Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written ComentsReceived After Agenda Printed September 13, 2016 Written Comment - Consent Calendar September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherOvahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) item T. Minutes for the August 9, 2016 Regular Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are ones from draft minutes with suggested corrections of obvious errors shown in strikeaut underline format. Passages that are merely difficult to understand without reviewing the video have not been highlighted. It might be noted that despite the agenda title quoted above, the item being commented on calls itself the draft minutes of the "Study Session and Regular Meeting," which I believe is all regarded, now, as a single public meeting with a closed session within it. Page 78: end of last full paragraph before "Current Business": "She reminded residents of the SR -91 14-wd lane closures." Page 79: paragraph 4: "Assistant City Attorney Torres explained the Git y GhafteF Government Code provision requiring the statement." Page 83: last paragraph: "John DeFrenza, '"''wer'& Crocker's the Well Dressed Frank, stated he was beginning to understand the intent of the Business Improvement District." item 3. Residential Parking Permit Ordinance 'Corona del Mar High School Area) - Second Reading Since the staff report is for the second reading of an ordinance, it would seem helpful in Attachment B were the actual document introduced at the first reading, as posted under "Proposed Ordinances" by the City Clerk. That would avoid the confusion that resulted in Item 4 on the present agenda, where the wrong version was brought back for "second" reading. In the present case, Attachment B confusingly refers in three places to "Resolution No. 2016-2, where the Clerk's version of the ordinance introduced on August 91' fleshes that out by saying "Resolution No. 2016-100", which, if nothing else, is much more understandable to those unfamiliar with the history of the item. The Clerk's version also lists dates before the vote, which are blank in Attachment B. All in all, it seems a no-brainer to provide the Council and public, at second readings, with a correct copy of the actual proposed ordinance rather than some earlier draft. Item 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2016-11 to Amend the Stakeholder Business Structure and Annual Assessments Levied for the Newport Beach Restaurant Association Business Improvement District The same comment as for Item 3 applies equally here. The document the public is being told is being presented to the Council for second reading as "Attachment A" looks very similar to the Clerk's version of Ordinance No. 2016-11 as introduced at the July 12, 2016, however it is September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 7 clearly not identical. For example, the Clerk's version is labeled with the ordinance number on the first line and has dates at the end above the vote (one of which, at this point, itself needs to be corrected unless the Mayor is being asked to sign something saying the vote to adopt took place on July 26, 2016 — which is clearly wrong). All of that is absent in Attachment A, which places a completely unnecessary burden on interested parties to verify that the remainder of Attachment A is otherwise an accurate copy of the Clerk's version of the ordinance coming back for second reading. Again, since City Charter Section 412 requires the City Clerk to keep in her custody the definitive copy of the ordinance that was introduced, and for that copy to be read in full at the time of adoption unless the need for a reading is waived by unanimous consent of the Council present, much confusion could be alleviated by honoring that directive. That would simply involve, in the staff reports purporting to explain second readings of ordinances, reproducing the Clerk's copy, rather than some other version. Regarding the substance of the proposed ordinance: It would be interesting to know how many of the directors on the BID Board that recommended the new assessment structure (which will reportedly quite substantially increase overall revenues) will themselves face increased assessments and how many will have decreased assessments. 2. As introduced on July 12, 2016, Section 3 (starting on page 4-4 of the present staff report) refers to a September 9, 2016, effective date for the revised assessments. Although I am unable to find any explanation for the choice of this date in the original staff report, it seems it may have been based on a now flawed assumption that Ordinance 2016-11 would be adopted on August 91h and become effective 30 days later, on September 8, 2016. a. Is "September 9" still the intended effective date if Ordinance 2016-11 is actually adopted on September 13 1h and itself not effective until October 13, 2016? b. If it is, that would appear to make the assessment changes (some of which are increases and some decreases) retroactive for more than a month. Are retroactive changes allowed under the governing codes? c. If it is not, does the ordinance need to be re -introduced with a new effective date? 3. 1 know the Council had, after public notice and hearing, previously approved assessments (based on the existing fee structure) for the fiscal year starting on July 1, 2016. 