Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0 - Public Comments�t:.'u:.• =S �l:. }_. ;^'.5 lG.�i x:LFi�- S��lt� - /x-13 The following comments are on the draft minutes of the January 22, 2013 Newport Beach City Council Meeting to be presented as Item 1 on the Council's February 12, 2013 agenda. They are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherC@yahoo . com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Regular Meeting Dtern 1. Minutes for the January 22, 2013 Study Session and Regular Meeting Corrections to the sections highlighted in italics are suggested in strikeout/underline. In addition to the problems noted below, the draft minutes suffer from some minor formatting problems including extra line spacing at erratic points in the middle of some paragraphs, and in other places an absence of the extra spacing that would normally separate paragraphs (run -on paragraphs occur, for example, on pages 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, and 42). Page 22, Item 11.2: Title: "REVIEW OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED 2014 RGP -54 DREDGING PERMIT AND THE CITY'S DRAFT NEWPORT SPECIFIC EELGRASS PLAN." [note: the draft minutes correctly repeat the title as printed in the January 22 Study Session agenda, however from the explanation of what was to be discussed it seems clear the word "PLAN" had been unintentionally omitted. It seems reasonable to correct that error in the minutes, for without it the title makes little sense.] Second paragraph: "... the City's RGP- 54 permitting process that regulates facilitates dock maintenance dredging in the harbor." And: "the National Marine Fisheries ServiGe Service" (this same misspelling recurs on page 23, in paragraph 1 from the top and paragraph 3 from the bottom). Page 24: line 3: "... outside the Pier wad a pierhead line area ..." line 6: "... and the Pier- head!UR pierhead fine where ..." Page 30, bold sentence after MINUTES: "... the Property Negotiations Item under Closed Session (Item l.A lV AJ. " Page 32, under Public Comments: ,�. Paragraph 1: je—) W p uiu La Referencing an October 9, 2012 staff report about furniture for the Library co c (.' Expansion, ...' j -' "... and indicated that this type of the information should be available ..." M Ot -- W L_ L;4. r� LL M > 4 -- O h! '✓ Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda Item 1 - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 Paragraph 2: "He invited Council Members to attend the Hoag- Hospital Tower opening on February 2. 2013 at noon, ..."(although Mr. Glowienke mentioned a connection with Hoag, I believe the invitation was to a ceremony opening the new seven - story "Bill Holmes Tower" at CHOC, an event which apparently preceded a more public 1 pm Community Festival and Celebration ( www.choc.org /celebration )] Page 33: line 4 from end: "...allow the State band's Lands Commission to charge rent..." last full sentence: "...placed an exemption in the Residential Pier Code, and explained that the State reversed itsprier its prior practice when SB 152 was adopted." Page 34: end of paragraph 1: "... and that it may be set on a eonheliance complaint basis. "( ?) paragraph 2: "_ the rate for renting residential piers fer being the small marinas marina rate..." paragraph 3: "... suggested commended refunding the appeal fee ..." Page 35: paragraphs 4 and 3 from end: "... 6har#er taities charter cities ..." paragraph 2 from end: "... the resolution may refleet result in insecurity and uncertainty to for local contractors and workers." last line: "... the high quality of the new City Hall facility is attt4buted attributable to using prevailing wage." Page 35: paragraph 3: "... construction workers are part-time workers who do not get paid vacations..." end of paragraph 4: "...and requested that Council to consider this issue carefully..." Page 37, end of long (run -on) paragraph: "... a the number of homes in the area that do not have garages will be included in the field work." Page 39: Although apparently copied from the agenda announcement, in the motion near the top of the page it makes little sense for the Council to be moving to conduct the reviews that were just described in the minutes leading up to the motion. Probably what was meant was something like: Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda Item 1 - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 "Motion by Council Member Henn, seconded by Council Member Selich to a) review- Resic�entia/- Parkin- Ferw�it- 'l�rktngSurvey- resuli�- review -aAd authorize staff to pursue implementation of the Overnight Residential Permit Parking Work Program: )- Fevieuwand autherize- staff -to-p *sme hnplementati®n -of the Balboa Village Commercial Parking Program, including the retention of appropriate consulting services;.and d) Pj approve Budget Amendment No. 13BA -027 transferring $91,100 from the General Fund Reserves to a Planning Division expenditure account," Paragraph preceding motion at bottom of page: "With regard to the Water QualitylCoastal Tidelands Committee appointments, City Clerk Brown noted that a motion and vote was needed in order to waive the portions of Council Policy