Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsReceived After Agenda Printed February 14, 2017 Written Comments February 14, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher 2210 Private Road Newport Beach 9266Q 949-548-6999) Item 1. Minutes for the January 14, 2017 City Council Special Meeting and January 24, 2017 City Council Meeting The page numbers below refer to Volume 63. The passages in italics are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. Note: the January 14 meeting is unique in that a link to a video recording of the meeting is available not only in the Laserfiche archive of Council meetings (where it is accessible only for online viewing), but also on the City's "Streaming Video" page, where it can be downloaded in an .MP4 format for uninterrupted off-line viewing in a player of the user's choice. It is unclear why all Council meetings in Newport Beach are not available in an easily downloadable format (as they once were), especially since such an option appears to be a built-in feature of the Granicus/Legistar recording system (see for example the Costa Mesa council and commission videos, which offer that option — both separately and embedded in the online viewer). Page 170: Item 2: "Bill Dunlap led the Pledge of Allegiance." [my recollection is this occurred afterthe other public comment, not before it; but both the minutes and the video appear to show the events in a modified sequence] Page 170: last sentence: "In response to Mayor Muldoon's question, City Manager Kiff discussed repair and/or replacement of a portion of seawall on Collins Island and the placement of a 6 -inch cap on the south side of Bayfront, that both items were included in the budget, and the need to plan for future repairs." [I believe the failing City -owned seawall planned for replacement is not "on" Collins Island, but rather on the west end of Balboa Island, "near" Collins Island — see the actual comment at around 38:00 in the video] Page 171: Item 5, paragraph 2, sentence 2: "Council Member O'Neill reminded residents that the costs could be found in the FY20M46 2016-17 CIP program document." [Council Member O'Neill's reference was to "the CIP from last year [2016]", which is still the current CIP and was for FY 2016-17] Page 172: paragraph 6: "Community Development Director Brandt utilized a PowerPoint presentation to review the certification of the Local Coastal Program Mariners' Mile Master Plan, and planning projects under construction)." Page 173: Item 6, paragraph 3, sentence 2: "He encouraged improvements for transparency, implementing a business license fee, and creating a Harbor Master Plan." [it seems strange for the minutes to record Council Member Peotter as promoting a "business license fee" without mentioning his request that this be coupled with repeal of what he called the present "employee tax." Page 173: Item 6, paragraph 4, sentence 2: "He suggested continued emphasis on re&WGtive restricted fund use going into community development, such as ..." February 14, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5 Page 175: Item XI, last paragraph: "Council Member Avery stated he was initially skeptical of the Balboa Village sign, but is he now complimented and appreciated it." Note: following this, the minutes inexplicably fail to rernrrl (101 Ancil Member Duffield's announcement, which was to the effect that City staff got it wrong when they warned residents to prepare for heavy rains/ EI Nino last winter, when it was in fact this winter (see 14:45 in the video). Page 175: Item XII, paragraph 2: "City Manager Kiff suggested amending the recommended action on Item 12 to direct staff to videota12 the Planning Commission meetings and correcting a S-G""�"®"scrivener's error in the City Council Policy." [note: Scribner is a family name, well known in the publishing business, but it does not, by itself, appear to be a word. The first of the City Planning Commission videos (of a 4 hour meeting held in the Community Room) has been posted via a link in the Laserfiche archive, but like the archived Council videos it is available only for online viewing in a web browser window.] Page 178: first line: "Jim Mosher questioned whether the structure would result in nGr-ea e decreased settlement costs." Page 179: Item XVI: "Council Member Dixon provided an update on the Finance Committee and discussed the meeting at which theFin---- Committee City received an economic forecast." [I don't believe Council Member Dixon said the January 24, 2017, economic forecast presentation was a Finance Committee meeting, and given the very short notice about it, I don't believe most of the Finance Committee members were even in attendance. Instead, it seems to have been held in fulfillment of an obligation of Dr. Thornberg under City contract C-8351-1, although it would seem a presentation made after he had had more time to study Newport Beach would have been more useful. There is a video and .MP4 of it on the City's Streaming Video page for January 24.] Page 179: paragraph 3 from end: "In response to Mayor Muldoon's question, Finance Director Matusiewicz stated Mr" Mosher was referring to the developer fees, but explained that