the City's contractor, the Newport Bay Conservancy.] Page 189, paragraph 1, sentence 2: "However, if it does not, She she stated that the matter should be brought back to Council." Page 189, paragraph 3: "Jim Mosher questioned whether Chapter 15.02 applies to the waste generated by all construction and demolition pFejeet projects, agreed with a broad statement of leniency, thought that short-term lodging may be better handled with the least leniency, and cautioned against using the words "good cause" since the term can be left to interpretation." Page 190, Item 16, paragraph 1: "Mayor O'Neill and CouneM~~embe~ Mayor Pro Tem Stapleton Feeusing recused themselves due to their membership in the Pacific Club." October 22, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 Item 4. Ordinance No. 2024-26 and Resolution No. 2024-76: Local Coastal Program Amendments Related to Changing Land Use for the Hanna Residences at 3014 Balboa Boulevard (PA2020-060) There seems to be a slight disconnect between the City's and the Coastal Commission's understanding of the procedure for amendments to the City's Local Coastal Program. CCC seems to think that the resolutions requesting CCC approval of proposed changes are the enacting measures themselves, and will go into effect immediately upon CCC approval if no modifications are requested. The City, however, seems to view them as suggested changes that will be revisited whether or not the CCC requests modifications, and no changes will be made unless new resolutions or ordinances are introduced and approved. In light of the City's view of the process, this is, then, not just a ratification of the CCC's approval of the land use change, but a fresh look at whether the Council wants to make it (knowing it is pre -approved by the CCC). In that connection, the CCC staff letter reproduced on page 4-104 and 4-105 indicates they initially expected to recommend denial of the change from commercial to residential, in view of the application continuing what they saw as a trend toward loss of commercial uses in the coastal zone. City staff was apparently able to convince CCC staff that offsetting -new commercial uses had sprouted up, leading to the ultimate recommendation of approval without modifications. It should be noted, though, that subsequent to this application, in connection with the Housing Element Implementation process, the City has asked the CCC to allow a much larger number of parcels in the coastal zone to be designated as "housing opportunity sites." Those are almost invariably properties, like 3014 Balboa Blvd, currently designated for commercial use but proposed to become residential. One can anticipate the same concern to arise regarding them. The CCC staff report (which was actually approved as Item 18a on August 7, 2024, not the "July 11" stated on page 4-3) is not provided for the Council's review, but I believe it shows they were persuaded to change their recommendation to one seeking "approval" not only by City staff's assurances that this change from mixed use to purely residential was not part of a trend in Newport Beach to discontinue commercial uses, but also because they were told the parcel at 3014 Balboa Blvd was not viable for commercial use because of parking and access constraints. I believe the latter could easily have been solved by creating a connection to and agreement with the adjacent shopping center, whose parking lot is said to be underutilized. Item 6. Ordinance No. 2024-24: Approving the Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 for the Uptown Newport Planned Community Located at 4311 Jamboree Road (PA2024-0078) My understanding when this ordinance was introduced on October 8 was that the Uptown developer had accrued $824,637 of credits and is asking permission to use them sooner than promised and for a slightly different purpose. October 22, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 Yet, I notice the "Fiscal Impact" statement, both then and now, says that if the Council approves this "The City will forgo the collection of $824, 637 in unrestricted Public Benefit Fees." That implies the City will be permanently giving up a claim to revenue it would otherwise have received, and not simply authorizing changes in timing and use of credits. Which is correct? And if the City is not giving up $824,637 it would otherwise have received, exactly what is the expected fiscal impact of the approval? Item 7. Resolution No. 2024-78: Amending City Council Policy F-1 (Statement of Investment Policy) It does not seem apparent from the staff report, but when presented to the Finance Committee, the Committee was told that not only had they had previously reviewed the presently -proposed revision to the definition of "maturity date," but that it had been previously approved by the City Council as part of Item 5 on the October 10, 2023, consent calendar. However, that revision, they were told, was overlooked and overwritten when Policy F-1 was last revised earlier this year, as Item 5 on April 9, 2024. So, this is "redo" — which one hopes will be more permanent than the first try. Item 9. Approval of Amendment No. Two to Maintenance/Repair Services Agreement with CR&R Incorporated for Commercial Refuse Removal Services of City Operations (Contract No. 8569-1) Some aspects of this staff report are a bit difficult to follow. For example, the original 5-year contract for $651,614 anticipated costs of about $130,000 per year. The annual rate for this extension by about 1 year and 4 months will evidently be substantially more. But part of that is due to adding service to a number of facilities not previously in the contract. However, those facilities presumably had trash service under some other contract, leaving it unclear how much of the increase is due to folding those contracts into this. Another part of the increase is said to be related to implementing source separation, as evidenced by CR&R offering to collect trash, recycling and organics containers (which they will provide?) in the amended contract. It is not clear how material will get from the users of the facilities into the proper containers for pickup. Will visitors to City Hall, libraries and other City facilities find separate containers to place waste in? When will that happen, and how much will it cost to deploy and service them? The code section cited on page 9-2 as requiring weekly pickup of greenwaste at the City (Corporation?) Yard when pickup is only needed 15 times a year — California Code of Regulations, Title 14 $ 17852(a) (10-12) — seems to be definitions relating to composting facilities and not a pickup timing regulation. What is the County Health Agency's concern? October 22, 2024, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Finally, the report refers (on page 9-2) to "Senate Bill 1383 requirements and the City's Corrective Action Plan." Does this mean the City has been found out of compliance and ordered to take corrective action? If so, when did that happen? And was the Council informed? Item 14. Amendment No. One to the Professional Services Agreement with PlaceWorks, Inc. for Environmental Services for a Landfill Gas to Energy Facility at 20662 Newport Coast Drive (PA2022-063) Since the original contract was executed on July 25, 2023, it seems surprising it took more than a year to discover the need for additional work. How long does it normally take to complete an MND? Item 17. Year -End Budget Results and Surplus Allocation In the abstract staff recommends "that the entire unrestricted surplus be allocated towards infrastructure or neighborhood capital improvements," and says the Finance Committee unanimously endorsed that recommendation. However, the Budget Amendment No. 25-027 the Council is being asked to approve (page 17-9) appears to allocate the entire surplus to the Facilities Financing Plan. Isn't that a much more restricted assignment, making the surplus unavailable for a number of possible infrastructure or neighborhood improvements? It might also be noted that a "unanimous" endorsement may not mean, as readers might assume, that the entire Finance Committee saw and supported the recommendation. I believe only the Mayor Pro Tern and three of the four citizen members were present to vote.