A -2 which establishes a ..." Page 40, sentence 1 under item 15: "... asked if the eiisbiursenveW value of the ambulances being replaced could help offset the purchase price." Page 42: top of page: * ** the motion and vote on the four resolutions in Item 17 (2013 -7, 2013 -8, 2013 -9, 2013 -10 and 2013 -11) is missing * ** bottom of page: "Motion by Council Member Henn. seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hill to adopt a onetime only, —two -tier VSIP as a lump sum payment to eligible employees who meet the following ..." Note: This vote is particularly confusing because there were two different printed staff reports, one of which lacked clear labeling, for Item 19 in the lobby on the night of this meeting. What I take to be the original recommended a "two tier" payment system, with one benefit formula applying to participants who agreed to complete their separation by April 15, and a different formula applying to participants agreeing to complete separation by June 28, 2013. As suggested by the minutes leading up to the motion, and by the remainder of the motion itself, I believe Council's intent was to use the language in the second staff report, which contained a single payment formula and did not include the (by then obsolete) "two tier" reference. Page 43: based on the revised staff report, the motion continued at the top of the page should read: "...Payment will be based upon the date they agree to- s�followinn eligibility:" Even with these revisions, the motion fails to indicate what payment formula is being approved by Council, or to make clear the additional eligibility requirement that regardless of the agreement date, separation has to be completed by June 28, 2013. RECEIVED D g. . :,....;.', �vfoliC Co�,.en a -/z -l3 ?GI3C ?n6'hfs22n February 12, 2013 Council Agenda Items The-follewin�q comments on items on the February 12, 2013 Newport Beach City Council agenda are !rr rn,r sabm tted ly -:Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(awahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- ,,.. 1.,7 i 1, Lfik CIr1,54s-6229)R7 c ACH Item No. 1. Minutes for the January 22, 2013 Meeting Suggested corrections to the draft minutes have been submitted separately. Item No. 3. Solid Waste Collection Franchise with Ecology Auto Parts The agenda announcement of the recommended action contains a minor typo: "... to consider the mare award of a Non - Exclusive Solid Waste Franchise ..." The Resolution of Intention (No. 2013 -13) also contains several typos, the worst of which is that it contains two sections numbered "2 ": Resolution, page 2, line 4 from bottom: "...listed under Item 3 3 below pursuant to ... Resolution, page 3: last paragraph numbering should be corrected ".2 3" and should read "... applicant listed below that are is presently licensed ... ' Resolution, page 4: last paragraph numbering should be corrected "3 4" The proposed Ordinance (No. 2013 -2) that follows contains findings (1.D and 1.E) which cannot honestly be made at the time of its introduction: namely stating as facts a future hearing and its outcome. This seems to be a by now time - honored effort to circumvent City Charter Section 1301, which suggests that the decision to grant (by ordinance), or deny, an application for a franchise should not come until after testimony has been heard and considered at the hearing held pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, in this case on February 26, 2013. Apparently for the sake of gaining the applicant two weeks, the staff recommendation urges the immediate introduction of the ordinance granting approval, pre - judging the outcome of the hearing before any testimony has been heard. That seems poor form to me, and contrary to the Charter: had the public wanted to give the Council the power to immediately grant approval of a franchise at the conclusion of the required hearing, it could have done so by letting the Council grant the franchise by motion or resolution. By requiring action by ordinance, a desire is being expressed for a slower process, including further publication of intent to adopt and a second reading after a time for reflection. This particular franchise request may be completely innocuous and unobjectionable, but we don't know that until we hear the testimony, and the recommended action to shorten the process by two weeks, especially when there is no obvious urgency, seems to set a poor precedent for handling other, perhaps more controversial, applications. Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 Item No. 4. Adoption of Ordinance Amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code Related to Commercial and Non- Commercial Tidelands Uses The list of public meeting dates at the bottom of the first page of the ordinance is missing the crucial and contentious December 11, 2012 4:00 pm Special Meeting — the last meeting of the Council held in the "old" Chambers. My previous comments about the body of this ordinance continue to apply, and as mentioned to the Tidelands Management Committee at its most recent meeting, I have new misgivings about whether, if the new dock fees are regarded as an assessment on the private improvements to real property (albeit on publicly -owned land), the obligations the City may have in connection with Proposition 218 have been adequately considered. Item No. 5. Vacation of Existing Sewer Easements at 292, 216, 220 and 224 Icings Place The agenda announcement of the recommended action contains a minor typo: "... direct the City Clerk to have all Rese!utiear sagd Resolutions and summary vacation documents recorded ..." The template for the four resolutions also contains several typos: On page 1, on line 2 from the bottom: "... the easement on this property ... On page 2, paragraph 3: "WHEREAS, #.,at at least..." On page 2, paragraph 4: "... and shown in Exhibit "B "are is hereby ..." In addition, the aerial photo in page 2 of 2 of the "Location Map' (page 5 of the staff report) makes it appear the same sewer line runs through two additional properties (204 and 208 Kings Place), begging the question why they aren't included in the present action. Item No. 6. Vacation of Street Right -of -Way at 012 East Ocean Front This seems primarily to be an action required to correct an inequity in the way the boardwalk has been treated in the past, but the staff report mentions that in return for the City relinquishing title to the private patio facing the boardwalk at 912 East Ocean Front, the property owner will be relinquishing title to the area at the opposite end of the property needed for public alley use. I would think this concession should be part of the written agreement, but I am unable to find it. As has occurred in other recent cases, the question of whether any monetary compensation should be sought for the relinquishment of valuable public property. That question is pointed up by the comments in the staff report regarding the portions of property intended for boardwalk use at 900 -910 and 922 East Ocean Front which were inadvertently deeded to private property Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 owners in a previous relinquishment. It will be interesting to see If the current owners require payment for the return of what was freely given. Item No. 9. Tidegate Retrofits and Upgrades In the table at the top of page 2, the asterisk in the "Contract Time' of "54" days (5 less than contracted for) is unexplained. Perhaps this was intended to contain the same footnote as that attached to the table in Agenda Item 8? Otherwise, the contract appears to have taken over 6 months to complete. Item No. 10. Balboa Boulevard and Channel Road Pavement Reconstruction Part 3 of the recommended action mentions a contingency for "anticipated additional concrete work." It might have been helpful to indicate if the basic "pavement reconstruction" is to be concrete or asphalt, since the greater durability of concrete in the Peninsula has been mentioned at various public meetings. It is also unclear if, pursuant to the recently adopted policy, the work will be performed at prevailing wage. I assume that since it involves a component of non -local funding it will. Item No. 11. Amendment to Agreement with The Planning Center DC &E for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for Uptown Newport Although this is a pass- through of developer's fees, I have my usual concern that this appears to be payment not for new work, but for services already performed under a previous contract — something cities are not supposed to do under the California Constitution. In my view the payment should have been agreed to by a contract publicly approved before the work was undertaken. Item No. 12. Design and Environmental Services Sunset Ridge Park It would have seemed helpful to share with the public the terms of the Coastal Development Permit, so the public could better understand the "large number of special conditions" agreed to per page 2 of the staff report, and which are presumably being addressed by these extra expenditures, and also provide an assessment of whether this is all that will require outside help. Item No. 13. Amendment No. 1 to On -Call Professional Services Agreement with Coast Surveying I have previously expressed my concern with the proliferation of open -ended "on- call" contracts with outside vendors for large ticket items, a system that seems rife with possibilities for sloppy administration and waste of taxpayer funds. That concern is heightened by staff's apparent inability to honestly disclose the amount of work they expect to be throwing the way of these preferred vendors. In the present case the staff report indicates the dollar amount originally to be sufficient for two years has been nearly exhausted after barely more than one year. Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Item No. 14. Planning Commission Agenda February 7, 2093 The "audio minutes" (that is the audio recording), of the referenced meeting, and many prior meetings of the Planning Commission, as well as those of the Zoning Administrator and such Planning Division serviced groups as the Balboa Village Advisory Committee, have recently been made available through the City's website. I would like to suggest the Council consider extending this very useful initiative — which makes it possible for those unable to attend a meeting in person to know what happened without having to wait for written reports and minutes (such as this) to appear — to all meetings for which City staff makes and retains audio recordings. Item No. 15. Final Tract Map No. 96594 for 2300 Newport Boulevard The staff report provides no explanation of why more than six years have passed since the Planning Commission approved the tentative map. One can imagine conditions could have changed materially in that time, warranting a review more thorough than this item is likely to receive on the Consent Calendar. I also find it vaguely concerning that the copy of the Planning Commission resolution provided in the staff report is unsigned, making it uncertain if it is the version adopted, or not. Item No. 16. City Council Priorities for 2093 I assume the list refers to calendar year 2013. 1 assume I am not the first to note it appears to be a very ambitious list, with, it appears, something like 52 "green" goals to be completed in 46 weeks. As for the table itself, I, at least, don't know what "41306" means (in the eighth row of the green column). Item No. 17. Budget Amendment for the 2014 Harbor regional General Dredging Permit Since the Regional General Permit benefits dock owners, this would seem an ideal example of an activity that it would be suitable to fund with the revenue generated by the increased dock fees. However, it has been unclear to me from the discussions to what extent the City expects to be subsidizing the RGP -54 effort, and to what extent it expects to recoup the expenditures by building them into the fee charged for processing individual permit requests. Item No. 19. Presidential Lot Merger Code Amendment When this item was being reviewed by the Planning Commission, the question arose of why it should apply only to selected areas of the City. At least a couple of the Commissioners thought it should apply universally, but were dissuaded from making that suggestion by fear of violating the Brown Act (since the hearing announcement mentioned it would apply only to specific areas, and did not suggest it might be broadened to include groups and persons not noticed). The same question and concern would seem to apply here. I would suggest this be re- noticed as a hearing to consider an ordinance applicable to the entire City, which might be scaled back to selected areas. Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 Item No. 20. Single /loom Occupancy Residential Hotels and Parking for Emergency Shelters As indicated in the Abstract to the staff report, City staff appears to regard this as little more than the re- insertion into the Zoning Code of a prior definition that was accidentally omitted. As unlikely as it is that CNB would be approving permits for SRO's, this might alternatively be viewed as an opportunity to improve the definition and the conditions under which the granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be appropriate. Item No. 29. Mobilitie Telecommunications Permit for Faux Eucalyptus Tree This proposal has a number of problems not clearly disclosed in the staff report. Among them are the large ground -level "bunkers" used to house the electronic support equipment associated with the transmitting panels. The north side of the church building currently has three of these, and has at most room for one more — not the four more that would be needed to accommodate the equipment of carriers broadcasting from four levels. If the monopole were approved, it is unclear where the support equipment for the carriers on the other levels would be located, unless those levels are intended to accommodate the existing carriers, who will simply move than transmitters from their current, less intrusive locations, to more intrusive locations on the fake tree — something the staff report frowns upon. The report also, I think, passes over too quickly the consideration of alternative locations. For example, in addition to the reasons cited, Monte Vista High School is not really a possibility since Newport-Mesa School District does not allow use of its property for cell site purposes. Other the other hand, the possibility of using City -owned traffic standards for at least one carrier does not seem to have been explored. Likewise, even though it would not be evident from the coverage maps provided, page 7 of the staff report alludes to the need for an additional Verizon site in Santa Ana Heights. In view of that, the Bay Corporate Plaza property (north of the Muth Center) might be the least intrusive location, as it is not only relatively out of the way and sheltered, but, being intermediately located, might eliminate the need for two separate sites. Finally, I think all three of the alternatives proposed by staff at the bottom of page 8 are superior to a fake tree adorned with as many as 48 antennas (12 antennas on each of 4 levels). Item No. 24. Decommissioning and Interim Use of the Existing City Hall Property The proposal to modify the existing parking lot into a paid one seems contrary to the previous discussion of this topic, and flies in the face of the advice of former Council member Rosanksy, who observed that if a parking lot is ever developed, the Coastal Commission may not allow its subsequent removal. Has staff since received assurances this will not be a problem? Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 Item No. 25. Resolution Related to the City's Legislative Platform I have difficulty accepting the central premise that there is a frequent need for the Mayor to state "the City's" position on matters without consulting his fellow Council members, nor do I believe there are many legislative matters so simple and uncomplicated that a definite position for or against can be determined simply by consulting a list such as this. I would much prefer that if the City needs to write a letter expressing its position on an issue, the full Council publicly debate what the content of that letter should be. I also suspect the changes to the City's "platform" being recommended here must reflect in some part the personal biases of the current Mayor, and whether or not the other Council members wish to endorse those, their duration should be limited to the term of the Mayor advocating their insertion: that is, until the next installation of new Council members, if one goes by the Charter, or until December, if one goes by recent custom. Even in the glare of public scrutiny, the process of correctly stating "the City's" position is an imperfect one. An example that comes to mind was last year's request for the Council to endorse the City of Ontario's effort to wrest control of Ontario Airport back from LAX. Rather than expressing a hope that local control of Ontario would lead to its more complete use and thereby relieve pressure on John Wayne Airport, the letter prepared by staff for then -Mayor Gardner's signature expressed a vision of LAX, Ontario and JWA as the three natural hubs and growth centers of the regional air transportation system, through which all future traffic, it would seem, could be directed on a cooperative basis. It seems doubtful that reflects the vision of a majority of Newport Beach residents, yet the draft letter was buried in the Consent Calendar, and received little comment. In the present case, Resolution 2013 -19 assures us the full Council would be copied when the Mayor expresses in writing what he believes to be the City's position on legislative matters, but it is less clear how the public will know. Whatever one's views on the propriety of a city having a Legislative Platform, the present attachment suffers from numerous typographical and structural problems: • In line 2 of the title (page 5 of the staff report), the meaning of the number "1." preceding "Legislative Platform" is unclear, since there does not seem to be any "2." • In the line below this, the statement "(term indefinite until repealed orrep /aced) "seems not only unnecessary, but completely contrary to the objective (stated on page 2 of the staff report) of keeping the Platform "from going stale." To prevent future Mayors from being misguided by stale pronouncements of policy it would seem essential the Platform have a definite, and brief, duration. • The statement of "GENERAL PLATFORM ISSUES" under the title is baffling. Where are the "above Areas of Focus" that the present attachment supplements ?? Note: a review of the Platform adopted by the Council on February 27, 2007 indicates "AREAS OF FOCUS" listed the three items for which lobbying was most desired in the two years Comments on Feb. 12, 2013 Council agenda items - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 following adoption, and the resolution provided that the entire platform would expire at the end of that time. • In Issue I(d) there is an obvious typo: "... including the ability afthe City of Ontario to assume control ..." • Above "ll — LAND USE REGULATIONS" there is what appears to be an extraneous letter "A." • There is, similarly, an extraneous "13." and "C." above "Ill — FISCAL STABILITY." • In Issue III(f), does "a "split roll" property tax valuation system" refer to one in which commercial property might be treated differently from residential? And why would a majority of residents be opposed, as a City, to consideration that? Is this an expression of the personal view of the author? • Under Issue "IV— LABOR RELATIONS," sub -issue (b) has, for unknown reasons, been deleted without the subsequent sub - issues being re- numbered. • Line 4 from the top of staff report page 8 ( "and would repeal the minimum rate law. ") does not seem to fit with the preceding three lines. • The proposed new title for Issue "VI — WATER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY' seems incorrect. Was the word "WATER" intended to be deleted? Finally, the recommended action includes a separate item, which is the extension of a contract agreement with a Mr. Jim Crum, yet the contract is not provided, nor are its terms disclosed. From the vague description in the staff report, it is unclear Mr. Crum has any particular expertise in some of the areas needed, and it sounds like he will be paid $4,000 per month whether he performs any services for the City, or not. If that is correct, the Council should consider advising the City Manager to spend the City's lobbying fund in a more targeted manner.