financing was not related to the agreement." [Staff misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the City previously jumping through hoops for the benefit of Uptown Newport and the developer possibly not following through on the opportunities provided. Specifically, I referred to Item 13 at the April 28, 2015, meeting, where the Council adopted Resolution 2015-28 joining (for the benefit of Uptown Newport) the "Statewide Community Infrastructure Program" of the same agency now offering to issue tax-free bonds for them, but I was uncertain if anything had been done as a result of that — and I might have noted I was especially uncertain about that because despite the Council's 2015 resolution, Newport Beach is not listed as a SCIP city on the CSCDA website (see the bottom of that page). Page 181: last line: "He noted there may be site si ht distance issues with the bike corrals." [?] February 14, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5 Item 2. Appeal of the Approval of the Village Inn Use Permit and Waiver of City Council Policy L-21 Located at 127 Marine Avenue From what I know of him, Dan Miller (the applicant/operator) is a fine and responsive citizen, but I remain opposed to this approval, which amounts to relocating the public sidewalk and reducing the width of Park Avenue so the private restaurant can expand onto what is public property, and in addition, fencing it off so alcohol can be sold there. I see no justification for this, particularly in view of the likelihood that for most of the hours of the year restaurant patrons will not be using it, but the public could — and that the fencing would not be necessary if the applicant voluntarily agreed not to sell alcohol in the outside area. As one of the Planning Commissioners pointed out when he CUP was before them, and I believe planning staff confirmed, if Village Inn patrons are demanding an "outdoor" dining, the applicant could, by right, simply install accordion windows or doors in the existing walls facing either Marine Avenue or Park Avenue or both, and (provided the establishment could conform to the City noise ordinance), when the windows/doors are open, the patrons closest to them would have an "outdoor" experience (and probably an experience more comfortable than actually sitting on the sidewalk). All of that would require no intrusion onto public property, and it seems the better solution to me. 2. That said, this item does not seem properly placed on the Consent Calendar, since page 4-4 of the staff report asks the Council to "consider" additional changes to the resolution proposed by the applicant and residents after the January 24 public hearing. The staff report makes no clear recommendation regarding whether the changes should be accepted, or not, and they do not appear to have been incorporated into the draft resolution. This makes it unclear what their status would be if the Council approved the item "as recommended" on the Consent Calendar. a. Should the Council choose to adopt the changes, for consistency with the other conditions, in the last of them (revised #21) "director of community development' should be capitalized and read "Community Development Director." 3. Doesn't this approval require a waiver not just of Council Policy L-21, but also the ambiguous Policy L-6 ("Private Encroachments in Public Rights -of -Way") which in Section A prohibits encroachments onto sidewalks, but in Section F directs staff to submit such requests to the Council? 4. "Funding Requirements" on page 2 of the staff report says the applicant will pay the cost of "improvements" on Marine Avenue. a. Haven't the bulk of the modifications moved to Park Avenue? Will the applicant being paying for those too (including, if I understood the Public Works presentation, relocating the curb)? Revised Condition 40 would seem to say so. b. $6,000 does not seem sufficient. Apparently the costs related to Condition 40 are in addition to this? c. An annual charge for the ongoing usurpation of the public sidewalk is implied, but the amount of it has not been revealed. February 14, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5 5. Paragraph 3 under "Discussion" (also on page 2) refers to "the prior decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application." Didn't the Planning Commission approve the request for a conditional use permit (with the understanding their approval was contingent on the Council allowing development over the public sidewalk)? 6. Revised Condition 15, tying the closing hour to the Newport -Mesa school calendar implies the Council expects some kind of disturbance from the establishment to be sufficient to prevent students in nearby homes from sleeping. Since those other than school-age students would presumably also be unable to sleep on both those and non -school nights, this suggests a serious neighborhood incompatibility issue. 7. Revised Condition 41 seems self-contradictory. The first sentence says the Marine Avenue sidewalk dining area "may be raised to match the finish floor of the restaurant interior," but the third sentence says "The grade of the Marine Avenue outdoor dining area shall not be raised, except as may be required by the Building Code for an access door." My recollection of the hearing is that the latter is what was agreed to — that is, the privatized portion of the Marine Avenue sidewalk is not to be raised. 