1 believe I had heard that despite this, the actual billing had been deferred pending Council's likely approval of the new fee structure so the billings wouldn't have to be repeated. a. Have any annual assessments for FY2016-17 been collected at the previously - approved rates? b. If not, is the Restaurant BID facing a cash flow crisis? c. If so, will the City be issuing refunds as well as increased bills? September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 7 Item 5. Adoption of Resolution No. 2076-709 for the Grant Award from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control The Police Department's proposed `Scope of Work" on staff report pages 5-7 through 5-10 makes for very interesting reading. It cites a number of DUI arrests (449 in 2415) which it implies are alcohol-related. My understanding is some DUI arrests result from driving under the influence of substances other than alcohol. Does the 449 include those? Or is it just the alcohol-related ones for 2015? Item 6. Parking Restriction Revision - Vista del Gro and Mar Vista Drive in Corona del Mar High School Area I would respectfully suggest the proposed resolution is citing the wrong section of the Municipal Code. The section citied, NEMC 12.44.010, deals with setting time limits on parking, that is designating areas in which it is legal to "stop, stand, or park any vehicle," but only for a limited time on specified days. The present proposal deals instead with completely disallowing the parking of vehicles during specified hours on specified days, which is quite different than setting a time limit (allowing 10 minutes, 1 hours, 2 hours or whatever). Completely disallowing parking for any time, no matter how short, as in the present case, is authorized by Section 12.44.150 (Prohibited Parking) [and for reasons unclear to me we have a separate Section 12.44.160 (Prohibited Night Parking)]. Whichever the correct section is, based on the staff report describing what the problem is, I would further suggest local residents would appreciate it if instead of prohibiting parking on all "Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays" throughout the year, it was effective only on school days. I might suggest "on School Days other than Thursdays" or "on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays when High School is in Session" or some such variation. Just as the residents don't want the restriction on weekends, prohibiting parking during a holiday week when there is no student parking problem seems inadvertently and unnecessarily burdensome. Item 10. Balboa Peninsula Crosswalk Crossing Study - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Albert Grover & Associates (17 T03) If I understand the staff report correctly, there are 45 marked crosswalks (and additional intersections) in the study area, but only 37 will be studied. I am unable to tell from the staff report why some are included and others not (for example, only E Street between Washington and G). Will the results from the studied crossings be applicable to those? Or will proposals be generated only for the ones listed? Additionally I would guess Newport Blvd north of the "mix -master" is not part of the contract because it was handled in the recent improvements there. But the northern part of Balboa Blvd was also recently improved, so why is it being studied again? September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 7 Finally, the "17T03" in the item title appears to be a reference to a project number (for "Traffic Management and Modernization" including "neighborhood traffic management studies to address resident traffic concerns") in the 2016-17 CIP Budget which has $350,000 assigned to it. Does the Funding Requirements blurb on the cover page of the present staff report indicate the funding for this contract will be coming from a different source, namely the Public Worts Department's "Transportation Division Operations and Maintenance account" (budgeted in June at $226,000 for Professional Services)? If so, does this affect the money set aside for the referenced CIP project, 17T03? Item 77. Final Tract Map No. 77772 for 87 -Unit Residential Condominium Development Located at 7560 Placentia Avenue Why does Attachment C (the Subdivision Agreement) say it is being entered into on May 30, 2016, when it is clearly being approved at a much later date? What is the significance of the earlier date? Item 12. Approval of Amendment No. One to the Professional Services Agreement with Anchor QEA, L.P. for Oen-Call Marine Engineering and Design Services (Contract No. 6777) The staff report does not make clear that the existing contract for $120,000 covers the period March 30, 2015, through June 30, 2017, that is, 27 months with an anticipated spending rate of $4,444 per month, but apparently (with the original funds exhausted in 18 months) an actual spending rate of $6,666 per month. The present request appears to anticipate $180,000 will be need to cower the next 18 months at a rate of $10,000 per month. As the staff report implies, but does not quantify, that seems a considerable increase over the rate of spending envisioned in 2015 or in effect in the period just ending. In addition, since this is an "on call" rather than a project -specific contract, it is a bit difficult for the public to foresee the necessity of this request in relation to other City budgeting and contracting efforts. Item 73. Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Placeworks, Inc. for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Museum Nouse Residential Project Located at 850 San Clemente Drive (PA2075-752) Assuming this is a contract for future work, rather than one covering services already rendered (which I believe would be prohibited by Article XI, Section 10(a) of the California Constitution), it appears City staff recognizes certain deficiencies in the draft EIR for this project currently being circulated for public review. Does this mean the EIR will be recirculated? Regarding the extra funds requested for the aesthetics section of the draft EIR, I hope City staff has recognized that the visual simulations supplied by the applicant — leading to the improbable conclusion that a new 300 foot tower in Newport Center would be virtually invisible from any September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 7 vantage point — are so misleading as to be essentially useless to a decision maker not personally familiar with the area. The trick is achieved by generating extreme wide-angle views in which the entirety of 'Newport Center shrinks to insignificance. But that bears no relation to the human visual reality in which Newport Center is the dominating landscape feature from great distances. As an example, from the public street ends along Santiago and Galaxy in Dover Shores, Park Newport is readily visible, the new Irvine Company apartment construction at San Joaquin Plaza is even