HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsMarch 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments
The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Minutes for the February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting
The page numbers below refer to Volume 62 of the draft minutes. The passages in italics are from the
draft with suggested changes shown in strikeout underline format.
Page 577: Item XIII, paragraph 1: “Regarding Item No. 3 (Amendment to Newport Beach
Municipal Code Chapter 11.03 Special Events), Jim Mosher suggested that Council hold
off as it may wish to modify the Code in a different way after hearing a pending appeal.
… Regarding Item No. 13 (Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts January 2016),
he believed that the City is not paying for its use of the sewer system, it is failing to achieve
a the planned reduction in its use of water, and is leaving private rate payers to pick up the
slack.”
Page 577: Item XIV.3: The draft minutes reproduce the first part of the motion as printed in
the Consent Calendar portion of the agenda. However, that version contains several
errors. The motion was presumably intended to read: “a) Find that the adoption of the
amendment is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 153060(c)(2) 15060(c)(2) and Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Alternatively, find the approval of this ordinance is not a project exempt under CEQA
Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment; …” [note: Section 15060(c)(2) is that the activity will not damage the
environment; Section 15060(c)(3) is that it is not a project; and Section 15061(b)(3) is that it is a
project, but is exempt for the reason stated.]
Page 581: Item 16, paragraph 3, last line: “He added that the City of Costa Mesa has
televised their Planning Commission meetings for many years, as has have several
surrounding cities.”
Page 581: paragraph 2 from end: “Council Member Selich spoke against the matter,
believing that televising Planning Commission meetings tend tends to politicize the
Planning Commission …”
Page 582: paragraph 1: “Council Member Petros spoke in support of the item, noting he is
a representative of the people of Newport Beach and Planning Commissioners are
appointees, and noted the importance of the decisions rendered by the Planning
Commission be being available to the public.”
Page 582: paragraph 4: “… City Clerk Brown reported that Planning Commission meeting
audio recordings are currently on the City’s website and are there permanently, beginning
with the meeting meetings in 2012.”
Received After Agenda Printed
March 8, 2016
Written Comments - Consent Calendar
March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4
Item 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2016-4 Relating to Special
Events
As previously indicated (when this matter was introduced on the February 23, 2016, consent
calendar), adoption of this ordinance at this time seems premature.
It was introduced to “legalize” a recent action taken by the Planning Commission to, in the
Commission’s view, simplify and improve special event permitting at the Newport Dunes.
However, as the previous staff report failed to disclose, the Municipal Code chapter being
modified, with its “Bundled Events Permit” option, was adopted in 2004 expressly for the
purpose of facilitating, accommodating and streamlining permitting at the Dunes. And the
Planning Commission’s recent action requiring a modification of it (PA2015-084) has been
called up for review by Council member Duffield.
Among other issues, the present code was designed to ensure the City’s costs of processing,
preparing for and responding to special events, and their impacts, would be borne by the
applicant. It is not at all clear that allowing pre-approval and exemption of special event
activities through the terms of a Conditional Use Permit will maintain that principle, and not shift
expenses to taxpayers.
It seems logical that after its tentatively scheduled April 12th review of the Planning
Commission’s action, the City Council may want to modify the Special Events chapter of the
Municipal Code in a different way than is proposed here, or not modify it at all.
Item 4. Accept the 2015 UASI Transfer Agreement
1. This report, understandably, looks very similar to the one from last year (Item 6, February
24, 2015, meeting) when the City’ modest grant (again for training costs) was $3,449.
2. One difference, based on the title block, is that the City’s Emergency Services coordination
function appears to have moved from Fire to Police. I recall the possibility of such a change
being presented to the Finance Committee (Item No. 5C at its December 10, 2015,
meeting). I do not recall it being approved by the City Council.
3. Another change is that while the title of the requested resolution continues to say the
Council is approving an agreement between Newport Beach and the City of Anaheim.
However, the remainder of the document indicates the agreement this year is with the City
of Santa Ana. Shouldn’t the title of the resolution be revised to reflect that?
4. Additional comments:
a. The increasing militarization of what many communities would hope are resident-
and visitor-friendly neighborhood-oriented police forces through UASI and other
“homeland security” programs has been a matter of concern in many parts of the
country in the last few years.
b. The report refers to an overall award to the County of $5.5 million, but page 4-12 in
the Exhibit to the resolution mentions only $4.4 million.
March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4
c. The report lists a number of apparently County-wide programs that will be supported
by an unknown portion of the $5.5 (or $4.4?) million. It would have been helpful to
indicate what portion goes, like the present one, to individual cities and how Newport
Beach’s grant compares to that of other cities by population (including visitor traffic).
d. Of those programs, without further details it is difficult to tell if the City’s participation
in the Automated License Plate Recognition Program would be consistent with City
Charter Section 426, added with too little public discussion in 2012, but prohibiting
laws enabling “any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system
in the City of Newport Beach.”
Item 5. Adopt Resolution for Inclusion of Properties within the City’s
Jurisdiction in the California Municipal Finance Authority, Property
Assessed Clean Energy Program
I am not aware of any issue that doesn’t have at least two sides to it.
I would have more confidence in the staff report if it had listed at least one possible downside to
the Council taking the requested action.
One I can think of is that since the Council will be allowing property owners to attach debt for
these projects to their property, future buyers of property in Newport Beach may find themselves
having to pay for these improvements whether they want them, or have any intention of
maintaining them, or not. Evidently without the Council’s approval such debt could not attach to
Newport Beach properties?
It also bothers me that the report says (on page 5-3) that “The proposed resolution authorizes
the CMFA to accept applications from City property owners for municipal financing of
authorized improvements.” If the municipality of Newport Beach is somehow involved in the
financing, then it would seem to me the City is more than a completely risk-free bystander.
Item 6. Tidegate Improvement Project - Award of Contract No. 6270
(Project No. 15H19)
The staff report indicates the three(?) tidegates are being replaced because they have
surpassed their expected life and replacement parts are no longer manufactured. Anticipating
future failure in this way seems prudent, but the report fails to indicate if, instead of total
replacement of the existing (and apparently still working) facility, more current parts could be
substituted for the obsolete ones as it becomes necessary, extending the life at lower cost.
Item 7. Request to Install Private Improvements within a Proposed
New Sewer Easement at 1011 Kings Road
I believe I understand the request to realign the existing sewer. But the staff report fails to make
clear what the new sewer easement requested at the foot of slope is for. What would it connect
to?
March 8, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4
Item 8. Purchase of Lifeguard Rescue Vessel
1. As best I can understand the staff report, the recommendation seems to be to purchase the
new vessel from the same company that built the existing lifeguard vessels.
2. Since this seems like a substantial purchase, it is encouraging to see staff developed a
scoring system. However, the fact remains that the City (and Council) has only one bid to
evaluate. Shouldn’t there have been outreach to other companies in an attempt to at
least determine why they did not bid and encourage them to do so?
3. It might further be noted (again) that the ability of the public review the City’s RFP process
after the fact on PlanetBids is extremely limited:
a. The “Documents/Attachments,” including the RFP and specifications, were
apparently locked after the due date for bids (February 2, 2016) and can no longer
be viewed or downloaded.
b. Of the 20 “Prospective Bidders” (not counting myself), one is the City of Newport
Beach, and another (Remington Marine Group, LLC of Costa Mesa) is listed (like
me) as a “non-bidder.”
c. The “Bid Results” received are listed as a single “responsive” bid from Willard Marine
of $0. That disagrees with the staff report, which suggests the bid from Willard
Marine was $394,710. But the bid of $0 sounds better, so the Council may wish to
go with it.