8. 1 would suspect the City needs to issue itself a Coastal Development permit to modify Park Avenue. item 19. Appointments to the Finance Committee I continue to believe the Finance Committee would function better as an all -citizens review body, whose recommendations could then be debated by the full Council, all on an equal footing, at its regular meetings or study sessions. I also remain uncomfortable with the idea of individual Council members making the recommendations to fill individual seats in a largely behind -the - scenes process. That said, the staff report describes in some detail the steps that were taken to advertise the opportunities to serve on the Finance Committee. I believe the transparency of this item could have been improved by disclosing the list of applications received, so the public would better understand the range of possibilities the Council members making the recommendations had to choose among. It might also have been better if each of those Council members recommended two candidates for the full Council to choose between. Item 20. Appointments to the Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Management Committee Although even its members frequently have trouble remembering, it seems important to point out that the name of the committee to which the present appointments are being made is the "Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Committee" — not the "Water Quality/Coastal Tidelands Management Committee." And it might be pointed out that the Resolution 2012-115 ("Amending the Coastal/Bay Water Quality Citizens Advisory Committee") cited in the staff report as creating this committee was more in the nature of a renaming and reorganization of a committee that had long existed without February 14, 2017, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5 definite terms of membership. As such, two of the applicants (Baker and Houston) have arguably served on the committee much longer than the two -consecutive -four -year -term limit contemplated in Council Policy A-2, and may require a waiver of that policy (as well as the one requiring two or more applications for each vacancy). In the 2012 reorganization, it seems unfortunate the terms of the citizen -appointees were all set to expire in the same year, and not staggered, as is the case on the Council and most committees — and was formerly required of Charter -created boards and commissions. Staggering of terms ensures continuity of institutional knowledge on the committee and produces a deeper field of candidates to choose from at appointment time. Finally, the staff report does not make clear when the present appointments will expire. Resolution 2012-115 calls for four-year terms, but also says appointments will be made in January. Since it is already February, the appointees may wonder exactly when the next round of appointments will be made. My guess is new appointments will be made at one of the Council meetings in January 2021, but that will make the terms slightly less than four years. item 21. Certification of Petition for Referendum of Resolution No. 2016-127 Relating to the Museum House Residential Project It seems curious that under "Funding Requirements" the staff report does not disclose the cost of verifying the 6,584 signatures (965 of which were found to be invalid). This may seem a small matter, but the California Elections Code provides two options, both referenced by Section 9240. Section 9114 allows counting up to the required number of valid signatures (in this case 5,619). Section 9115 allows optionally testing just 500 signatures and extrapolating the results from that sample. In case, as here, where overwhelmingly more than the required number of signatures were submitted (estimated at 13,788) it would seem the sampling option would be less costly, and almost certainly sufficient to establish there were at least 5,619 valid signatures among the 13,788. Under such circumstances, it would be interesting to know why taxpayers were asked to pay to verify 6,584 signatures, when verifying 500 would have been legally sufficient. Also, since much was made by OCMA Urban Housing about the risk of "identity theft," I think it is important for the elections official to assure the public that the signatures and personal information on the petitions were, and remain confidential, known only to her and the County Registrar — and remain in their possession. The petitions were not something being circulated by a private identity theft ring. Finally, while the staff report makes clear the City's election official has certified the adequacy of the number of signatures on the petition, it is not clear she has certified the petition itself as being adequate. Such a question should not be left hanging at this late date, since complaints essentially identical to those I understand to be the subject of the OCMA litigation were made known to the elections official even before the petitions were filed with her, nearly two months ago.