more prominent and the office and hotel towers rising above them dominate the view. The two most recent and tallest towers, built under a 2006 General Plan calling for no new office buildings, have already significantly disrupted the skyline. And a new Museum House tower will clearly be just as prominent as those, just as readily visible from everywhere Newport Center can be seen, and clearly further this Manhattanization of Newport Center. Whether one thinks this Manhattanization of the skyline is good or bad is a matter of taste, but the idea that one can add more towers without having an impact on it is laughable. item 15. Approve Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Lease for iEastbluff Park Boys' & Girls' Club of Central Orange Coast The lease appears to call for periods of exclusive use of the facility by the City, but the staff report makes no mention of what the City uses it for, nor how much City cost, if any, is involved in maintaining it. Item 16. Lower Sunset View Park Conceptual Design - Approval of Professional Services Agreement with T.Y. Lin International (15TQ9) understand Orange Coast College may have approval for a pedestrian bridge across Vilest Pacific Coast Highway at their Sailing Center in the Mariner's Mile area. Is any coordination of these efforts being considered so future bridges across PCH will have a coordinated and harmonious appearance? Alternatively, is tunneling under the streets being considered? Item 18. Adoption of City's Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy The staff report is incorrect in saying City's Employee Policy Manua f was last adopted by the City Council on October 23, 2001. That date was actually just a study session review of a near - final draft (Item SS3), with the actual adoption being by Resolution 2001-100 as Item 10 on December 11, 2001. This item raises a number of questions not answered by the staff report: 1. 1 believe the City Manager and the City departments have a number of administrative policies that do not all require City Council approval. September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 7 a. Is there some reason the original manual required adoption by City Council resolution? [note Section 1.0 says "This Manual is promulgated pursuant to authority granted to the Newport Beach City Council by the California Constitution, the Newport Beach City Charter and the Newport Beach Municipal Code" but does not cite the sections] b. Can something adopted by resolution be modified without an amending resolution? [note: discrimination and harassment policies have evidently been enacted by resolution in the past — see„ for example, Resolution Nos. 87-158 and 96-84] c. Has the Manual been previous modified with or without Council approval (the version linked to above indicates a July 12, 2010 revision date, which does not seem to correlate with a City Council meeting date)? d. Is there a special state law requirement for Council approval because the section being altered is a discrimination and harassment policy? 2. The minutes from 2001 emphasize that the original manual was recommended for approval only after long and extensive interaction with the Civil Service Board. a. Nothing in the present staff report suggests the current proposal has even been reviewed by the CSB (a body that generally has little to do at its monthly meetings). Should it have been? b. Instead, the item was continued without explanation from the Council's July 26, 2016, agenda (where it was Item 11), and has returned with essentially the same staff report. Is it different now than it was on July 26th? If so, how and why? Item 19. Acceptance of 201612017 State of California, Office of Traffic Safety DUI Enforcement, Awareness and Traffic Safety Programs Grant PT1780 Does this item interact with or augment Item 5 on the current agenda (a separate grant from the ABC)? How much outside support, in total, does the City receive from outside agencies for alcohol- related programs? Item 21. Acceptance of the Sculpture Sunset into the City Art Inventory When this item was reviewed by the City Arts Commission (for example, as Item 1 on August 13, 2016), it was called Sunset Years (as it is at the top of Attachment A). Has the name changed? September 13, 2016, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 7 of 7 It might be noted that adding art to the City's permanent collection is somewhat at odds with the attitude of previous Commissions who found themselves approving the liquidation of much of a haphazardly accepted and sketchily inventoried collection whose costs of maintenance and curation may have exceeded its value. Fortunately acceptance under the new Policy 1-11 carries with it no promise that it will be kept forever. While it's quite possible the present piece may become a treasured City heirloom, it strikes me more as a novelty of temporary interest. Item 22. Update on Water Use and Conservation Efforts July 2016 1 thought these reports normally appear at the Council's second meeting of the month. Since the Council didn't hold a second meeting in August is this the deferred report that would have been presented then? And will there be an additional report at the September 27th meeting? Item 23. City Hall and Limited Off Site Holiday Closure (beginning Monday December 26, 2016 through January 2, 2017) The philosophy behind this proposal is understandable, although it has its downsides, including that (1) expected City services are not available when most of the rest of the world is working, and (2) employees who might wish to take their vacations at other times of the year are forced to use it during this week. Attachment A highlights a curious disparity between the Police and Fire Departments, which one might otherwise think operate under similar models of providing life safety functions. It appears for the police field operations to be operational all the Police Administrative functions need to continue as normal. But in the Fire Department, the administrative functions are not essential and can be shut down without impairing field operations. I'm not sure I understand this difference.